- This topic has 101 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Don’t be so naive Ivanjica. The St James’s was run at a very fast pace. Even a sprinter would’ve had no trouble settling in behind on that day.
I am not being naïve at all. I think we have been here before, but here goes.
The “very fast pace”, to which you refer, was only being set by one horse over the first two furlongs – Rerouted.
The rest of the field ignored him until just after the 6f pole. To my eyes at least, Rerouted reached the 6f pole 8 lengths or so in advance of his field. At a rough estimate based on the video recording Rerouted had completed the first two furlongs at least two seconds faster than the pursuing pack. I get the impression the time of opening furlong for the main field (ignoring Rerouted) was no more than average (probably on a par with the Royal Lodge) and the second furlong saw an increase in tempo but certainly not “very fast” or “overly strong”.
It is the injection of pace by Queally just after the 6f pole that not only resulted in the very fast finishing time, but also towed the rest of the field into the significantly higher tempo.
All along my point has been simple – the first two furlongs were run at a normal pace and Frankel settled perfectly. The final overall time of the race was very fast indeed but this has nothing to do with the point I have made on a number of occasions.
Horses find it difficult to settle when they’re running at a slower pace than they’re used to.
Correct.
It stands to reason that in a race with an overly strong pace at a mile Frankel was never going to have any problem settling.
As I have said above, the period during the St James’s Palace Stakes when Frankel settled supremely well was not being run at an “overly strong pace”. As far as I am aware the sectionals are not available, but if you are able to obtain them to prove your assertion then I am more than happy to stand corrected.
Otherwise it remains your theory, no more or less valid than my theory.
I appreciate you may have years of "race reading" experience, but somtimes I think it is necessary to substantiate assertions delievered in a manner suggesting they are factual with supporting facts.
To think the St James’s was "proof" he’d have settled behind horses if upped in trip (at a much slower pace) is ridiculous.
Why? The widely held assertion following the 2,000 Guineas was that the headstrong manner of that victory meant his chances of staying 10f let alone 12f were remote. The St James’s Palace Stakes changed that perception in the eyes of anyone prepared to look beyond the final finishing time and analyse the part of the race in which he did successfully settle..
Frankel was allowed to run at his own pace in the 2011 Sussex. Had there been another horse bustling Frankel up early on (neck and neck) it is by no means certain he’d have been so amenable. Although he was learning, settling better than in the 2000 Guineas and Greenham. So whatever Sir Henry was doing worked.
But the point about Frankel is that he can keep winding it up if required, as was the case in the 2,000 Guineas, and no horse can live with him. A 5f sprinter could be put in a race as a “stalking horse” and Frankel would be able to burn him off. The point about the Sussex is that unlike in the Guineas Frankel settled on the front end, and proved it could be done.
Prior to the 2011 Sussex some pundits pointed to the Guineas and wondered would he go off like a scalded cat, expend all his energy too soon and set the race up for Canford Cliffs to mug him close home. The point I am making is simple – he proved he could be “settled” on the front end, providing more proof that he was flexible enough to deal with almost any tactical situation he found himself in. As Bosranic has put it so eloquently on here, the reason for this is his perfect balance and stride.
Whilst you can speculate about how a run in the Derby might have panned out, that is basically your opinion which is unsupported by the visual evidence of the St James’s Palace Stakes. See Above.
But it wasn’t "unsupported" was it? Anyone with race reading skills can see from watching the 2000 Guineas romp, Frankel was too free to stay half as far again (at least at that time). 2000 Guineas evidence suggests at 1m4f he’d have been rank.
But as I have repeated on a number of occasions, the conclusions drawn following his run in the 2,000 Guineas were proven to be wrong at Royal Ascot. He only became free running if asked by his rider to be such.
Really? Going up in trip, when he’d in the past been free at lesser trips, it was always likely he’d be settled behind horses.
When a horse wins pulling up by 11 lengths in a Group 1 mile race, and you couple it with the clues in the pedigree, one would usually assume 10f is well within his compass. Connections expressed no concern pre-race about his ability to see out the trip so one could be forgiven for having expected him to be ridden handier – remember Dancing Brave’s Derby?
What Sir Henry and his team have done over the last two years has enabled Frankel to settle much better.
Once again I repeat my point that the extent of Frankel’s inability to settle in races was exaggerated and largely centres on his remarkable performance in the 2,000 Guineas. The theory was effectively disproven as early as the St James’s Palace Stakes, with the Sussex providing further confirmation of his ability to both settle and adapt.
Ignoring the dam again I see. Not getting in to that arguement again. …
No, not ignoring the dam at all. I am merely considering the siblings, and the overall impression of stamina in the pedigree. You chose to focus on the speed influences through the dam’s paternal line, even though they represent a small proportion of the overall pedigree because it lent credence to your argument.
You concluded that the speed influence through the dam was dominant and that the stamina genes which had been so apparent in Frankel’s brothers were significantly less represented in his genetic make-up. As I recall you also dismissed the mathematical practice of calculating dosage indexes without providing a credible critique – once again the suspicion being that it didn’t suit your argument.
We now know Frankel is blessed with a almost unique abundance of both speed and stamina, and moreover most informed commentators appear in agreement that the manner of his York romp confirms he will stay 12f.
I think if he could have had his time again he would not have run Wollow in the Derby but the lesson was learnt.
I wouldn’t disagree with that Jonibake. Carlo D’Alessio’s chief Derby hope over the winter was Observer Gold Cup winner Take Your Place (also housed at Warren Place). When he flopped in the Sandown Classic Trial (run incidentally on the same card that Red Rum contested the Whitbread Gold Cup no less!)and then the Mecca Dante, I think the decision to send Wollow to Epsom was made for them.
(I would urge you to order his soon to be released biography which will go into more detail on this).
Don’t worry, its on the Xmas stocking list already!! My dad is going to try and get our copies signed as well, although that may be easier said than done!
We have had a copy of "On The Level" since its publication in 1983 which my father bought new. Its a pity its taken so long to update that fantastic work, but at least Brough Scott can be relied upon to do a great job.
I had not heard about the ATR interview – did the trainer say he was specifically angry with TQ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VjdrKEP … ure=relmfu
At 6:49 on this interview HRAC says (of the St James’s Palace Stakes) "we won’t talk about the race, it went wrong completely".
What might we have been saying had the field boxed him in as happened a few years back with a very good Irish filly of Oxx’s whose name I can’t recall? I think it was at Goodwood. She was a short price and the others effectively just kept her in.
Was that Ridgewood Pearl by any chance?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Don’t be so naive Ivanjica. The St James’s was run at a very fast pace. Even a sprinter would’ve had no trouble settling in behind on that day.
I am not being naïve at all. I think we have been here before, but here goes.
The “very fast pace”, to which you refer, was only being set by one horse over the first two furlongs – Rerouted.
The rest of the field ignored him until just after the 6f pole. To my eyes at least, Rerouted reached the 6f pole 8 lengths or so in advance of his field. At a rough estimate based on the video recording Rerouted had completed the first two furlongs at least two seconds faster than the pursuing pack. I get the impression the time of opening furlong for the main field (ignoring Rerouted) was no more than average (probably on a par with the Royal Lodge) and the second furlong saw an increase in tempo but certainly not “very fast” or “overly strong”.
It is the injection of pace by Queally just after the 6f pole that not only resulted in the very fast finishing time, but also towed the rest of the field into the significantly higher tempo.
All along my point has been simple – the first two furlongs were run at a normal pace and Frankel settled perfectly. The final overall time of the race was very fast indeed but this has nothing to do with the point I have made on a number of occasions.
Then you disagree with Timeform Ivanjica. Experts in sectional times. Hope they don’t mind me quoting them.
Timeform Perspective comment:
"the gallop was strong fromthe outset, even with
the pacemaker (Rerouted) left alone by the others as he was soon well clear"
At a mile, if one horse runs off at sprinting pace and the others go a fast 1m pace, then the pace of the others is still a strong one.
As I said, Frankel was always going to be able to settle behind such a pace… And judging whether he’d settle in a slowly run 1m2f race by what happened in the 1m St James’s is crazy.
Your assertion that the over all time of the St James’s Palace was "very fast" Ivanjica is also wrong. Because the pace of the race was overly strong, they had nothing left in the final quarter of a mile. ie They didn’t go at a pace that was suited to producing a fast over all time.
Value Is EverythingJust to put my two penny’s worth – this is what Hughsie said about the St James’ at the Hannon’s media day just before the 2011 Sussex “We were going a million up the hill. I was…sitting second and I couldn’t have gone an inch faster. So that’s why [Frankel] settled so well. But I think, if they were going slow, then he’d be keen.”
We do have to remember that team Canford were saying all sorts of things in the lead up to the Sussex and it might have been a bit of kidology. He also turned out to be wrong as Frankel settled perfectly from the front in the Sussex even during those opening slow two furlongs.
To be honest I kind of agree with Ivanjica that more was made of the pulling issue than was necessary. The only time I thought he pulled REALLY badly in a manner that might have affected the finish of the race was in the Dewhurst when he was bumped into. I always thought he was a LITTLE keen in other races but you see ten times worse in almost any race every day. It was the only possible chink in the armour though so people made a lot out of it.
I am not saying he would have won the Derby (even now I would question his effectiveness over that trip) but I do think he was capable of stepping up for the Juddmonte last year. There was even talk of it immediately after the Sussex and Henry has been saying he thinks he would stay 10f for some time now. But with so many races to win over a mile first they simply weren’t in any rush.
It’s all about opinions of course but I think 12f would stretch him to the absolute limit especially on soft ground and I hope and am pretty sure that they will resist the Arc and run him at Ascot. Wouldn’t mind seeing him in the Moulin before that mind!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Joni,do you really think that great athletes should dodge challenges?That Rory should duck Tiger because he might lose?
To be honest I kind of agree with Ivanjica that more was made of the pulling issue than was necessary. The only time I thought he pulled REALLY badly in a manner that might have affected the finish of the race was in the Dewhurst when he was bumped into. I always thought he was a LITTLE keen in other races but you see ten times worse in almost any race every day. It was the only possible chink in the armour though so people made a lot out of it.
I am not saying he would have won the Derby (even now I would question his effectiveness over that trip) but I do think he was capable of stepping up for the Juddmonte last year. There was even talk of it immediately after the Sussex and Henry has been saying he thinks he would stay 10f for some time now. But with so many races to win over a mile first they simply weren’t in any rush.
It’s all about opinions of course but I think 12f would stretch him to the absolute limit especially on soft ground and I hope and am pretty sure that they will resist the Arc and run him at Ascot. Wouldn’t mind seeing him in the Moulin before that mind!
I don’t think Frankel ever "PULLED really badly" Joni. But he was a little free (KEEN) at times. However, the point is that keeness came when racing at 1 MILE… which means if STEPPED UP to 1M2F too early or (as Ivanjica thinks he should’ve) 1M4F of the Derby) that KEENESS would in all probability have TURNED IN TO PULLING or a RANK Frankel.
Value Is EverythingJoni,do you really think that great athletes should dodge challenges?That Rory should duck Tiger because he might lose?
Do you think Mo Farah should have had a stab at the 100 metres race Andy?
This horse has ducked nothing at the distances his connections believe him effective over. Whether you, I or anyone else believes the horse would get a mile and a half is irrelevant. If his trainer/owner partnership does not then why in the name of god would they be stupid enough to run their horse over the trip?
I’m praying they’ll decide the horse will get the extra furlongs and have a tilt at the Arc but if he doesn’t then I’ll know it is because Sir Henry doubts him over 12f. That will be good enough for me.
The horse has nothing to prove with most rational racing fans.
Joni,do you really think that great athletes should dodge challenges?That Rory should duck Tiger because he might lose?
Not at all Andy and I agree it is a real shame that so many horses dodge Frankel but what can you do hey?
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Don’t be so naive Ivanjica. The St James’s was run at a very fast pace. Even a sprinter would’ve had no trouble settling in behind on that day.
I am not being naïve at all. I think we have been here before, but here goes.
The “very fast pace”, to which you refer, was only being set by one horse over the first two furlongs – Rerouted.
NO it wasn’t.
The rest of the field ignored him until just after the 6f pole. To my eyes at least, Rerouted reached the 6f pole 8 lengths or so in advance of his field. At a rough estimate based on the video recording Rerouted had completed the first two furlongs at least two seconds faster than the pursuing pack. I get the impression the time of opening furlong for the main field (ignoring Rerouted) was no more than average (probably on a par with the Royal Lodge) and the second furlong saw an increase in tempo but certainly not “very fast” or “overly strong”.
The pace of the others (excluding the pacemaker) was still "strong" even in the early stages.
It is the injection of pace by Queally just after the 6f pole that not only resulted in the very fast finishing time, but also towed the rest of the field into the significantly higher tempo.
The "injection of pace" was quickening an already strong pace, making it an overly strong pace.
All along my point has been simple – the first two furlongs were run at a normal pace and Frankel settled perfectly. The final overall time of the race was very fast indeed but this has nothing to do with the point I have made on a number of occasions.
Horses find it difficult to settle when they’re running at a slower pace than they’re used to.
Correct.
It stands to reason that in a race with an overly strong pace at a mile Frankel was never going to have any problem settling.
As I have said above, the period during the St James’s Palace Stakes when Frankel settled supremely well was not being run at an “overly strong pace”. As far as I am aware the sectionals are not available, but if you are able to obtain them to prove your assertion then I am more than happy to stand corrected.
See above post.
Otherwise it remains your theory, no more or less valid than my theory.
I appreciate you may have years of "race reading" experience, but somtimes I think it is necessary to substantiate assertions delievered in a manner suggesting they are factual with supporting facts.
I find it absolutely amazing Ivanjica, that you’ve consistently said my opinion of the pace is just my "opinion", and yet constantly assert your "opinion" of the St James’s Stakes pace as "PROOF" he’d been able to race at 1m2f (and possibly the Derby) earlier. You have no "proof" Ivanjica.
To think the St James’s was "proof" he’d have settled behind horses if upped in trip (at a much slower pace) is ridiculous.
Why? The widely held assertion following the 2,000 Guineas was that the headstrong manner of that victory meant his chances of staying 10f let alone 12f were remote. The St James’s Palace Stakes changed that perception in the eyes of anyone prepared to look beyond the final finishing time and analyse the part of the race in which he did successfully settle..
I did analyse the first part of the race Ivanjica.
Frankel was allowed to run at his own pace in the 2011 Sussex. Had there been another horse bustling Frankel up early on (neck and neck) it is by no means certain he’d have been so amenable. Although he was learning, settling better than in the 2000 Guineas and Greenham. So whatever Sir Henry was doing worked.
But the point about Frankel is that he can keep winding it up if required, as was the case in the 2,000 Guineas, and no horse can live with him. A 5f sprinter could be put in a race as a “stalking horse” and Frankel would be able to burn him off. The point about the Sussex is that unlike in the Guineas Frankel settled on the front end, and proved it could be done.
If Frankel were to "burn off" a 5f horse when racing at 1m2f or 1m4f, he would have had even less in hand than he did in the St James’s Palace and therefore would’ve lost.
If you are suggesting he could’ve made all in the Derby… Don’t you think Coolmore would’ve put in some pacemakers (spoilers) to make sure Frankel went too fast early?Prior to the 2011 Sussex some pundits pointed to the Guineas and wondered would he go off like a scalded cat, expend all his energy too soon and set the race up for Canford Cliffs to mug him close home. The point I am making is simple – he proved he could be “settled” on the front end, providing more proof that he was flexible enough to deal with almost any tactical situation he found himself in. As Bosranic has put it so eloquently on here, the reason for this is his perfect balance and stride.
At that time, Frankel "proved he could be settled" in front when going mile pace and (not and/or) without something bustling him up. Racing over further and with others neck and neck in front – is a different thing.
Whilst you can speculate about how a run in the Derby might have panned out, that is basically your opinion which is unsupported by the visual evidence of the St James’s Palace Stakes. See Above.
I only said "see above" of the above quote, the rest is your writing Ivanjica.
But it wasn’t "unsupported" was it? Anyone with race reading skills can see from watching the 2000 Guineas romp, Frankel was too free to stay half as far again (at least at that time). 2000 Guineas evidence suggests at 1m4f he’d have been rank.
But as I have repeated on a number of occasions, the conclusions drawn following his run in the 2,000 Guineas were proven to be wrong at Royal Ascot. He only became free running if asked by his rider to be such.
He wasn’t "asked to be free" he was free. He was asked in the first 5 strides in the 2000 Guineas to find a prominent position / get the lead. After that Queally did nothing to encourage Frankel.
Really? Going up in trip, when he’d in the past been free at lesser trips, it was always likely he’d be settled behind horses.
When a horse wins pulling up by 11 lengths in a Group 1 mile race, and you couple it with the clues in the pedigree, one would usually assume 10f is well within his compass. Connections expressed no concern pre-race about his ability to see out the trip so one could be forgiven for having expected him to be ridden handier – remember Dancing Brave’s Derby?
It all depends how a horse wins by 11 lengths Ivanjica, if it’s by staying on then yes, you would expect 10f to be within his compass. But if (as in Frankel’s case) it is sheer speed that wins at 1m and with a tendency in the past of being a bit free (note "free" and not "pulling"); then there’s always a good chance of a horse pulling when racing at 10 furlongs. Which is why being held up (a change of tactics) is only to be expected.
What Sir Henry and his team have done over the last two years has enabled Frankel to settle much better.
Once again I repeat my point that the extent of Frankel’s inability to settle in races was exaggerated and largely centres on his remarkable performance in the 2,000 Guineas. The theory was effectively disproven as early as the St James’s Palace Stakes, with the Sussex providing further confirmation of his ability to both settle and adapt.
Think we’ve done that to death.
Ignoring the dam again I see. Not getting in to that arguement again. …
No, not ignoring the dam at all. I am merely considering the siblings, and the overall impression of stamina in the pedigree. You chose to focus on the speed influences through the dam’s paternal line, even though they represent a small proportion of the overall pedigree because it lent credence to your argument.
You concluded that the speed influence through the dam was dominant and that the stamina genes which had been so apparent in Frankel’s brothers were significantly less represented in his genetic make-up. As I recall you also dismissed the mathematical practice of calculating dosage indexes without providing a credible critique – once again the suspicion being that it didn’t suit your argument.
That is not what I said at all Ivanjica. I even said that
at birth
Frankel would have had a probability of staying further than a mile and a good chance of staying the Derby distance. However, the speed influence of his dam means he can not be said to be "bred to stay" the Derby distance. ie There was always a significant possibility of Frankel not staying further than a mile and not staying the Derby trip, a lot depended on his temperament. I see the whole pedigree Ivanjica, it is you who just sees one side. And you say I ignore things to "suit my arguement".
We now know Frankel is blessed with a almost unique abundance of both speed and stamina, and moreover most informed commentators appear in agreement that the manner of his York romp confirms he will stay 12f.
The International does not "confirm" he’ll get 12f Ivanjica. You so want everything to be one way or the other. Sir Henry has done such a great job settling Frankel, through his own and staff’s hard work at home and not being in any hurry to up him in trip prematurely… That there is now (judged on the International) a good chance he’ll get 12 furlongs. But Sir Henry just might be in a better position to judge than you or I.
Value Is EverythingThe truth is Sir Henry is in very poor health.He is in no shape to be trapsing around the world showing off Frankel.
I may have ommitted some of your text Ginge in my previous response in an effort to keep the length of our ramblings down, so if I did misrepresent you on a previous post I apologise, it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.
Anyway, back to the debate, here is my first response, I will come back to the others on Monday (hopefully) when I have a day off.
Then you disagree with Timeform Ivanjica. Experts in sectional times. Hope they don’t mind me quoting them.
Timeform Perspective comment:
"the gallop was strong fromthe outset, even with
the pacemaker (Rerouted) left alone by the others as he was soon well clear"
At a mile, if one horse runs off at sprinting pace and the others go a fast 1m pace, then the pace of the others is still a strong one.
As I said, Frankel was always going to be able to settle behind such a pace… And judging whether he’d settle in a slowly run 1m2f race by what happened in the 1m St James’s is crazy.
Your assertion that the over all time of the St James’s Palace was "very fast" Ivanjica is also wrong. Because the pace of the race was overly strong, they had nothing left in the final quarter of a mile. ie They didn’t go at a pace that was suited to producing a fast over all time.
As amazing as this seems I would argue with the Timeform conclusion for two reasons:
1) The absence of sectional times (did they publish their hand held ones?).
2) Frankel has raced over Ascot’s Old Mile twice – once in the Royal Lodge (when everyone agrrees the early pace was farcically slow), and the second in the 2011 St James’s Palace Stakes.
Would you agree that if a horse is going to "run free" or even "pull" it will be in the early stages of a race? I accept if a pace is signifcantly slowed during a race horses can start to pull (having apparently settled) in the middle of a race, but that wasn’t true in either of these cases.
The rough times of the opening furlongs in both races is remarkably similar – in fact the Royal Lodge opening furlong is clocked (using the Youtube footage) at 15.58s whilst the St James’s Palace is timed at 15.82s.
I think most people would agree the Royal Loadge was run at a pedestrian pace which allowed Frankel to murder the field in a matter of strides approaching the homs turn.
I would argue that if a horse with a history of being a "free sort" was going to go a stride or two quicker than his jockey wants, it would be during that opening furlong. Given the pace through the first furlong of the St James’s Palace was slower than that of the overall VERY slow Royal Lodge, it is inaccurate for anybody, even Timeform, yourself or Richard Hughes to imply the St James’s Palace Stakes "gallop was strong from the outset".
After the first furlong, when Rerouted was starting to get away from the field, the pace inevitably quickened in comaprison with the unremarkable first furlong. But the real injection of pace came, as I have said time and again, when Queally visibly became lower in the saddle just after the 6f pole, and set off in pursuit of the pacemaker.
The final time of the race was 1m 39.24s. The RP describe it as fast by 0.76s. To my mind that is quick. The offical going was good. The only times for the corresponding race to beat Frankel’s were run on Gd Fm (Henrythenavigator in 2008 the quickest clocking 1:38.70s). Ghanaati’s course record is 1:38.32 – less than a second faster than Frankel’s St James’s Palace Stakes, and unlike Frankel’s Good going was run on Good to Firm.
So how can you explain your comments that follow: "Your assertion that the over all time of the St James’s Palace was "very fast" Ivanjica is also wrong. Because the pace of the race was overly strong, they had nothing left in the final quarter of a mile. ie They didn’t go at a pace that was suited to producing a fast over all time".
Maybe we are entering the realms of semantics here, but I define this 1m 39.24s as the "overall time". It doesn’t really matter what section of the race made the final time fast (although it is clearly between the 2nd and 6th furlongs – again a rough guess without sectionals), the fact remains that the opening furlong was run plenty slow enough for your theory to have manifested itself – i.e. for Frankel to have taken hold of the bit and started to expend more energy than his jockey wanted – but he didn’t, he settled as well as he ever has.
Of course, the main factor in all of this is that Frankel was trained for a mile campaign. Horses are trained differently depending on the distances they are being asked to run over. Although Frankel settled perfectly in the St James’s Palace, if connections had sent hom to York for the Dante and the onto Epsom, the training regime would have been different and would have no doubt prepared the horse for the different tempo of the longer trip. I would have been confident that Frankel would have performed equally well, in terms of temperament, wherever he ran.
Not sure how you got those times Ivanjica as I can’t see the furlong pole in the ST James replay. Am I missing something? The best way to get a comparison is to time them to the cutaway. I’ll let you guys do it as I don’t want to take sides!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Think you’re seeing what you want to see Ivanjica.
I have just re-timed them using the youtube footage and my smartphone – and I accept I got them wrong. Apologies. The opening furling of the Royal Lodge was quite a bit slower than the St James’s Palace Stakes – well, it was early in the morning and I had just done a 12 hour shift!!!
However this actually adds credence, does it not, to the theory that Frankel had proven both before and after the 2,000 Guineas that he was able to settle off both slow and normal paces, over a mile. In the Royal Lodge, off a slow pace he settles perfectly well. His final 2-y-o race did see him run freely but isn’t it reasonable to attribute that to the drop in trip?
Similarly the Greenham was used to point to him being prone to run freely but once again this was a 7f race which maybe, with the benefit of hindsight, was weel below his optimum.
Is it not fair to actually speculate now that his optimum trip is at least 10f, and that evedience of his free going style was based upon him running over trips less than his optimum.
Is it not time to get past what he might have done and how freely he run?HE IS THE GREATEST EVER OVER WHATEVER DISTANCE HE WON AT; so lets leave it at that until he races again.I also believe the same can be said about Black Caviar in Australia where the sprinters are the best in the world.SHE IS THE GREATEST EVER OVER WHATEVER DISTANCE SHE WON AT.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.