- This topic has 53 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Ginger,
His rating in a handicap at the start of his 3-y-old season was 81, and I estimate he would have been given a mark in the mid 80’s for his maiden win at Leicester. The two horses he beat there in a tight finish both won next time and were rated in the low 90’s, but that wasn’t until after the Derby.
The whole idea of eliminating horses from the race on ability grounds is daft – there are always going to be horses that don’t stay and are dropping back and potentially causing interference, regardless of their rating. Finding a way round is part of the test for horse and jockey in this race, the same as any other.
Entirely different from NH races, where interference at the obstacles becomes a safety issue.
AP
Think it is fair for the cut off point is lower in 3 year old Group 1’s than older horses. 2 St 7 lbs for 3 year old only. 2 st for older horses.
Using Timeform ratings for Derby third placed horses in the last 10 years. At 2 stones 7 lbs less than the average 3rd placed horse (119.5), I believe anything with a rating of 84 and below would not be allowed to run under my proposal. Although they would be able to appeal to a panel.It is one thing to be unlucky in your run with interference from a horse who does not stay. It is quite another to be stopped from winning the Derby by an egotistal owner.
If a horse does not stay the Derby trip, he is likely to be going backwards at less of a rate than one totally outclassed. Unless we’re talking about a sprinter running at 12 furlongs, a non-stayer will certainly NOT be going backwards on the downhill run to Tattenham Corner. It is one thing to be dropping back in the straight, quite another to be doing so at an alarming rate just before the "obstacle" of a downhill bend. As seemed to happen in the Derby which could have been worse.
So I suggest this is a safety issue, in the same way as it is in National Hunt racing.
Value Is EverythingGood to see some in the industry agree something should be done.
Timeform Perspective comments:
Castlemorris King: "Shouldn’t even have been allowed to compete in such a prestigeous race and it’s long overdue for rating restrictions to be put in place for group 1’s".
Marhaba Malyoon: "Had no place in this field and stopped quickly".
Value Is EverythingGood to see some in the industry agree something should be done.
Timeform Perspective comments:
Castlemorris King: "Shouldn’t even have been allowed to compete in such a prestigeous race and it’s long overdue for rating restrictions to be put in place for group 1’s".
Marhaba Malyoon: "Had no place in this field and stopped quickly".
Bollox, after time merchants. What do they know? There were only 13 runners in the race anyway and no safety issues and why only have restrictions for G1’s? why not G2? G3? Listed?
- Total Posts 17716
"Restrictions" for Group 1’s would fundamentally change the Pattern. Pacemakers would be out. False-run, stop-go races would be in. Small fields would be the rule, not the exception. Races would lose an important unpredictable element which makes them fun. The end of the Romance of the Turf, where you have to be "in it" to "win it", would have come.
Whoever penned that comment in Timeform is, to put it bluntly, a mere Timeserver.
The Derby like most early season 3yo events is contested largely by unexposed horses given a putative rating gleaned from limited data. That is one of the fascinating aspects of the race. To deny a young horse a run based solely on a necessarily subjective rating awarded by an Official Handicapper is both unfair and plain wrong
I’m far too young to remember of course, but I wonder what the ratings of of Blakeney, Morston and Snow Knight were prior to causing an ‘upset’ in the Derby
‘Speed ‘n time’ men such as Robert99 will be able to tell you objectively how much ‘slower’ a 70-rated horse is than a 140-rated horse. Not a lot is my vague answer
The horses ‘going backwards’ and the cause of possible interference are more likely to be those who don’t stay the trip, however high their rating, rather than the ‘slow’ and ‘poor’
Anyway it’s the jockeys’ and trainers’ jobs to do their homework on the field they’ll be facing. If they’re concerned one or more may ‘get in the way’ then keep out of its way
Personally I’d be more concerned with seasonal debutants contesting the Derby (Lammtarra) than some plater put in the race to fulfill an owner’s dream
Perhaps shouldn’t allow pacemakers to run, either. The Derby, I believe, has never been the easiest of races, what with the camber, the inexperienced of the horses, uncertainty over whether a horse will stay or not etc etc. Didn’t Dettori’s horse cause a few problems as well?
Bollox, after time merchants. What do they know? There were only 13 runners in the race anyway and no safety issues and why only have restrictions for G1’s? why not G2? G3? Listed?
Both Castlemorris King and Marhaba Malyoon came back to the field at Tattenham Corner. Just as the rest were speeding up. Carlton House almost ran in to the back of MM. It could easily have been a lot worse and might not be so lucky another year. When an "ego" runner either brings a horse down or stops it from winning.
The problem does not arise in Group 2, 3, listed and other races. Because there aren’t the egotistical owners wanting to run. Some owners just want a runner in the Derby. No owner thinks to himself "I just want a runner in the Surrey Stakes". It is only an issue in Classics and Group 1’s.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Drone
,
Blakeney
is a favourite of mine, as he was the first Derby winner I saw "live" at a tender age (when he won the Ormonde as a 4yo, Carson up). He was a maiden winner who’d finished 2nd in the Lingfield Trial to The Elk (down the field at Epsom) but would not I think have had a problem getting in on any modern ratings system.
His half-brother
Morston
is quite a different case. He had only run once before the Derby, winning a minor Lingfield maiden at 14-1 (so similar profile to
Marhaba Malyoon
) and his trainer Arthur Budgett only ran this green colt because the 25-strong field did not have any stand-out chances. He won at 25-1, but on modern ratings would quite possibly have been excluded in a modern maximum field of 20. Alas he broke down in August and never ran again, retiring like Lammtarra undefeated – two of only seven Derby winners ever to do so.
Snow Knight
(2nd in the Sandown Classic Trial and 3rd in the Lingfield Derby Trial, both behind Bustino which he beat at Epsom) would have been at about the
Pisco Sour
level of "hopelessness" before his gutsy 1974 win at 50-1.
"Restrictions" for Group 1’s would fundamentally change the Pattern. Pacemakers would be out. False-run, stop-go races would be in. Small fields would be the rule, not the exception. Races would lose an important unpredictable element which makes them fun. The end of the Romance of the Turf, where you have to be "in it" to "win it", would have come.
Whoever penned that comment in Timeform is, to put it bluntly, a mere Timeserver.
No way.
"Restrictions" would not stop Memphis Tennessee running. Vast majority of pacemakers would still be allowed to run; other than the ones who serve no purpose, that can be ignored in a twenty lengths lead. Pacemakers are only successful in their job if there is a chance of winning.
Restrictions would only stop the odd one or two no hopers from running and the size of fields would hardly be touched. You’d still get 100/1 outsiders and the "romance" would still be there.You would not even notice a rule if it came in.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Luckily, this discussion is completely academic. Because although this debate rears its ugly head briefly about every five years or so, no such change is ever going to happen.
Unless over twenty runners are declared to run, no horse is going to be excluded on the basis of the very tenuous ratings available on 3yo colts at the start of their careers.
Such arbitrary criteria would have to be built in to conditions for the race at the point when yearling entries were made; and they would be resisted by the top owner-breeders, resulting in fewer entries, the impoverishment of the pot, and a consequent decline in the race’s prestige. That’s why it will not happen.
The American system of allowing only the top twenty prizewinners to take part in their Kentucky equivalent is brutal, but at least uses objective criteria.
- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
: just out of interest, on what criteria would you have eliminated
Marhaba Malyoon
? I think it was quite plausible to make a case for him as a viable each-way choice.
He won his first race (a Bath maiden) in nice style, looking like a horse who’d improve; ran below par in the
Lingfield Trial
, being heavily eased rather than given a hard race; and had an official rating of 78 from his maiden with every likelihood of improving – if he stayed and acted on the course.
In the event he did neither, though poorly ridden by Spencer. But his trainer
David Simcock
is no mug, and does not run horses unless he expects a good showing from them (c.f.
Dream Ahead
).
The horses ‘going backwards’ and the cause of possible interference are more likely to be those who don’t stay the trip, however high their rating, rather than the ‘slow’ and ‘poor’
Anyway it’s the jockeys’ and trainers’ jobs to do their homework on the field they’ll be facing. If they’re concerned one or more may ‘get in the way’ then keep out of its way
Drone,
When was the last time a horse fell back at a rate of knots at or before Tattenham Corner because the horse "didn’t stay"? Vast majority of non-stayers are likely to be going backwards in only the last two furlongs.
In this year’s Derby Castlemorris King was fairly near the inner and Marhaba Malyoon raced fairly wide. If you want jockeys to totally avoid horses who might "get in the way", then they’d have to go so far out of their ground to have little, if any chance of winning. Totally impractical.
Value Is EverythingAgreed, I don’t like the American system either but do think there should be a cut off point in ability. It could easily be written in to the rules that….
"In 3 year old Group 1’s a horse must be within 2 st 7 lbs (35 lbs) less than average 3rd placed horse in that race. All aged or older horses 2 stones. Anyone can appeal to a panel/ handicapper if rated below the minimum rating and can be considered if there is a probability of significant improvement.
I don’t know what the official handicap ratings were, but looking at the last ten years of Timeform ratings for the Derby, the average 3rd place horse ran to 119.5. So under my rules any horse with a lower than 84 (119.5 – 35 = 84.5) needs to appeal to run.
I have great respect for David Simcock, heading for great things in my opinion. But at the end of the day it is the owner’s decision. Doubt his trainer had any say in the matter, whatever he might say in public.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
As I’ve got my Michael Church in hand (second-best book on The Derby, though a distance behind Raymond Mortimer’s) it might be worth reminding people of the 1962 fiasco.
Seven out of the 26 runners fell or were brought down at the top of the hill, including the favourite (and probable winner)
Hethersett
. One of the seven,
King Canute
, broke a leg and was put down. Six of the jockeys ended up in hospital.
The carnage was caused, as far as could be ascertained, by jostling as beaten non-staying horses began to drop back five furlongs from home.
Romulus
(a good Engelhard horse ridden by Walter Swinburn Sr.) was first to fall, bringing down Hethersett and the others like a pack of cards.
Larkspur
, the eventual winner, only just stayed on his feet.
The Jockey Club issued a statement after the post-mortem:
"… no individual was to blame. There was no evidence of rough riding …
The Stewards … regret that such a large number of horses not up to classic standard were allowed by their owners and trainers to start.
"
An interesting parallel to 2011:
Vincent O’Brien
announced a week before the race that Larkspur had a swelling on his hock and was unlikely to run. In the event the swelling subsided and he did take part – though Dr. O’Brien was called in to the Stewards room on the day to justify his earlier Press Release. There was a "feeling" that the great Irish trainer might have been trying to engineer a coup!
Ginger:
note that non-staying horses were already falling back, after 7f, at the top of the hill. Otherwise, of course, the Stewards are in agreement with you! But nothing, of course, has changed in the last 50 years, beyond the sensible reduction in field size to 20.
Thanks for that Pinza, very interesting reading.
Of course, there might be the occasional non-stayer going backwards at an early stage, just the probability is far less likely.
Value Is EverythingIn case anyone thinks I am aftertiming, here is what I said in my preview and the prices I’d want to back the two horses concerned.
2/ Castlemorris King
(Coumbe / Attwater) 11 (visor1): Absolutely no chance and should not be allowed in the race. My evaluation of form goes down to 0.05% 2000/1, Castlemorris King does not reach that level.
No Price
3/ Marhaba Malyoon
(Spencer / Simcock) 8: Only a touch above Castlemorris King’s ability, but still not enough to get a percentage. Last of six in a poor Lingfield Derby trial.
No Price
It could clearly be seen before the race these two horses were not up to it.
Value Is Everything"barnetsimon":3hc8ob86 wrote: It could clearly be seen before the race these two horses were not up to it.
I cannot agree with that and by all means paste your lays from your BF account
It’s a sport and the pathetic moanings of Ryan Moore to cover up the terrible ride that he gave Carlton House has just allowed a load of sycophantic brown nosers to stick their heads up.
The two owners in question paid their entry fees which ran into thousands. That’s the name of the game. You pays your money and you takes your chances
BS,
It’s a paste from Big Race Discussion, my Derby Preview not betfair. I don’t lay horses often and certainly not at those prices. If I could see they both had next to no chance, then anyone could.Ryan Moore’s comments have probably been taken out of context. Things might have been different, with emphasis on "might". I don’t think he’s actually said "I would have won if…" How can I be a "sycophantic brown noser" if I had these opinions before the race started? Before Ryan Moore had said anything, indeed before he had those opinions.
If two owners are so egotistical they want to run their no hoper in the Derby the rules say they can. I’m saying they should not be allowed.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.