- This topic has 26 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Rory,
Timeform gives the distance last yr as 2m 88yds, same as yesterday – it was shorter in 2005 when the old start was still in use – officially 1m 7f 198yds.
AP
I knew I had heard the name but I wasn’t sure he was a tipster .. he’s a tipster .. enough said ?
Racing Post has last year’s Lonsdale at 1m7f198y:
http://www.racingpost.co.uk/horses/resu … 2006-08-22
and this year’s at 2m88y:
http://www.racingpost.co.uk/horses/resu … 2007-08-21
An error?
Timeform Select for York lists last year’s race as being run over the shorter trip ~ certainly an error somewhere!
If it wasn’t run over the new trip last year, the Perspective writer has a pretty good imagination. The commentary begins –
"A slightly longer trip than previously for the Lonsdale Cup, with it run on the round course for the first time……."
I wonder if the decision to move the start was made after the Program Book had been published, which might explain the different info given in the media.
Reverting to the origins of this thread, it’s a safe bet Claude won’t know or care either way!
AP
I’ve just watched the video replays. Last year’s was held on the round course, but the start was significantly closer to the winning post than the start this year.
Nice one Gareth that would appear to be problem solved. I’d hazard a guess that given that last year’s time on official GS of 3.28 was about three seconds over the standard for the old 1m7f198yds it would be fair to assume that last year’s race was run at a similar distance (though running round two bends instead of one may render a literal translation wrong) and that this year’s time of 3.38 on similar going was run over the advertised 2m88yds. 10 seconds longer for an extra half furlong over a 2m test seems reasonable.
Quite why Timeform gave last year’s as 2m88 and RP as the ‘old’ 1m7f198 I don’t know but the latter would seem to be nearer the mark distance-wise at least.
Perhaps last year was a cock up by the stalls team with them not being familiar with the starts on the hitherto little used round course. So Timeform recorded the correct distance as per the program book and the RP got lucky!
Thanks to all for the research
The race was run on the round course for the first time last year. There was some sort of cock up and it was to be over the distance of 2m 88 yds but it was not advertised correctly in the race conditions/calendar or something similar so was still held on the round course but run over the old distance.
I remember last year’s Timeform racecard recording the distance as being the first over the new trip but that as has been alluded to was incorrect.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.