- This topic has 41 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Andrew’s views are defintely interesting and in some jurisdictions what happened on Tuesday would lead to strong censure and perhaps worse.
Personally though I think the tactics of the Coolmore team this week have been exemplary. Those who cry foul at the closing stages of the Queen Anne should ask themselves how they allowed the O’Brien camp to gain that formation in the first place, they were hardly those closest to the fence and it appeared whilst others were just soaking in the atmosphere and looking around they were outwotted by a clearly predetermined plan.
O’Brien is also sensible in realising that if you have the best horse one of your biggest dangers is a steadily run race so by emploting sometimes decent horses as pacemakers to string the field out the prospect of finding trouble is much reduced, tactics used for Henry and the Duke.
Where I have bigger issues is using horses that look to have a decent chance in their own right as sacrificial lambs (Scorpion for Dylan last year) but that also means they can’t be ignored as with Macarthur getting track position over Getaway behind the leader in the Coronation.
I understand the sensitivity in some quarters but just think the best defence is for others to be more tactically aware rather than shout foul when they have been outmanaeuvured. Certainly this week has been a triumph so far for the preparation and execution of Ballydoyle’s tactics.
Well said Richard Hoiles. I’m also glad Tatts are consulting you on your R4 proposal btw.
I have no problem with what happened the other day though I can see why people are unhappy.
What I’m more concerned with is the AOB team running six or seven runners in a particular race (like they did in the Derby last year). When they are all ‘generally’ owned by the same people, and 75% of them don’t have a cat in hell’s chance, then surely there must be a hidden agenda as to why they are running other than to be a pacemaker.
Take last year’s Derby for example. They had seven of the 17 runners, yet three or four of them never got past mid-division. They weren’t particularly fancied whereas the more fancied of the seven finished second (ok one of the more fancied was tailed off). So some of the rags weren’t put in to pacemake, they were put in to do something else – try and unsettle Authorized perhaps? You’re damned right they were put in to try and unsettle Authorized.
Is this fair? That’s the question.
Mike
I have no problem with what happened the other day though I can see why people are unhappy.
What I’m more concerned with is the AOB team running six or seven runners in a particular race (like they did in the Derby last year). When they are all ‘generally’ owned by the same people, and 75% of them don’t have a cat in hell’s chance, then surely there must be a hidden agenda as to why they are running other than to be a pacemaker.
Take last year’s Derby for example. They had seven of the 17 runners, yet three or four of them never got past mid-division. They weren’t particularly fancied whereas the more fancied of the seven finished second (ok one of the more fancied was tailed off). So some of the rags weren’t put in to pacemake, they were put in to do something else – try and unsettle Authorized perhaps? You’re damned right they were put in to try and unsettle Authorized.
Is this fair? That’s the question.
Mike
The reason they run so many is because they are not certain which is their best. Peeping Fawn, Moonstone and of course Dylan Thomas would not have run in the Classics based on what your saying as Ballydoyle clearly felt they were their stable outsiders. In the build up to all those races, particularly last years Derby we heard talk of O’Brien getting the jockeys to block Authorized etc Of course that never looked like happening.
Take last year’s Derby for example. They had seven of the 17 runners, yet three or four of them never got past mid-division. They weren’t particularly fancied whereas the more fancied of the seven finished second (ok one of the more fancied was tailed off). So some of the rags weren’t put in to pacemake, they were put in to do something else – try and unsettle Authorized perhaps? You’re damned right they were put in to try and unsettle Authorized.
Yes, the future Irish Derby and Coronation Cup winner was put in the Derby to unsettle Authorized. Oh, and the future Gordon Stakes winner. Oh, and the Royal Lodge and Dee Stakes winner. Oh, and the subsequent Leger 2nd and Melbourne Cup 3rd.
Hilarious.
What happened after the Derby is completely irrelevant.
These horses were put in the Derby as outsiders, all 20/1 plus, they never moved from the rear positions (that’s the horses I’m talking about inparticualr like Mahler and Yellowstone) and the highest any of them finished was 7th.
So if you are going to refer to what happened after the Derby and the success they went on to achieve then ask yourself how they never moved beyond mid-division in the Derby. If they were good enough to go on to win group races, how come they ran completely different races in the Derby?
Four (I think, apologies if wrong) of the seven that were in the Derby ran the same positions as Authorized, it just so happend that Frankie outwitted them and didn’t allow the spoiling tactics to work.
The trouble on here is most people are so quick to believe what the AOB team say.
They are quick to say that this horse is the best they’ve ever had yet they run seven in the Derby because they don’t know who is best
If anyone believes the AOB team have multiple runners all on merit (other than one obvious pacemaker) then I would have to disagree.
Mike
Mikky,
They run six or seven as they are a commerical breeding operation and are just hoping if they have no stand out that one of them can enhance their value by placing or even fluking a win with the resultant major impact on their stallion value.
Richard,
What you are saying is completely true of course, but if anyone thinks that this is their only agenda then like I say I would have to disagree. There are plenty of group 1 races for these horses to get placed or win much later in the season/career to increase their stallion value without having to put six or seven horses in one particular race.
If anyone can honestly say, hand on heart, that the AOB team have never put a horse in a race with the view to spoil the chances of a more fancied runner then I will acknowledge I’ve got this one wrong.
Also, I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with it, I’m just telling it as I see it and posing the question, is it fair? Obviously if people don’t think it happens then the quesiton ‘is it fair’ is irrelevant.
Mike
ps: Are you not working today Richard?
At Ascot today looking forward to the Brittania – the bigger the track bias the better IMO !!
What happened after the Derby is completely irrelevant.
How convenient! That it supports the argument that the horses were talented enough to take their one and only shot at the Derby has nothing do with it then?
These horses were put in the Derby as outsiders, all 20/1 plus
And 20/1+ shots never run well in the Derby? You don’t have to go too far back to find the likes of Dragon Dancer, Dylan Thomas, Rule Of Law and The Great Gatsby.
they never moved from the rear positions (that’s the horses I’m talking about inparticualr like Mahler and Yellowstone) and the highest any of them finished was 7th.
So if you are going to refer to what happened after the Derby and the success they went on to achieve then ask yourself how they never moved beyond mid-division in the Derby. If they were good enough to go on to win group races, how come they ran completely different races in the Derby?
How many reasons do you want? The overall quality of that Derby? Some of them needing further? Some of them not staying? Some of them not coping with the course? Every Derby has horses who don’t perform on the day but go on to prove themselves better, just as every Derby has horses that were flattered on the day and disappointed afterwards. A combination of the race being so prestigious and a horse only having one shot at it leads to many connections – not just Coolmore – taking the view that they’ve got more to gain than to lose by running.
Four (I think, apologies if wrong) of the seven that were in the Derby ran the same positions as Authorized, it just so happend that Frankie outwitted them and didn’t allow the spoiling tactics to work.
Frankie didn’t have to outwit anyone; he had a steering job on easily the best horse on the day. Given that he started out the back, there was plenty of opportunity for a spoiler to cause him trouble. If anything, he was helped by the likes of Anton Chekhov, Acapulco and Soldier Of Fortune contributing to a fast pace which suited him nicely.
Gareth,
You’ve made your point – now answer the question I posed to Richard (and others) about putting your hand on your hear and saying that the AOB team have never put a horse in a race (other than a pacemaker of course) with the view of spoiling, unsettling, the chances of a more fancied runner from another stable.
If you can put your hand on your heart and say that this is never happened then I will acknowledge I’ve got this wrong.
Mike
Why would me, or anyone else, saying that lead you to acknowledge that you’re wrong?
Hand on heart, the AOB team have never put a horse in a race (other than pacemakers) with the view of spoiling or unsettling the chances of a more fancied runner from another stable.
There. Now where does that get us? Absolutely nowhere. How would I know whether it’s true or not? I can’t possibly. It’s meaningless.
If you believe that O’Brien is running non-pacemakers as spoilers, just come up with some compelling evidence.
Didn’t Seamus Heffernan get 14 days for improper riding in the QE2 a couple of years ago. Bumped Librettist on the bend if I remember correctly.
Didn’t Seamus Heffernan get 14 days for improper riding in the QE2 a couple of years ago. Bumped Librettist on the bend if I remember correctly.
‘Bumped’?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.