Malcer, of course Kelso and Rachel Alexandra aren’t directly comparable for all the reasons you give. Perspective, not comparison, was the point. I don’t think observers are wrong in considering Saturday’s race a prep; Rachel could be a horse who races into shape. She’ll move forward next out.

Unless Sid is right, of course.

[Edited for clarification, 3/22/10]

He made his 5YO debut off a 5 1/2-month layoff and finished eighth to Perfect Soul in the Maker’s Mark Mile (G2) on turf as the 3.8-to-1 third choice.

He made his 6YO debut off a 5-month layoff and won a Keeneland allowance race on turf at 8-to-5.

He made his 7YO debut off a 4 1/2-month layoff and finished second to Watershed Event in a Keeneland allowance race on turf as the even money favorite.

He made his 8YO debut off a 5-month layoff and finished second to Stream Cat in a Keeneland allowance race on Polytrack as the 8-to-5 favorite.

He made his 9YO debut off a 10 1/2-month layoff and finished fourth to Daytona in the Shoemaker Mile (G1) on turf at Hollywood Park at 16.60-to-1.

A $2 win bet on his six returns following his three-year-old season would have cost $12 and returned $10.20. If you had bet on him only the times he was favored, you’d have bet only $8 and thus WON $2.20.

The bettors just can’t resist top horses returning off of layoffs. Of course, many top horses don’t return as often as they did in Kelso’s day but one who immediately came to mind was Perfect Drift. Year after year he would start his season in an open condition allowance on the turf at KEE. And he, like Kelso, would go to the post favored off a long layoff.

I couldn’t find the intestinal fortitude to bet against Rachel, even when the tote clearly showed some additional inefficiency by making Zardana the *third* choice.

It makes me wonder if returning champions who go off favored in their return beat the average win percentage of favorites?

The big horse would then be back in NY in the spring, with the Met Mile the annual target. Mr. Whitely always managed to get him tight enough for the season debut.

In Rachel’s case, she would have been tight enough if Zardana was not in the race.

What happened, IMO, is that she had too tough a race for her first start back, which has set her back, instead of moving her forward.

Not to take a stand on what RA will do the rest of the year, but I think the layoff arguments in the wake of her defeat are overblown. To compare her situation with that of Kelso is, I believe, a case of apples-to-oranges.

When Kelso ran in the early 1960s, even top horses were regularly running 15 or more times a year. During a campaign, horses seldom paused for more than 2 or 3 weeks. Trainers of that period almost never even tried to get a horse into top form without a few preps.

In the languague of Kelso’s age, the vast majority of starters in today’s stakes or top-level AOC races is coming ‘off a layoff’.

In today’s racing, older top horses run half a dozen times a year. It’s not unusual for them to go two or three months without a start and to compete in races like the BC or Arc after such a pause. Granted, few horses come back from a six-month layoff and run the race of their lifes, but G1-level horses are usually expected to not be far from their peak at such a point either.

Today’s great trainers are used to prepping horses to near top form off long layoffs (I wouldn’t call Asmussen a great trainer, but that has nothing to do with his skills as a conditioner; he certainly knows what he’s doing). ‘The Bis As’ specifically is frequently mentioned in handicapping forums etc. as one of those trainers whose horses should never be discounted for a long layoff alone.

None of this means that Rachel isn’t going to improve significantly for her next start, but to outright dismiss a result as a no-cont just because it was ‘a mere prep race’ is, I think, not good handicapping these days.