Horse of the Year Rachel's best, and best for Rachel

How do you define "better off?"

That's an important question in light of the results from my recent poll, in which more than two-thirds of respondents (27 out of 40) said they believed that Rachel Alexandra is not "better off, a year after being bought and campaigned by Jess Jackson and Steve Asmussen."

I presume most readers who took a stand against Jackson and Asmussen believe that Rachel is not as healthy and fit a horse now as she was last year, or perhaps as she might have been with different handling. Certainly she's beatable now -- defeated twice in a row in desperately close finishes during her first two starts in 2010. And she had proved unbeatable in 2009, going 8-for-8.

I'm going to come down on the side of the minority here. For her utmost impact on racing history, for her value, and for her long-term legacy, I think Rachel Alexandra benefited from Jess Jackson and Steve Asmussen.

What's certain in a situation like this is that nothing can be certain. Hindsight might be 20/20, but speculation (though I love engaging in it, too) usually isn't worth 20 cents.

There are, however, certain truisms of racing and horses. Not the least of these is that some horses are simply better (or at least more dominant among their peers) at age 2 or 3 than they ever will be after, while others are later-maturing.

And one axiom of life that's hard to ignore is this: You must strike while the iron is hot.

When Jackson's Stonestreet Stables acquired Rachel Alexandra after her scintillating, record-breaking victory in last year's Kentucky Oaks, there was little doubt he'd just bought the best 3-year-old filly in the country.

Bought had he bought the best horse?

That handy hindsight tells us probably not, since her unbeaten ways have not carried over into 2010, while Zenyatta continues to stand 17 hands tall at 16-0 lifetime. But by the end of last season, history shows, Jackson had bought the eventual Horse of the Year.

Following her crushing Oaks win, had Rachel stayed in the hands of her first trainer, Hal Wiggins, and her breeder, Dolphus Morrison (who doesn't believe in racing fillies against colts), she would have been pointed to the Black-Eyed Susan-G2 at Pimlico on Preakness Eve. Barring some freak incident or catastrophe, she'd have likely smashed a short field of sophomore fillies by the same sort of margin she'd posted in the Oaks. And while that win would have been another big step toward being champion 3-year-old filly, it would have done little toward earning her a Horse of the Year crown, and virtually nothing toward stamping her career as legendary.

Instead, Jackson and Asmussen entered her in the Preakness. There, Rachel did most of the work on the front end of a 9 1/2-furlong test, put away a talented speed horse in Big Drama (a 7-furlong record-setter) and still had the grit to hold off a gutsy Derby-showing Musket Man and the sharp and fast-closing Derby champ Mine That Bird to claim an historic win. She had beaten boys, she was the first filly since Nellie Morse in 1924 to win the Preakness, and now talk quickly shifted toward whether Rachel Alexandra could become Horse of the Year.

Jackson and Asmussen shrewdly backed off the throttle for Rachel's next start. They entered her at Belmont in the Mother Goose, which drew up predictably short after almost nobody thought it wise to enter their girl against Super Girl. She romped in the Mother Goose, setting stakes records for time and margin, but clearly expended much less effort than had she been asked to face colts and geldings again on the heels of her Preakness win.

Already 6-for-6 on the season with three Grade 1 wins, Rachel was positioned to at least stake a claim to Horse of the Year by collecting two more noteworthy victories. She gathered those in the Haskell Invitational -- where she all but ran Belmont Stakes winner Summer Bird and speedy sprinter Munnings off their feet in the slop -- and in September's Woodward Stakes at Saratoga, becoming the first female ever to win that race against older males; a race run since 1954.

By the finish line of her Woodward win, Rachel had done enough -- as the Eclipse voting months later bore out -- to be named Horse of the Year, despite not running in the Breeders' Cup and not facing Zenyatta, who scored an historic win of her own on that championship weekend as the first female ever to win the Breeders' Cup Classic.

The campaign clearly took a lot out of Rachel. She was cooped up (a debatable choice versus true turnout) for months before starting back to work. And unlike her championship season of 2009, she's proved unable to muster the gumption to stave off any and all challengers, getting nipped at the wire in the New Orleans Ladies Stakes by 6-year-old Zardana and nosed out of the La Troienne-G2 at Churchill by Unrivaled Belle.

But is Rachel worse? Isn't it possible that on these dates -- remember, Rachel's first two starts since a lengthy layoff -- a very fit older mare and a rising 4-year-old who is more lightly raced and at the top of her form cycle, were just a little bit better?

And even if Rachel is not her former self, who's to say she would have been anyway, even with less aggressive handling?

John Shirreffs has done a masterful job with two-time champion older female Zenyatta. She didn't race at all as a juvenile, and Shirreffs thereafter brought the giant mare along slowly, allowing her to grow into her body and her talent. As a result, she is as brilliant at age 6, if not more so, than she was during her first championship season at age 4.

But there's no guarantee that a softer handling of Rachel Alexandra at age 3 would have resulted in a 4-year-old filly to rival Zenyatta at 4. A more conservative course for Rachel at 3 could have still resulted in a 3-year-old filly title, but hardly Horse of the Year, and she still might not be any better at age 4 than she's proven so far to be.

And let's face it: Unlike Jerry and Ann Moss, who have chosen to bring Zenyatta back at age 6 for another season of racing (for which we should be cascading them with roses), there's almost no chance that Jess Jackson has any interest in racing Rachel at age 5, let alone 6. She'll be in the breeding shed next late-February or early March, being covered by Jackson's two-time Horse of the Year Curlin. So what was better for Rachel's future value as a broodmare (and the prospective prices of her foals)? Two really good seasons and one "lesser" championship among fillies and mares?

I think -- for her value (a practical concern in a sport that is a business) and for her legacy -- Rachel Alexandra was better served by one full-throttle season in which she shook the racing world and made history almost every time she ran, with the well-earned reward of 2009 Horse of the Year.

It's a trainer's job to recognize how and when to get the most out of his horse. Nobody could have gotten more out of Rachel Alexandra in 2009 than did Steve Asmussen; she was Horse of the Year.

Did that leave her "short" in 2010? It's impossible to say with any certainty; we can only be guessing. So that's no more than a definite maybe.

But it's safe to say that if Rachel Alexandra had been handled more conservatively last year, she'd only have been the champion 3-year-old filly, not Horse of the Year.

And this year, she probably still wouldn't be able to beat Zenyatta.

Munnings fleet in winning un-Fabulous Tom Fool

Looks like the connections of Fabulous Strike had reason to fear Munnings.

The 3-year-old Speightstown colt got a dream trip up the rail -- not all that difficult in a four-horse field -- to win the Tom Fool H.-G2 in 1:21.08. Thoroughbred Daily News reported his margin of victory over second-place Riley Tucker as four lengths, while the Equibase chart for the race places the margin at just 2 1/4, an interesting discrepancy.

Either way, it's perhaps likely that Fabulous Strike wouldn't have beaten Munnings today. Fabulous Strike, apparently a three-quarters specialist, has twice this year been second in seven-furlong races, the Carter H.-G1 to Kodiak Kowboy and the General George H.-G2 to True Quality. Those races were both run in times above 1:22, so Munnings' running the Tom Fool in nearly 1:21-flat was probably more than Fabulous Strike could handle.

Ducking him, however, still shows a lack of fortitude, not discretion.

What Belmont fans were left with was an easy win by what was clearly the superior horse in a four-entry field, with Riley Tucker some distance behind (2 1/4 or four lengths, depending), a tiring Driven By Success in arrears by about five and a half, and overmatched The Last Wave straggling home beaten better than 20.

In other words, not much of a race.

With Equibase statistics showing that wagering continues to decline in the United States -- certainly much of that attributable to the recession -- it doesn't help for the tracks and horsemen to stage non-races in what are billed as graded events. A total of $283,261 was wagered in the win-place-show pool on the Tom Fool, while $334,298 was wagered on the $25K, NW2L claimer just prior on the card. In fact, all four of the undercard races leading up to the "feature" topped $320,000 in the WPS pool.

That's because those races were actually interesting. Difficult to handicap. Not obvious who would win. Worth watching.

Those of us who love racing and wish to widen its appeal -- as racing once was popular among all segments of society -- realize that you need an exciting product to sell to the masses.

Four-horse races in what are supposed to be "featured," graded, marquee events, just don't cut it. And it's everyone's responsibility -- track management, owners, trainers, jockeys, everyone -- not to let down the fans who expect and deserve better.

If you entered the horse and he isn't hurt or sick on race-day and the track comes up fast, run him for the good of the sport. It's hardly too much to ask.

Strikeout: Favorite Fabulous Strike scratched from five-horse Tom Fool without physical cause

So much for sportsmanship. And for my friend Brendan O'Meara's Sunday highlight moment.

I realize it's the duty of a trainer and owner to place their racehorse where he fits best and to look after his wellbeing first and foremost. But the connections of Fabulous Strike seem to have taken that a step too far Sunday by scratching the favorite from the Tom Fool H.-G2 at Belmont -- now a four-horse race -- simply because it looked like he was making too many concessions to win.

Trainer Todd Beattie said the decision to scratch was made after consulting with owner Walter Downey and was based on several factors -- none of them having to do with horse-health or even track conditions.

"He's doing great," Beattie said. "We weighed the positives and negatives. I have a lot of respect for Munnings and we were giving him 11 pounds today. We felt the difference in weight, drawing the one-hole and going seven furlongs, we just felt there wasn't a lot working in his favor."

In other words, they figured he'd lose.

I had noticed -- and had almost blogged about -- comments made in the media that Fabulous Strike's connections were undertaking some sort of courageous or unorthodox move by running him back "just four weeks" after he won the six-furlong Grade 2 True North Handicap at Belmont in 1:07.86, breaking champion Groovy's 1987 track record in the process.

But, what, four weeks isn't enough time between races anymore? Are we serious?

"He ran a monstrous effort four weeks ago," Beattie said. And remember, a "monstrous effort" from which he's come out if it "doing great."

You know what that used to mean?

It meant you had a sharp horse and should be racing him.

Granted, Fabulous Strike was vulnerable. For starters, he seems a six-furlong specialist and is 0-for-3 going seven panels. Munnings is shaping up to be a serious racehorse and they were giving him a heck of a break with an 11-pound difference in imposts -- though much of that is because Munnings is only a 3-year-old and Fabulous Strike is 6. Driven By Success has a pair of show finishes in Grade 1 mile events and could surprise Fabulous Strike at seven furlongs.

But the other two in the race were/are Riley Tucker (record there incorrect) -- a solid 4-year-old with a pair of 2009 non-stakes victories, but winless in stakes company lifetime -- and The Last Wave, a 4-year-old who is 5-for-22 lifetime and has never even hit the board in stakes company.

Fabulous Strike can't beat two or three of those four? Maybe even all four?

There was a time when letting the horse prove himself was part of the point for racing. That proof came when horses were asked to win in good company at distances or on surfaces that weren't their specialty or under what sometimes seemed to be withering weights. Champion sprinter Dr. Fager became the turf champion of 1968 by winning the United Nations Invitational Handicap at a mile and three sixteenths on grass, set the world record for a mile carrying 134 pounds, and won the 1968 Vosburgh in record time under 139 pounds.

I know Fabulous Strike is no Dr. Fager. But proving himself at seven furlongs couldn't get much easier for Fabulous Strike than beating a four-horse field in which the second-favorite is just a 3-year-old and the other three don't have a stakes win between them in 43 lifetime starts.

It wasn't like Fabulous Strike was being asked to carry even 126 pounds (like all 3-year-olds do for a mile and a quarter in the Kentucky Derby), let alone 134 or 139. He was assigned 123 pounds to run 660 feet longer than he prefers.

To quote Dr. Evil, boo-frickety-hoo.

By ducking such an average field of four horses because the distance isn't ideal and the youngster gets a weight break is effectively stating to the world that Fabulous Strike is a one-trick pony; a six-furlong horse.

So tell ya what, Messrs. Beattie and Downey. Next time the thought flits through your heads to enter Fabulous Strike in any race other than six furlongs, let it go.

It'll save us all some time and effort spent caring.