- This topic has 20 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Brian O’Connor takes aim at Godolphin in his Irish Times Odds and Sods column today over Ruling Court and Sovereignty – well worth a read. Have some sympathy over Ruling Court – the rest of the field passed their judgement on the ground. Anyone wish to mount a defence on behalf of Godolphin!
I think it was regrettable that Ruling Court was withdrawn from the Derby. I would have had more sympathy if the Derby had been run an hour later, by which time the rain had got into the ground. However, the ground was not that bad at the time he was declared a non runner (as confirmed by the race times).
There is only one Derby and a horse can obviously only run in it once. Why not roll the dice? What is the point of playing it safe? So what if he lost? Plenty of other horses have not stayed the Derby distance but bounced back. Roaring Lion being a good recent example.
It was not the only reason but Ruling Court not running was another factor in the day being a letdown. A horse going for the Guineas and Derby double would have enhanced the race. I suspect he would have run if Desert Flower had won The Oaks but they didn’t want two Guineas winners to be beaten.
As for Sovereignty, I assume O’Connor is complaining about him not running in the Preakness and being denied an attempt at the Triple Crown? I don’t know the full circumstances but it does seem regrettable if it was another case of playing it safe.
William Buick rode in the first race and thought it was ‘bad news’ for the horse so I not got a problem with the Ruling Court decision. It wasn’t made too soon, i.e. before racing, where it might’ve been more of a guess.
There is only one Derby. Being a Guineas and Derby winner would have elevated Ruling Court’s reputation.
Who cares if he wins the St James’s Palace? He already has a Group 1 for 3 year olds over a mile on his CV.
“There is only one Derby. Being a Guineas and Derby winner would have elevated Ruling Court’s reputation.”
He wouldn’t have won as he didn’t have his ground.
There was nothing wrong with the ground. Appleby didn’t run him because he couldn’t face him getting beaten.
The times said as much and the rain had not arrived by 3.30pm. The Derby was a similar time to City of Troy last year. Was it terrible ground then?
Trainers whining about wanting the ground to absolutely perfect because their precious horses can’t possibly put their feet on it otherwise. Is it any wonder the crowds are down?
He would have run if Peter Easterby trained him!
He had to prove his stamina as well. I backed him antepost and I didn’t feel gutted/cheated/let down when he was taken out.
The way they handled the whole ruling court debacle was not a good look. Remember they even thought of a stab at the triple crown. If he’s not staying the 12f at Epsom he was never getting 14f at Doncaster. David Ord was saying on nick luck there was no reaction from the crowd when announced as a non runner as most punters thought it would happen.
They didn’t run sovereignty as they were worried he would be beaten imho. He might have won though. Just very odd tbh. At a time when racing is under fire from all corners poor imho. Much as we criticise coolmore for various things they aren’t afraid to get beaten. Lion in winter was deffo not 100% but they ran anyway as there is only 1 Derby. God knows where the Derby would be if John magnier turned his back non it and went curragh then king george. It would be on life support.It’s nothing new though is it…
Haggas said in the above… “It was a decision that was left to me and I have never felt he would be comfortable on soft or dead ground. It is not soft, but it is dead and I don’t want to run in a race I don’t think I can win. We’ll never know if the decision was right or wrong and we all want to win the Derby, but we want to have a fighting chance.”
And the time of that race wasn’t indicative of slow or bad ground, 1.65 secs above standard.
My issue was he had never run on anything slower than good ground so there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that he ‘needs’ quick ground to be at his best and the times said that the ground was somewhere between good and good to soft )probably closer to good).
They were pretty confident going into the race that the trip wouldn’t be a problem for either of their guineas winners and you can’t really say thet Desert Flower was beaten by the trip in the Oaks, in my mind she just wasn’t good enough. I think their confidence/belief took a massive hit from that as I believe they felt the race was hers for the taking and with that, they simply ran scared of having another of their guineas winners found out and decided to take their ball and go home.
Personally I don’t think he would have stayed anyway and I don’t think the hold up tactics (that they likely would have employed on him) would have seen him well enough positioned given the way the race was run with the stouter stayers coming to the fore. Pretty certain at somepoint you will see him run on ground exactly like it was at Epsom but I have no doubt we won’t ever see him race further than 10F either.
After winning the Kentucky Derby, Sovereignty skipped the Preakness to go straight to the 10F Belmont which on face value might not have been a bad decision until you see that his previous run before the Kentucky Derby (on 3 May) came in the Florida Derby on 29 March so you would have thought running in the Preakness wouldn’t have been a massive ask. That being said, if you look back through all the timings of his runs in his whole racing career, the quickest turnaround he has ever had was the 28 days between the Fountain of Youth (which he won) and the Florida Derby (which he lost) so with there being just 15 days between the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, it could be argued that it was entirely the right decision for this horse to miss the race and wait for the Belmont.
That is also borne out by the fact that he beat Journalism (who took in all three races) further in the Belmont than he did in the Kentucky Derby but by having won two of the three Triple Crown legs there must surely be a small part in connections minds that wonders………would we now have a Triple Crown winner if we had just been a little more bold and rolled the dice in the Preakness.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
As I said above, so what if Ruling Court runs at Royal Ascot? There is every likelihood he will get beaten anyway, now that Field Of Gold has a jockey on his back.
As for Sovereignty, it is a terrible decision to not go for the Triple Crown. Unlike our almost moribund concept with the same name, the Triple Crown is still a big deal in America and has been achieved recently. To not go for it is poor.
Racing doesn’t help itself sometimes. Is it any wonder people are being put off the game? They don’t need racing to bet now. Look how much football betting is worth now. Or the amount of money traded on Betfair on an IPL game.
I don’t see the point of racing spending millions on trying to promote the sport if its leading players are not going to run their horses because everything isn’t 100% perfect.
Exactly. Great horses win despite conditions not being in their favour. I don’t think Ruling Court would have won even if the ground had been perfect but we’ll never know now. If Field Of Gold beats him at Ascot, even the Guineas win is diminished.
Godolphin seems to have lost its way. Pulling good horses to prevent them proving themselves true champions/getting beaten, gelding promising beautifully bred colts before they’ve had a chance…
There was always the old saying of ‘a good horse will go on all ground’ and I thin trainers in the past were of the mindset that they would run regardless and deal with whatever the ground was on the day.
Field of Gold I believe is a better horse (although only run once on good to firm when 3rd on his racecourse debut) and Henri won the BC Juvenile Turf on firm so quick won’t bother him in the slightest. To be really honest, I don’t think Ruling Court’s overall form now bears close scrutiny and it really wouldn’t surprise me if 3rd is as good as he can get next week.
Depending on what amount of rain Ascot does or doesn’t get tonight/into Saturday it could well be good to firm ground come Tuesday (currently good/good to firm in places) and the only time RC has run on that was when he got beat at York by The Lion In Winter………could there be another withdrawal on the basis of it potentially now being too fast?
“could there be another withdrawal on the basis of it potentially now being too fast?”
They will have a chat and decide its too fast when Rosallion leaves Notable Speech for dead
Appleby will come out and target the Eclipse
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
“could there be another withdrawal on the basis of it potentially now being too fast?”
By Justify out of a dam who only ran on firm ground. Don’t see it myself.
“Exactly. Great horses win despite conditions not being in their favour”
Ruling Court isn’t a great horse. In recent times one could argue Baeed was. Won 10 out of 10, including 6 group 1s, until Ascot where he got ‘stuck in the mud’ and therefore lost his unbeaten record. If the ground was in his favour he’d have won.
Justify had only raced on fast dirt tracks until he won both the Kentucky Derby and Preakness in sloppy ground conditions, yet ground that was somewhere between good and good to soft was considered too slow for Ruling Court despite the fact he had never even been tried on it previously to know whether it was or not.
My point about good to firm ground was only that he disappointed connections with his performance (at York) the only time he has encountered those conditions…….a coincidence
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.