The media cast Jackson in the villain's role, but it was Jackson who cast himself as Rachel Alexandra's guardian when he (and Harold T. McCormick) went to $10-million for the Medaglia d'Oro filly following her Kentucky Oaks victory.
The second role is of course far more important than the first, but the villain's role is an unfortunate typecast on someone who I would call "good for the game" (as is Jerry Moss, of course, but he has avoided bad press).
Calling Jackson a poor sport for pulling out of the Apple Blossom ignores the fact that he was willing to push his filly to her limits to get her ready for the Race for the Ages.
Sure, it would have made for great theatre and likely help the industry (especially in Arkansas!) if Jackson had said after the New Orleans Ladies, "We're disappointed with the loss but excited that our Horse of the Year can move forward off this and hopefully end Zenyatta's 15-race winning streak. I can think of nothing better to restore our champion's reputation than to defeat a previously undefeated horse who is as worthy an opponent as we will ever face."
But he didn't say that, and he has his reasons. If anything, Jackson should be applauded for being willing to take a chance in getting Rachel Alexandra ready for a race on April 9 despite missed training in December and no published workouts between early September and late January. Yeah, Zenyatta won off a layoff, too, but she was not nearly out of training in the way that Rachel Alexandra was.
There is no shame in the chance Jackson took not paying off, and Rachel Alexandra's camp essentially saying, "We thought Rachel was at point 'A' going into this race, but she actually was further behind than we would like in terms of getting her to where she needs to be to compete with a horse of Zenyatta's caliber" is more than fair.
Still, I think Bill Finley and Joe Drape took things a bit too far when they called Rachel Alexandra passing the Apple Blossom the "right call" or "a wise decision," respectively. I don't say this because I think Jackson passing the Apple Blossom is the wrong call or an unwise decision, but rather I don't think we know enough about all the particulars to know one way or the other.
One of the most common complaints fans have about horse racing is that stars don't stick around after their three-year-old seasons, yet when one loses her first start back we all but pillage her (and I shamefully was guilty of this on Saturday) and then write articles about how it's OK for her to duck an anticipated showdown with the reigning older female champion.
Imagine if horses dropped off the Triple Crown trail every time they lost a race. The Kentucky Derby would have 8 horses in it every year.
Again, this is not to say that Jackson (or any owner) should ever feel pressured to run a horse who is not at her best, but giving Jackson a pass here when his trainer is saying the horse is fine is allowing him to get away with passing on the race without having to say, "We don't think we can win."
To be fair, when someone asked trainer Steve Asmussen the status of the Apple Blossom for Rachel Alexandra immediately after she lost to Zardana in the New Orleans Ladies he said, "We'll have to see. We wouldn't have run if we thought we weren't going to win."
I hope we can all agree with Steve (and in this sense with Finley and Drape) that when the horses do face each other, I want it to be when all connections think they're saddling a winner.
4 soothsayers: