This is one reason why I hate early retirements. If she doesn't make it back 100% she won't have a chance to prove how special she was.

IMHO, anyone that doesn't appreciate how special this filly was lacks the handicapping sophistication to make such judgments. I know that's about as arrogant a statement as anyone can make, but for the life of me I can't see how a debated figure for the Belmont translates into anything less than a spectacular performance anyway.

It was RTR that lost a ton of ground to Curlin, wouldn't let him get by when she got hooked, and finished in spectacular racehorse time for a 12F race on the dirt no matter what the early fractions. The top two were well clear of the rest of the field and it was another large gap to 4th. Those were not garbage can 3YO colts of the type that most fillies beat when it happens. They were and still are solid Grade 1 3YO colts.

Before that she was totally dominant over fillies her own age despite losing tons of ground on occasion and while earning superior figures for a 3YO filly at that time of year with her level of seasoning.

Was she Ruffian?

Of course not. No one is Ruffian.

However, in her brief career to date she was/is one of the most promising 3YO fillies I've ever seen. Anyone that thinks she was 100% Saturday in defeat can't possibly know much about the difficulty of preparing a horse for a high quality stakes off a layoff, especially when there were repeated training interruptions, multiple fevers, and as Barry suggested she didn't look very good through the stretch while remaining game etc...

Sorry for the rant.