Out on Another Limb: Rachel Alexandra Should Skip the Belmont

(Photo by Julian Herbert/Getty Images)

Exactly what does Preakness winner Rachel Alexandra have to prove by winning the Belmont Stakes?

We say absolutely nothing.

Two weeks ago, she became the first filly in 85 years to win the Preakness off a stunning 20.25-length victory in the filly version of the Kentucky Derby, the Kentucky Oaks.

How would winning another jewel of the Triple Crown over the archaic, and now little used, distance of 12 furlongs (1.5 miles), add to her value? Simply put, it wouldn’t.

Her appearance in the Belmont could be good for the game if she wins or loses gamely. It would be a disaster if anything goes wrong.

If you own her, you have to ask yourself: Will winning the Belmont enhance her value or the value of her offspring?

Winning the race couldn’t possibly enhance her value since she is already worth more than $10 million and she is owned by a multi-multi-millionaire in wine baron Jess “Kendall Jackson” Jackson.

Winning a “classic” race at 1½ miles against the boys could make her future offspring more valuable as it would add an important “stamina” influence to a pedigree now overly influenced by “speed” horses and speed races.

But the general public and most horse racing fans don’t care about such nuances, nor should they.

More importantly, let’s look back at the last time a filly won the Belmont; it was the 2007 dramatic stretch duel where Kentucky Oaks winner Rags To Riches (outside) narrowly defeated Preakness winner Curlin.

After that race, Curlin ran poorly in the $1 million Haskell Gr. 1 at Monmouth in July and so-so in the $750,000 Jockey Club Gold Cup in September.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?