The Retirement of Rachel Alexandra
I've had a bit of time to digest the Rachel Alexandra retirement announcement and, sadly, my thoughts are pretty much the same as they always are when I hear about a top class horse heading off to the farm: disappointment. I ended up writing a bit more than I had intended but here's the Cliff's Notes version if you're in a hurry: this retirement, while not unexpected, is the continuation of a maddening trend in horse racing.
I want to get one thing out of the way right off the bat: I get the fact that the owners put tons of money into the game and that they can decide where their animals race, when the race, when they are retired and for what reason. The owner pays the bills and it's the owner's call; I get it and so do many, many others in the game. They can do what they want, it's their horse. But what the owners and connections should also understand is that they are not going to get a lot of sympathy from the racing public when top class race horses are prematurely retired. (Yes, I believe Rachel's retirement is premature.) Whether it's Rachel Alexandra, Sea The Stars, Zarkava, or any number of other healthy thoroughbreds, retirements are a blow to the enthusiasm of the fans of this game, fans who also put their money into the sport.
If this turns out to be a retirement due to physical problems, then I retract anything I've written in this post. But according to news reports covering the Rachel Alexandra retirement announcement, nothing is physically wrong with this filly other than the fact that she's not running as consistently and at as high of a level as she did in 2009. She's raced five times in 2010 with two wins and three seconds and was recently beaten by an allowance class horse, Persistently, in the Personal Ensign. But while she's clearly not the same filly as she was in 2009, it's not like Rachel Alexandra is embarrassing herself - she's still one of the better fillies in the country. Just yesterday she fired a bullet work at Saratoga.
Turning to the general issue of retirement, let's be clear about some of these retirements: they are not about money. Zarkava is owned by HH Aga Kahn IV and Rachel by Jess Jackson. Last time I checked, neither of those two is hurting for parking meter change. When we look at retirements of healthy horses I think there is a difference between owners who barely scrape by for years and finally cash in on a great runner, and those that are able to spend millions at auction. Is this a double standard? Probably. But it's also the truth.
Retirements due to injuries are one thing. They are frustrating to no end (as we've seen too many times in recent years) but we eventually come to accept it. If the horse is hurt, the horse is hurt. Injuries shed light on other issues within the sport but you can't fault owners that retire a horse that is suffering from physical problems. Retirements due to ego...well, that is something else all together.
I'll admit that I was enough of a pessimist to believe that Rachel was going to be retired back in May after she lost the La Troienne by a head to Unrivaled Belle. The connections, however, surprised me and stated they wanted to keep racing her and that she was in good physical condition but just hadn't rounded back into form. I liked that response from Jackson and Asmussen. I liked the fact that they were going to continue to race Rachel Alexandra even though it was becoming evident that she wasn't the filly she was in 2009. People wanted to see this filly run and the connections were going to oblige that.
Fast forward to today's announcement where the recent runner-up of a Grade 1, a perfectly healthy filly and one that hasn't finished worse than 2nd in any race in a long, long time, is retired. Jess Jackson's quote regarding Rachel's retirement stated that they wanted to give her "a less stressful life". I wonder if this move is about Rachel's stress levels or the stress levels of the connections?
Rachel Alexandra is a thoroughbred race horse - she was bred to run. Her sole function in life, and that of all thoroughbred horses, is to run. It's not to stand in a paddock and play with a ball. It's not to stand in a field in eat grass. And it's not to give rides to little kids at birthday parties. The sole function of the thoroughbred is to run.
We humans breed these animals to be great runners and then, if we've been successful and produced a truly great horse, we deny them the ability to do the thing that we created them to do. Unless a horse is showing signs that they doesn't want to race at all anymore (and I don't know that running 2nd is that sign for Rachel, maybe it is), retirement is a cruel fate. Retirement is a denial of what a horse is made to do.
I think most of us knew that Rachel would not race in 2011 and that she was coming up on the final one or two races of her career, so why the retirement now? Are the connections really that afraid of her losing a race? Why not run her in one more prep and then a final race in the Ladies' Classic at Churchill Downs? Even if she were to not win either of those two races would that really diminish her legacy? It's my opinion that it would not. As I noted earlier, it's not like she's finishing up the track when she's lost races. Rachel has lost three times in 2010 by a little more than 1 3/4 lengths...combined. It's one thing if this filly was showing no desire to run but that's clearly not the case. The only thing she's shown is that she's not at the same level as in 2009.
I suppose the moral of the Rachel Alexandra story, and the story of thoroughbred racing today, is never hope for a great horse to come along because it's unlikely they'll ever be given the leeway to drop below their level of excellence. Perhaps that's too jaded of an opinion - it probably is. But it's also the result of retirement after retirement of top class horses.
For Rachel Alexandra, I wish her many happy years on the farm and a sincere "thank you" for a phenomenal campaign in 2009. We can debate the Horse of the Year voting, race strength, surface, and all the other issues that have dominated the racing world over the past year and a half, but we can't deny that Rachel was a star in a sport that yearns for stars at every opening of the gate.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agree with everything you've said but ...
… she’s about to do the do with Curlin!!! Would I want one of those offspring? Yup.
I’m sure the connections were concerned about her star fading (and value dropping). Whether her value was indeed dropping is up for discussion.
I don’t like the situation either. But things are different these days in so many ways (recession, lower handles, etc.).
I agree but I wonder about value
You’re probably right with what they are thinking and if she was a colt I would 100% agree since the value of colts are so much more volatile. But a filly, who will likely produce horses that Jackson races under his own colors and not sold at auction…I’m not sure the value is really a huge factor.
I am curious to see how a Curlin/Rachel mating turns out on the track. Should be interesting.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 28, 2010 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Jackson's quote ...
…“Imagine what possibilities those two super horses might produce” tells me that he is looking for something money can’t buy. So you are probably right about value.
I always thought (probably incorrectly) that colts were valued higher than fillies/mares when it comes to breeding. I assumed the males could certainly stud more (and longer) than dams could give birth.
Absolutely, the colts have more value
Mainly due to the fact that a colt can mate thousands of times over the life of his stud career while the mare will produce maybe 7 or 10 foals that actually make it to the track to race.
The mares have value, too, it’s just a bit different.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 28, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
But The Mares Have The Princequillo Gene
and Rachel Alexandra has it in abundance, which means her value is immense. Check this out: http://wingspan.wordpress.com/category/thoroughbred-bloodlines/
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
by JP Fanshawe on Sep 29, 2010 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I Know, Longwinded.....
…but don’t you find yourself saying, “really? WOW!”
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
by JP Fanshawe on Sep 29, 2010 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions
And I agree completely with you assessment of Jackson's plans...
if he’s breeding Curlin to Rachel he’s not looking to sell the foal at auction, he’s looking for a champion.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 28, 2010 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I think
That THEY believe a loss in another prep and/or the Ladies classic would tarnish her legacy. I don’t really agree with that sentiment, but I can see what they are coming from. In the last year more and more people have jumped on the Zenyatta train – I think partially because RA’s struggles.
Rachel Alexandra was perhaps the best 3 year old filly in the history of the sport (in the States), and I’m sure history will judge her as either #1 or #2 (behind Ruffinan).
Still think Zenyatta should’ve won the HOTY award
Well put.
I suppose we should be happy she raced as a four year old at all, since many don’t get that far after a Horse of the Year campaign.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 28, 2010 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions
What's I'll always remember her AND Z for
Is getting people talking again. I swear I’ve seen more talk about these two ladies the last 15 months than I did about any horse in years. Probably because they were mares beating up on males and the non gambling fans of the sport (aka the majority of people who watch the Triple Crown on TV are women). So that ratcheted up the enthusiasm more than if say if Ghostzapper had had a West coast rival or whatever.
In a way, the fact they never met might have been the best thing for the sport.
Very true and an excellent point.
Too much of the time nobody is talking about racing at all. Their rivalry, even though it never took place on the track, was probably the most intense one since Sunday Silence and Easy Goer.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 28, 2010 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Some of the crowds
to see Zenyatta were just absurdly large. I’m sure the rivalry had a lot to do with that. Still wish they would have met in a race though. I’m sure NOW we all know who would have won (ha ha)
That's crazy
Good write up, really would have been nice if they let her run at the Breeder’s Cup. It’s a month away for pete’s sake.
So what happens if they create a RA/Curlin off-spring super horse? Do they race it for a couple years, pick off some big wins and then send that horse off to the breeding stables at age 4 also? I understand the connections not wanting to tarnish her legacy or whatever…but how do you get a horse to true “legendary” status if they only race for 2 years(aside from winning the triple crown of course).
Coug, your question is dead-on with my general frustration
A lot of these issues are beyond the specific act of retiring Rachel and point to a larger issue: We seek to create the great horse but as soon as a hint of that greatness is revealed we’re in such a hurry to create another one that I think many within the game (mainly the owners and breeders) overlook the greatness that is before them. Why try to create a “superhorse” in the future when you have one right in front of you?
Like many have already pointed out, that’s not the way the game works in today’s world. And that’s a shame.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 29, 2010 3:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Matt, I Agree With Most of What You Wrote....
…but horse aren’t just born to run in this game, they are born to breed as well. I am really shocked at the timing of this decision, but I have a feeling that the connections must have felt that with every race, RA was losing dollars by not being the “superfilly” of last year. They really must feel that further races would provide further embarassments, which is to say, they don’t think she can win…(a bullet work certainly doesn’t confirm that thought), or else why retire her?
A sad day for racing….as it always is when we find ourselves saying: “damn…no more from her on the track.”
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
Great stuff, JP...love the links and the discussion from everyone...
I agree with what you are saying and I think you’re right on but I guess I have a couple of different ways I look at this:
1 – While the connections might think they are losing dollars with every race she doesn’t win, I just don’t see how her current performance is really affecting her value. The breeding industry has a lot of really smart people in it and, for me, if a Rachel-Curlin foal comes to auction in three years I just don’t believe that whether Rachel were to win or lose two more races in her career would cause a significant change in the value of that foal. I could be completely wrong, but I think Rachel has done enough in her career that any foal would be worth tons at auction (assuming Jackson would even take one to auction and I seriously doubt that he will which, for me, makes “value” a moot point.)
2 – The value part rings a bit hollow when were talking about owners that are already rich. I suppose that’s easy for me to write that, and I freely admit that it’s probably an unfair position on my part, but is Jackson’s net worth really going to be affected by whether Rachel runs two more races in her career? If they retired her at the end of last year, that makes more sense. If they retired her after she lost her second race this year…that makes more sense. But now? It just seems odd. For me, it smells like “taking my ball and going home because I’m not winning”. I guess I’m surprised it didn’t happen earlier.
I think you’re last point is the money point – they doubt her ability to win and don’t want the embarrassment.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 29, 2010 3:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I Think You Are Spot On About "Value"
…because Jackson is already very rich. I don’t think that is an unfair position to take at all. The upside of his being rich is actually that the potential loss of his investment didn’t scare him of after her three-year old year. He was ballsy enough to bring her back and I admire him for that, even if doing diminished her star a bit.
I am sure he just wants the foal, which he will certainly keep to race, unless the conformation isn’t good, or something. And Jackson certainly might be the take-my-ball-and leave type, but I still can’t get around the timing…we are what, five weeks from BC? We’re only talking two more starts for her, and even she were to lose, it wouldn’t be like she was losing to cheap horse flesh.
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
So What Happened?
All great comments on this from different angles. Bravo.
To my knowledge none of us are owners, even in a syndication, nor have backstretch passes at Belmont or Saratoga so primary knowledge doesn’t seem readily available; still not one of you has called out Assmussen on this: ‘what happened to Rachel Alexandra last fall/winter/spring?’ Her last race of 2009 was the Whitney? And then she sat around and got fat and happy? I don’t think she started working out for her Apple Blossom prep until maybe March?? Did they inherit a great horse who was already primed for a terrific season in 2009 but when it came to getting her ready themselves in 2010 they flunked? (see new football coach inherits old coach’s recruits and goes 8-2 in first season and then trends down to 5-5 four years later).
While we’re at it – who really shot JFK? :)
Great Point, Swale....
Has anyone heard Asmussen say anything about it? I feel pretty confident that he probably wanted to run her. I wonder what Hal Wiggins thinks?
Now is the time boys to make a big noise.
No matter what the people say,
For there is naught to fear, the gang's all here,
So hail West Virginia, hail.
Excellent point on Asmussen.
A lot of people, including myself, forget that Hal Wiggins trained Rachel up to her dominant Oaks win, that he did a lot of the work right before Rachel hit that peak.
I haven’t read much from Asmussen on the subject other than his quote yesterday where he said it was a joy to train her. But you have to wonder, right? What changed with this filly over the past year? Did she just lose it (it does happen)? Was his training regimen different enough from Wiggins that eventually Rachel fell off form? Was it something else?
I know who shot JFK…but I’m not telling.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 29, 2010 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I think he's had her for nine races...
so he’s 9-6-3-0 over that time.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 29, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, I think you're right with the 5-3 record...
since he got her about a week before the Preakness we really should consider that race as part of previous trainer, even though “officially” it counts for Asmussen.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 29, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

by 












