- This topic has 32 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Historic unreliability of previous going reports is relevant. It means yestrerday’s going report is less likely to be accurate. Jockeys and trainers of beaten horses always want an excuse so of course they’ll use the ground.
If the ground conditions were not as soft as the official going yesterday then – even with more rain since yesterday – it probably won’t be as soft as they’ve said today.
First race today at a mile… only 3.86 slow (by Racing Post Standard) 0.4825 secs per furlong. In my book that’s good-soft at worst – certainly not “very soft” or as you say “horrific”.
Value Is EverythingJohn Gosden “The ground was heavy sticky and Enable got outstayed.
Andre Fabre “He enjoyed the heavy ground today”
TheRacingForum Member – Its good to soft.
Im siding with Gosden and Fabre on this occasion.
The ground is clearly wreaking havoc today. Battaash totally flopped, and it was obvious almost from the start he was hating the going. Not that he’s the most reliable horse, but that was too bad to be true.
Waldgeist’s time was just 1.47 secs slower than Racing Post Standard. That is an impossible time for heavy ground… Unless the actual distance is shorter than advertised – which is a possibility at Longchamp. EDIT: Glass Slippers only 1.24 slow.
Value Is EverythingOnly 33/1 shock 4yo mare SOLEMIA on heavy and TREVES arc win as a 3yo on soft ground in a slowly ran race and workforces win on very soft were slower times than WALDGEISTs time in the previous 15 years of arcs.
Have you not considered that Racing Post Standard Times are compiled on races over CD and average times but not specifically on the Arc meeting.
Its well known that French races are ran at a crawl and turn into a sprint. The Arc is an international race however and therefor the French are outnumbered and dont often get to dictate a ‘french’ style race in the international race that is The Prix Arc. So basing the arc time on the course average time makes no sense whatsoever as there will be many french slower races making up that average and only one arc.About every race finished the same way. With about two furlongs to go, the winners where in about 4th or 5th position and some 3-4 lengths behind.
Yet everyone of them finished strongly to win by one or two lengths:
Albigna (drew clear closing stages),
Victor Ludlum (led 100yds out, kept on strongly),
Waldgeist (stayed on well to lead 50yds out, ridden out),
One Master (headway to challenge final furlong),
Skaletti (angled left and led well inside final furlong, kept on),
Anapurna (edged left under pressure well inside final furlong, kept on well),
Technician (sustained run to lead last 100yds, ridden out)I might sound boring, but for such a huge track the closing stages are (almost) always the same…
There were 16 runners in the Prix de L’Abbaye . The first five home were drawn 3,1,4,5 and 8 , with the low numbers drawn nearer the rail .
The last 5 home were drawn 16,12,11,15 and 13 ( last .
It looks like the the ground was not as slow nearer the rail.
Glass Slippers’ jockey , Tom Eaves , said after the race that her best form had been on quicker ground .creating my own standard/mean on 18 runnings at Longchamp from 2000 gave me 2.29.29 secs the time was 2.31.99 so 2.7 off mean, average time before 1968 was about 2.35, after that it seems to be about 2.29/2.30 so the arc wasn’t that slow perhaps more soft than v soft or heavy, workforces time on the same (official) going was 2.35.3.
Potato,
Standard times deliberately do not take in to account slow or medium run races. As I understand it, they take the X fastest races run over that trip within X number of years (so only fast run races are taken in to account) and calculate an average of (only) those fastest times (with allowance made for weight carried). Yes, of course you can expect the Arc and all Group 1 races to be run faster than lesser races. But even allowing for that fact, 1.24 secs slower than RP Standard is still faster than you’d expect from what you called “very soft”/heavy… Yes good-soft and possibly verging on soft but not as soft as you suggest. Other times both today and yesterday (judged purely on RP standard times) also back this up – so it’s not just the Arc.The only way ground could’ve been actually “very soft” or heavy is (A) If Waldgeist is Frankel class or (B) The advertised race distances are wrong. ie If race distances are shorter then RP standard times will also be less slow than you’d expect.
Value Is EverythingIts not what im calling the ground? The official ground was very soft (which is heavy in uk terms). The course officially decribed it aa very soft. Every trainer and every jockey described it as very soft or heavy.
Looking at previous arc times over the last 15 years the time sits in as being ran on very soft.
The vast distances between runners also shows it was very soft.Just accept that the ground was very soft and move on. Stop trying to pretend you know more than the people at the course, experienced jockeys and trainers. It was very soft that isnt debatable.
Potato,
You’re not understanding me. I don’t care what any trainer, jockey, official or journalist or presenter’s opinion is. They have not studied times. Fact is – unless believing both Waldgeist and some other winners yesterday are Frankel class, then……Race times (not just the Arc) were run in times which (over the advertised distances) are IMPOSSIBLE on “very soft”/heavy.
Last night Timeform still had the ground as soft. This morning – after looking at time evidence – they’ve changed their going assessment to good-soft.
If looking at my post on the Arc thread last night: You’ll see your assertion about previous Arc times is simply wrong.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.