- This topic has 57 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Think the lads decide rather than the trainer. Wouldn’t imagine anyone is too bothered about running in the Irish Guineas now. It’s all a learning curve.
re Magician, didn’t he win the Irish guineas? I’d guess you mean the St James Palace run after he’d banged himself in the swimming pool?
Running in the Irish Guineas in effect took him out of the English Derby a week later. Bad decision.
You’d win it andy, preferring just a run in the Derby to a guaranteed Irish Guineas victory
Dawn Approach, Derby. not sure that counts as a training decision, more an owners decision …
I think Al Kazeem had one too many races and with the going at York on the quick side may have benefited from waiting.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Dawn approach derby run imo ruined the horse
"Ruined"? Is that why he came out less than two weeks later and put up a very similar level of form to Newmarket in the St James’s Palace GA?
Of course the 2000 Guineas was impressive, but he was the only good horse to show his form.So trainers should not run a horse with an odds-on chance of winning the best 3 year old race in the World?
If you had the opportunity of running a horse with around a 33%, let alone a 50% chance of winning the Derby – wouldn’t you take it? Of course an opinion could be made beforehand whether he’d stay or not, but there’s no way anyone could knowfor certain
.
Had connections decided against it, people would be saying
on this thread
it was the "biggest training error of the year not to run Dawn Approach in the Derby".
Am afraid they had to run and find out.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Value Is EverythingI think Al Kazeem had one too many races and with the going at York on the quick side may have benefited from waiting.
The going at York was if anything softer than it was at Sandown and Ascot, so presumably Nathan, you wish Al Kazeem did not run in those races too?
This "one too many" is a daft saying imo. There were questions asked about ground conditions before both Prince Of Wales and Eclipse. But the horse won – therefore people did not say he had "one too many" races on firm
after those two races
.
If it was a mistake running in the International, then (without hindsight) it must have been a mistake to run in the Prince Of Wales and Eclipse.
Fact is (whatever the trainer says) Al Kazeem’s best form is on a firm surface.
As I remember it, stable wasn’t in such good form at the time of the International; possibly why "excuses" were made. Surely
trainer form
just as (if not more) likely reason for a slightly below par effort? Came right back to his best in the Irish Champion. Stumbled badly and took a hold in the Arc, but still ran a reasonable race.
Value Is EverythingI think Al Kazeem had one too many races and with the going at York on the quick side may have benefited from waiting.
Yes. Charlton said " He won’t run on quick ground again "
and then ran him on quick ground again !
I think Al Kazeem had one too many races and with the going at York on the quick side may have benefited from waiting.
The going at York was if anything softer than it was at Sandown and Ascot, so presumably Nathan, you wish Al Kazeem did not run in those races too?
This "one too many" is a daft saying imo. There were questions asked about ground conditions before both Prince Of Wales and Eclipse. But the horse won – therefore people did not say he had "one too many" races on firm
after those two races
.
If it was a mistake running in the International, then (without hindsight) it must have been a mistake to run in the Prince Of Wales and Eclipse.
Fact is (whatever the trainer says) Al Kazeem’s best form is on a firm surface.
As I remember it, stable wasn’t in such good form at the time of the International; possibly why "excuses" were made. Surely
trainer form
just as (if not more) likely reason for a slightly below par effort? Came right back to his best in the Irish Champion. Stumbled badly and took a hold in the Arc, but still ran a reasonable race.
Why is ‘one too many’ a daft saying? Horses are not machines. The going at York was G/F. Yes, Al Kazeem ran well in the Irish Champion but would of stood a better chance had he not run up a tally of hard races previously albeit he had a break from York to Leopardstown.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I think Al Kazeem had one too many races and with the going at York on the quick side may have benefited from waiting.
The going at York was if anything softer than it was at Sandown and Ascot, so presumably Nathan, you wish Al Kazeem did not run in those races too?
This "one too many" is a daft saying imo. There were questions asked about ground conditions before both Prince Of Wales and Eclipse. But the horse won – therefore people did not say he had "one too many" races on firm
after those two races
.
If it was a mistake running in the International, then (without hindsight) it must have been a mistake to run in the Prince Of Wales and Eclipse.
Fact is (whatever the trainer says) Al Kazeem’s best form is on a firm surface.
As I remember it, stable wasn’t in such good form at the time of the International; possibly why "excuses" were made. Surely
trainer form
just as (if not more) likely reason for a slightly below par effort? Came right back to his best in the Irish Champion. Stumbled badly and took a hold in the Arc, but still ran a reasonable race.
Weak arguments. Those were the " best " performances because they were in the biggest races he’d run in as a maturing, improving horse – his first Grp1 was on G/F.
And the grass covering and ground at York is different to that at Ascot, especially in August as opposed to early Summer.
Both trainer and jockey felt the horse was protecting itself.
It may be that the wins on firm represent the best (and so beloved) ratings but that does not mean to say that Al Kazeem would not have won those races more impressively had the going being less firm. He made pretty heavy weather of it on both occasions against Mukhadram and must have shown his trainer something in the aftermath of those hard races to warrant the comment that he wouldn’t run again at the trip on firm ground. Charlton, as we know, reneged on the statement and Declaration of War turned the form around fairly comprehensively next time before Al Kazeem met defeat at odds on next time. He ran a reasonable race in the Arc but there were several in that race who were seriously overrated going into the race. Take Treve out of that Arc and it looks nothing special to me.
As for Dawn Approach, he was never expected to be aimed at the Derby, evinced by his quote of 12/1 for the race post Guineas. Of course that evaporated once he was entered and the usual "If he stays he wins" chestnut hit the social opinion outlets faster than his chance dissolved in the race itself. Guineas winners tend not to win Derbies but it is fair to ponder "What if?" of those who never tried (such as Frankel of course)
Godolphin decided to pay good money in order to circumvent the question above and they got their answer in no uncertain terms. It turned out that the trainer’s skill and instinct was correct and it is clear to anyone with half an eye that Dawn Approach was ill equipped to take on such a different test so shortly after his Guineas triumph, thus creating the biggest faux pas of the season by a metric mile.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I think Al Kazeem had one too many races and with the going at York on the quick side may have benefited from waiting.
The going at York was if anything softer than it was at Sandown and Ascot, so presumably Nathan, you wish Al Kazeem did not run in those races too?
This "one too many" is a daft saying imo. There were questions asked about ground conditions before both Prince Of Wales and Eclipse. But the horse won – therefore people did not say he had "one too many" races on firm
after those two races
.
If it was a mistake running in the International, then (without hindsight) it must have been a mistake to run in the Prince Of Wales and Eclipse.
Fact is (whatever the trainer says) Al Kazeem’s best form is on a firm surface.
As I remember it, stable wasn’t in such good form at the time of the International; possibly why "excuses" were made. Surely
trainer form
just as (if not more) likely reason for a slightly below par effort? Came right back to his best in the Irish Champion. Stumbled badly and took a hold in the Arc, but still ran a reasonable race.
Why is ‘one too many’ a daft saying? Horses are not machines. The going at York was G/F. Yes, Al Kazeem ran well in the Irish Champion but would of stood a better chance had he not run up a tally of hard races previously albeit he had a break from York to Leopardstown.
Depends in what context the "one too many" saying is being used Nathan. If it is just a
statement without judgement
that a horse may have had "one too many" races either before or after a particular race and in the former case goes on to finish below par. Fair enough.
But when "one too many" is used to imply connections should not have even
run
the horse in said race – then that is (imo) daft. ie There is no way
beforehand
– anyone knew whether this was going to be "one too many" or not. The
same fears
were expressed
before
the Eclipse. However, because Al Kazeem
won
– the "one too many" saying was
not
used afterwards.
In form terms the Irish Champion second was just as good as the Eclipse and Prince Of Wales wins. It proved (for all intents and purposes) the York run had no ill effects.
Value Is EverythingAs for Dawn Approach, he was never expected to be aimed at the Derby, evinced by his quote of 12/1 for the race post Guineas. Of course that evaporated once he was entered and the usual "If he stays he wins" chestnut hit the social opinion outlets faster than his chance dissolved in the race itself. Guineas winners tend not to win Derbies but it is fair to ponder "What if?" of those who never tried (such as Frankel of course)
Godolphin decided to pay good money in order to circumvent the question above and they got their answer in no uncertain terms.
It turned out that the trainer’s skill and instinct was correct
and it is clear to anyone with half an eye that Dawn Approach was ill equipped to take on such a different test so shortly after his Guineas triumph, thus creating the biggest faux pas of the season by a metric mile.
Presumably Steve, you also believe connections should
not
have run DA’s sire New Approach in the Derby? Bolger’s "
skill and instinct
" meant he also had no intension of running him either and said as much! 40+/1 available on Betfair
after the Irish Guineas. Possibly over-ruled by the owner; just as he might have been over-ruled in this year’s running.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horser … y-win.html
You might say Bolger’s
"skill and instinct
" turned out to be "correct" with Dawn Approach. But it certainly was
not
correct with
New Approach
Steve. Apparently kept in (
WON!
) the race because of an administrative "error".
NA also took a hold, but this time Manning just about prevented him from becoming rank. Am sure if NA had
failed
in such a spectacular manner as DA, it would’ve featured in a similar thread to this… But he won!
I can see the arguement that some people did not think Dawn would stay before the Derby, can even see they might have thought he’d pull a bit (like father like son). But that’s totally different to thinking he should not have run
at all
. On what had gone before – nobody could predict him being as rank as he was that day at Epsom.
I believe both sire and son (without hindsight) deserved their chance in Europe’s Premier race for 3 year olds. Connections no doubt believe one winner from two doubtful stayers isn’t bad Steve.
Value Is EverythingAs for Dawn Approach, he was never expected to be aimed at the Derby, evinced by his quote of 12/1 for the race post Guineas. Of course that evaporated once he was entered and the usual "If he stays he wins" chestnut hit the social opinion outlets faster than his chance dissolved in the race itself. Guineas winners tend not to win Derbies but it is fair to ponder "What if?" of those who never tried (such as Frankel of course)
Godolphin decided to pay good money in order to circumvent the question above and they got their answer in no uncertain terms.
It turned out that the trainer’s skill and instinct was correct
and it is clear to anyone with half an eye that Dawn Approach was ill equipped to take on such a different test so shortly after his Guineas triumph, thus creating the biggest faux pas of the season by a metric mile.
Presumably Steve, you also believe connections should
not
have run DA’s sire New Approach in the Derby? Bolger’s "
skill and instinct
" meant he also had no intension of running him either and said as much! 40+/1 available on Betfair
after the Irish Guineas. Possibly over-ruled by the owner; just as he might have been over-ruled in this year’s running.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horser … y-win.html
You might say Bolger’s
"skill and instinct
" turned out to be "correct" with Dawn Approach. But it certainly was
not
correct with
New Approach
Steve. Apparently kept in (
WON!
) the race because of an administrative "error".
NA also took a hold, but this time Manning just about prevented him from becoming rank. Am sure if NA had
failed
in such a spectacular manner as DA, it would’ve featured in a similar thread to this… But he won!
I can see the arguement that some people did not think Dawn would stay before the Derby, can even see they might have thought he’d pull a bit (like father like son). But that’s totally different to thinking he should not have run
at all
. On what had gone before – nobody could predict him being as rank as he was that day at Epsom.
I believe both sire and son (without hindsight) deserved their chance in Europe’s Premier race for 3 year olds. Connections no doubt believe one winner from two doubtful stayers isn’t bad Steve.
Being wrong ONCE does not mean you will always be wrong. 1 from 2 is not a worthwhile statistic either way as you well know.
From the very start of his career Dawn Approach looked sharper than his sire. He made his debut in March over 5f compared to his father who didn’t appear until July and who made his first three starts on heavy/soft over 7f. I always worried about that that fact with regards to Epsom for Dawn Approach and said I would eat my hat if he won. If you read back through the Derby thread(s) you will note that I felt that Dawn Approach wouldn’t settle at Epsom and so it proved.
They are father and son and but they are different horses who took to their careers in a different manner. I didn’t think Dawn Approach would have been as bad as he was at Epsom but was alive to avoiding the usual childlike belief that the magic stamina beans would be fed to him the night before the Derby. REAL stats show that few colts win both races but that won’t stop Toormore going off short for Epsom after he hoses up from War Command at Newmarket, with Kingman the usual Gosden Non-runner with the "Race coming too early for him" excuse.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
If you had the opportunity of running a horse with around a 33%, let alone a 50% chance of winning the Derby – wouldn’t you take it? Of course an opinion could be made beforehand whether he’d stay or not, but there’s no way anyone could know
after the Irish Guineas. Possibly over-ruled by the owner; just as he might have been over-ruled in this year’s running.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.