- This topic has 20 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
there was no pace where he was racing so had to move over which made the difference imo
Everything high in that race came stand side and in so doing they ended up much too far back. You can call it "draw", as it resulted from the draw, but it also resulted from the collective stupidity of the jockeys.
Bankable certainly didn’t get beat because of the draw in my opinion.
Bankable got beat because of his slow start, being squeezed at the start, the horses around him starting slow, and that group of about five or six horses tracking right (or left if you like) across the track.
If those drawn high had stayed high then I’m sure they would have been a lot closer.
Before the race I opposed Bankable because of the ground. Is the ‘draw’ debate taking away the fact that the horse might not have acted on the fast ground as well as he does on softer ground?
Mike
Your reason for opposing him Mike was the same as mine. The recent improved good form of Bankable was shown on a lot slower conditions than those at Ascot and he may prove to be a better horse when the going is not as fast.
Pete
.
Given that Bankable(drawn 25) finished fifth behind horses drawn 4, 1, 5 and 6, then I’m not sure that the run was as ‘bad’ as has been made out by some posters. It may be that the tactics of those drawn high were por, but let’s try to spot a positive or two from the race.
The one to bring out of this race was Gaye Kellaway’s BALLENTINI, drawn 24 and only just behind Bankable in sixth. Given that the next finisher drawn over 12 was Yarqus(drawn 18 ) back in thirteen place, then I think the performances of Bankable and particularly Ballentini were significant.Rob
Approx. 30 horses in a Handicap race and there was a good thing at favourite odds?
Bound to lose your dough everytime.
Bankable had no chance as soon as they came across – sheer stupidity from the high drawn jockeys – many of whom should have known better.
He still shaped like the best horse in the race imo – the fact that he almost looked in contention at one stage speaks volumes ahout his ability. I think he could develop into a Group 1 miler.
Ballinteni did do well, but his positional disadvantage – which was the crucial thing – was nowhere near as bad as Bankable’s after a couple of furlongs.
I read somewhere (maybe you can tell me if I’ve understood it correctly), that when parts of a race-track are continually raced on, they become compacted and therefore are quicker when the ground is dry. If this were the case at Ascot, it would mean the areas near either rail would be fastest.
If there’s any milage in that theory. There’s an arguement to say that the far side jockeys, in their attempt to find better ground nearer the stands rail, did in fact, lead all their mounts onto possibly slower ground up the middle of the track?
I personally feel that Bankable was unlucky. Although I do agree with the views that you have to factor in these sort of risks when you back a horse in this type of race. I feel unlucky. I got the draw right, but managed to back the only horse drawn between 1 & 6 which didn’t make the frame. Maybe that was bad judgement rather than bad luck!
Edit: Sorry Orchard Supreme was drawn 2 & but only finished 9th
I don’t think backing horses at short prices in big handicaps has anything to do with it – of course most of us would prob avoid that (?).
However, many punters, as I did, felt Wankable was a "good thing."
I believe 100% that he will win very big races over the next few season’s.
There is something very sexy about him and I’m def gonna whack some spondulicks on his next effort. Wow, I’m starting to sound like a pundit.
Zip
Whatever else might have been a factor in his defeat, I agree with MDeering, that handicap "good things" very often fail to perform to their ability and handicap mark.
Bankable should strike in listed class, but very few horses won on the straight track from way off the pace whilst it was good to firm and I think he was given too much to do, he has ran well though nevertheless and perhaps his defeat should give himn a better price next time out.
The horse was priced up on form demonstrated under much different circumstances. Usually worth taking on at short prices, particularly in 30 runner heritage handicaps.
Incidentally 4/1 and under shots in 25+ runner class B handicaps are 2 from 17 since the mid nineties with a 50%+ loss to a level stake.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.