- This topic has 82 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You have more history of clashing with other forum members than me and I wonder why that might be.
You are obsessed with following me about this forum. I am sure other members can see that quite clearly.
I believe you are a flawed character with obsessive behaviour issues.
Pot calling kettle?
Perhaps members can take a look at the string of negative responses on the Arc thread after I put up Order Of St George. Even to the point of replying to a post I had clearly aimed at someone else.
Not you again.
Another serial complainer.
What is the purpose of you visiting this thread?
This thread is about Roger Charlton and his questionable placing.
What is your opinion on THAT matter?
If you are here solely to stir the **** pot again then you must be pretty sad about the fact that I find Order Of St George a bad bet for the Arc.
The thread about the Arc is there for anyone to pass their opinion on. It’s not a private conversation.
If you don’t have an opinion on the topic of this thread, then why are you here?
Same old faces, same old pish time after time. Get a life.
From the man who makes more posts than anyone. It seems this is your life. You are a complete attention seeker. Time and again you have flounced off only to return as sure as night follows day.
Your post had already gone far beyond views on the original topic.
I honestly don’t care about your opinions about Order Of St George. It was quoted purely as an example because you were suggesting Ginger was following you around. Something you of course would never do.
You clearly have a massive ego which you want massaged continuously. Even on the help question you have to quote a winner you had backed. Why? Who cares?
Every post for you seems like a competition and if someone disagrees the toys come out the pram over and over again. That is your history on here.
Loving the banter boys. You are all arseholes as far as I am concerned
nwalton – you could be right but I think history will show that she was simply up against two quicker fillies. I would be amazed if Fair Eva ever ran over 6f again and I would be amazed if the two that beat her over 6f would beat her over further.
Think that’s a very bold statement – winner by the same Sire and out of a Rahy mare, and the runner up by War Front out of a Galileo mare. Certainly difficult to argue on paper that the winner is a pure sprinter who win crumble re-opposing the 3rd over another one or two furlongs. I couldn’t see any reason the winner wouldn’t confirm, but its Racing of course.
Regarding Time Test – they were crazy not to go for the POW. Couldn’t understand it all.
Nathan does imo talk some “bull” about racing
You could charm the skin off a snake…..
Blackbeard to conquer the World
Regarding Time Test – they were crazy not to go for the POW. Couldn’t understand it all.
Winning performance by My Dream Boat possibly the worst for many years, Peruvian Chief. Time Test would not have needed to be at his best to win it, however with the ground in the POW Soft was too soft for Time Test to produce his best. So doubt he’d have been successful.
Value Is EverythingLoving the banter boys. You are all arseholes as far as I am concerned
nwalton – you could be right but I think history will show that she was simply up against two quicker fillies. I would be amazed if Fair Eva ever ran over 6f again and I would be amazed if the two that beat her over 6f would beat her over further.
Think that’s a very bold statement – winner by the same Sire and out of a Rahy mare, and the runner up by War Front out of a Galileo mare. Certainly difficult to argue on paper that the winner is a pure sprinter who win crumble re-opposing the 3rd over another one or two furlongs. I couldn’t see any reason the winner wouldn’t confirm, but its Racing of course.
Regarding Time Test – they were crazy not to go for the POW. Couldn’t understand it all.
Fair point PC (good to see you back by the way!!). I just see Queen Kindly as more of a sprinter – she looks less scopey than Fair Eva to me at least. You could be right about the runner-up though. Time will tell.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Regarding Time Test – they were crazy not to go for the POW. Couldn’t understand it all.
Winning performance by My Dream Boat possibly the worst for many years, Peruvian Chief. Time Test would not have needed to be at his best to win it, however with the ground in the POW Soft was too soft for Time Test to produce his best. So doubt he’d have been successful.
And yet Charlton said looking back he’d probably have won.
He didn’t run Time Test in Ireland or Ascot due to the going (we all know Time Test needs it quick) yet ran him in the Eclipse on soft. Whatever way you want to dress it up Ginge, Charlton made a mess of things.Blackbeard to conquer the World
Regarding Time Test – they were crazy not to go for the POW. Couldn’t understand it all.
Winning performance by My Dream Boat possibly the worst for many years, Peruvian Chief. Time Test would not have needed to be at his best to win it, however with the ground in the POW Soft was too soft for Time Test to produce his best. So doubt he’d have been successful.
And yet Charlton said looking back he’d probably have won.
He didn’t run Time Test in Ireland or Ascot due to the going (we all know Time Test needs it quick) yet ran him in the Eclipse on soft. Whatever way you want to dress it up Ginge, Charlton made a mess of things.Would Time Test have won the POW despite the ground?
Although I disagree with him it is possible. On soft ground in the Eclipse Time Test finished only 2 1/4 lengths behind the winner Hawkbill, despite being held up in a comparitively slowly run affair. Performance of being 2 1/4 lengths third isn’t that far behind My Deam Boat’s performance in winning the POW.However, what I believe Charlton is talking about is a very literal reading of the form. ie Time Test finished 3 lengths in front of My Dream Boat in the Eclipse, therefore Charlton believes Time Test would’ve finished ahead of MDB in the POW. You and I might realise MDB put up a much better performance in the POW than Eclipse, but trainers are not form experts.
As for the trainer messing up in the running of Time Test: In most people’s opinion “Time Test needs it quick” to produce his best form… So missing a race run on soft going is expected, missing (one) the Tatts Gold Cup is fine, there are other races to win. Missing another race in the POW is fine (two), there are other races to win… However, if a horse looks like missing three races connections are imo justified in wanting to run even if conditions are not in his favour. Horses are in training to race and there’s no point in keeping a horse in training without running. In danger of spending much of the year in his box. Also, there are often alternative races to aim for when missing races; had Time Test not run in the Eclipse what alternative was there? It may have been thought they’d not lose much in running him as it fits in well with other targets. Must have come out of the race well to win the Skybet just 3 weeks later. Tbh – I was a bit disappointed he didn’t go clear and win easier. But runner-up Mondiliste’s subsequent victory in the Arlington Million has put a much better gloss on the Skybet. Time Test ran a lot better than I thought at the time, somewhere near his best.
Am certain at the beginning of the season Time Test’s primary target was the owner’s race, Juddmonte International. Everything before was all leading to the August feature. But sadly it went wrong for him. Connections are naturally going to wonder if they should’ve done things differently; but that’s with hindsight. Had Time Test been A1, run and won the International would we now be talking about an excellent, patient trainer? 😉
Value Is EverythingRegarding Time Test – they were crazy not to go for the POW. Couldn’t understand it all.
Winning performance by My Dream Boat possibly the worst for many years, Peruvian Chief. Time Test would not have needed to be at his best to win it, however with the ground in the POW Soft was too soft for Time Test to produce his best. So doubt he’d have been successful.
And yet Charlton said looking back he’d probably have won.
He didn’t run Time Test in Ireland or Ascot due to the going (we all know Time Test needs it quick) yet ran him in the Eclipse on soft. Whatever way you want to dress it up Ginge, Charlton made a mess of things.Would Time Test have won the POW despite the ground?
Although I disagree with him it is possible. On soft ground in the Eclipse Time Test finished only 2 1/4 lengths behind the winner Hawkbill, despite being held up in a comparitively slowly run affair. Performance of being 2 1/4 lengths third isn’t that far behind My Deam Boat’s performance in winning the POW.However, what I believe Charlton is talking about is a very literal reading of the form. ie Time Test finished 3 lengths in front of My Dream Boat in the Eclipse, therefore Charlton believes Time Test would’ve finished ahead of MDB in the POW. You and I might realise MDB put up a much better performance in the POW than Eclipse, but trainers are not form experts.
As for the trainer messing up in the running of Time Test: In most people’s opinion “Time Test needs it quick” to produce his best form… So missing a race run on soft going is expected, missing (one) the Tatts Gold Cup is fine, there are other races to win. Missing another race in the POW is fine (two), there are other races to win… However, if a horse looks like missing three races connections are imo justified in wanting to run even if conditions are not in his favour. Horses are in training to race and there’s no point in keeping a horse in training without running. In danger of spending much of the year in his box. Also, there are often alternative races to aim for when missing races; had Time Test not run in the Eclipse what alternative was there? It may have been thought they’d not lose much in running him as it fits in well with other targets. Must have come out of the race well to win the Skybet just 3 weeks later. Tbh – I was a bit disappointed he didn’t go clear and win easier. But runner-up Mondiliste’s subsequent victory in the Arlington Million has put a much better gloss on the Skybet. Time Test ran a lot better than I thought at the time, somewhere near his best.
Am certain at the beginning of the season Time Test’s primary target was the owner’s race, Juddmonte International. Everything before was all leading to the August feature. But sadly it went wrong for him. Connections are naturally going to wonder if they should’ve done things differently; but that’s with hindsight. Had Time Test been A1, run and won the International would we now be talking about an excellent, patient trainer?
Well they have a number of options
1. Send him to some of the big races in late Autumn, eg Hong Kong, Breeders (not sure he would qualify and it would either be a mile or the 12f race), even maybe Australia (too late for that as he would need to be leaving now, and apparently he lost his conditioning)
2. Come back next year with the same trainer.
3. Send him to Chad Brown in the USA
So whilst fit and well during Ascot, Time Test was sat is stable dreaming about the Juddmonte.
Because his owner didn’t sponsor the POW, his owners pet toff was on the board at York, or because his trainer was frightened of a foreign horse. Or all three.
Everyone can’t be Clive Brittain, but its a pretty sorry tale isn’t it?
So whilst fit and well during Ascot, Time Test was sat is stable dreaming about the Juddmonte.
Because his owner didn’t sponsor the POW, his owners pet toff was on the board at York, or because his trainer was frightened of a foreign horse. Or all three.
Everyone can’t be Clive Brittain, but its a pretty sorry tale isn’t it?
Had they not missed the POW due to the foreign horse, they’d probably have pulled him out due to the ground. He’d have needed to run better than he’d ever shown before or since on a soft surface if he was to have won the POW anyway.
Value Is EverythingWell they have a number of options
1. Send him to some of the big races in late Autumn, eg Hong Kong, Breeders (not sure he would qualify and it would either be a mile or the 12f race), even maybe Australia (too late for that as he would need to be leaving now, and apparently he lost his conditioning)
2. Come back next year with the same trainer.
3. Send him to Chad Brown in the USA
TT ran in the Breeders Cup mile last year. Things didn’t go right there either, drawn out with the washing and finishing out the back. Be nice to see him try again if recovering in time. Wouldn’t be a surprise if that might be his last race for Charlton on his way to Brown.
Value Is EverythingWouldn’t be a surprise if that might be his last race for Charlton on his way to Brown.
Ahem, Isn’t that what the original poster was alluding to.
Despite all the excuses and all the waffle the bottom line is this:-
Time Test came into the season as a horse who was on many lists of horses to follow. Expectations were high on some camps, particularly those who bought into the Timeform rating that was way higher than the official handicapper.
Charlton’s colt has had an underwhelming season and for all the bluster the underlying impression is that they have been running scared.
I suspect that the fact may just be that the horse has not progressed as anticipated this season.
Charlton’s remedy for that seems to be letting him stand in a field wishing that his name was Frankel.
Juddmonte have probably decided that something more proactive is required and he’ll go elsewhere.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Gingertipster wrote:-
Probably because the owner and owner’s racing manager know more about both horses (and trainer) than you do Jac.Reply Triptych:-
So unless you have been in a meeting with Teddy Grimthorpe and Prince Khalid regarding the future of Time Test how much more do you know Ginger that would confirm your superior knowledge of horses in Mr. Charlton’s yard to make the following statement.
Gingertipster wrote:-
Wouldn’t be a surprise if that might be his last race for Charlton on his way to Brown.Reply Triptych:-
Just an opinion and we’re all entitled to those aren’t we Ginge?
Sorry the quotes have gone beserk on here
I think the Thread is overloading and about to detonate
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Gingertipster wrote:-
Probably because the owner and owner’s racing manager know more about both horses (and trainer) than you do Jac.Reply Triptych:-
So unless you have been in a meeting with Teddy Grimthorpe and Prince Khalid regarding the future of Time Test how much more do you know Ginger that would confirm your superior knowledge of horses in Mr. Charlton’s yard to make the following statement.
Gingertipster wrote:-
Wouldn’t be a surprise if that might be his last race for Charlton on his way to Brown.Reply Triptych:-
Just an opinion and we’re all entitled to those aren’t we Ginge? Sorry the quotes have gone beserk on here
I think the Thread is overloading and about to detonate Oooh, that’s a bit selective in quoting Jac. 😉 Am happy to clear up any misunderstandings:
Yes, we are all entitled to an opinion, yours and my opinions are very different.
This is my reply to your post, a post which heavily criticised Roger Charlton.What a shame that John Gosden didn’t get to train Fair Eva she would still have her unbeaten record and and would never have run against Queen Kindly.
Also she’s just the sort of filly that Sir Henry Cecil would have nurtured and turned into a Superstar 3yo.
I don’t know why Prince Khalid doesn’t move both his horses to a proper trainer not one who seems to constantly turn a blind eye to what is staring him in the face.
Probably because the owner and owner’s racing manager know more about both horses (and trainer) than you do Jac.
In my opinion Roger Charlton has been extremely unlucky with Time Test, circumstances haven’t gone his way in Group 1 company.
His first Group 1 was in the 2015 International, where going was on the soft side and a tail wind against hold up horses.
Won a Group 2 before going to USA for the Breeders Cup Mile, you’d think over there ground would be right up his street, but poured down and drawn out in the car park – 10th.
First intended run this season in the Tatts Gold Cup, but rains came again and a non-runner…
…Instead won a Group 2 at Sandown.
Then missed Ascot, supposedly due to a top class Foreign raider, however had he taken part the ground would again have been against him.
Aimed at the Eclipse and having already missed two Group 1’s connections allowed Time Test to take his chance. Despite the soft ground and being held up in a fairly slowly run affair did as well as could be expected in 3rd.
Won another Group 2, beating subsequent Group 1 winner Mondialiste.
Prepped for the International, but disappointed in home work and now on holiday. Shame had to miss York because ground would at last have been right in a Group 1.
imo Time Test has been unlucky in not getting the firm surface he needs to be at his best in Group 1’s and/or prospective Group 1’s in which he’s been a non-runner. ie Unlike yourself and others, I do not blame Charlton and certainly would not move Time Test to another European trainer. However, firm going is far more prevelent in America and – on the whole – you don’t get the same ground problem. Therefore – although hoping he’ll still be in Beckhampton next season – I “would not be surprised” (or blame) connections if moving Time Test to Chad Brown. Similar firm ground loving European horses from this outfit often end up in USA. Flintshire’s ability has not improved since moving to USA – Fabre didn’t do anything wrong with him – but take a look at his strike rate in Europe compared to USA.
So to reiterate: My statement about moving Time Test to Chad Brown is based purely on the horse’s going requirements and what connections usually do with European firm ground horses. Nothing to do with Roger Charlton’s ability as a trainer.
Value Is Everythingtbh i never believed time test was a group one animal in europe,maybe on turf in us he may yet prove to be grade one over there(if going) Many Timeform included went way overboard on figures with his tercentenary run.So maybe usa it is
tbh i never believed time test was a group one animal in europe,maybe on turf in us he may yet prove to be grade one over there(if going) Many Timeform included went way overboard on figures with his tercentenary run.So maybe usa it is
I suspect most people can see that Time Test isn’t as good as the run at Royal Ascot last year may have suggested was possible in time. The figure given almost certainly was a case of Timeform trying to jump the gun, in order that they could later say “We told you first”
Timeform gave Golden Horn a bigger rating for his 2yo win than some and after he won the Fielden they made a huge deal of telling the world that they had him top rated in and others didn’t. Well, hello, the horse went off favourite for the race, so it looks like plenty people felt he was better than the bare mark awarded.
Looking back there was a bit of a stooshie about how good Time Test’s Joel Stakes win was. I suggested it wasn’t a great group 2 and looking back at the runs since, I am happy to stand by my assertion that it wasn’t a great race.
I find it laughable to see someone reach for The Arlington Million to try to suggest group 1 form. Winner Mondialiste went into that race with a 115 Rating and he beat a 6yo rated 115 on the night.
If I were to try to pass that off as true group 1 form I would have been castigated for it.
Give me a P, give me an I, give me an S …etc
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.