- This topic has 17 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’ve seen two different interviews with Michael Prosser about the stalls being re-positioned at Newmarket for the Guineas’. Referring to the fields splitting in previous races Prosser maintains that “the best horse has always won”.
Was Night Of Thunder a better horse than Kingman then?
Why make such a stupid and obviously flawed comment?
Best horse on the day perhaps?
Both raced same side and Night of Thunder if anything lost ground by drifted markedly across the track.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Prosser is making the comment purely because he knows he should have done something earlier to prevent last year’s debacle. Let’s face it if you believe his statement it wouldn’t be changed now, would it?
Apparently, Ryan Moore wondering why the changes have been made. Perhaps if we could trust Moore and fellow jocks to ride in a straight line rather than wreck Classic races then maybe there wouldn’t be any need for change.
You can not blame Kingman getting beaten by them splitting, first two were on the same (far) side. Doyle possibly went for home too soon in a well run race and Fallon took advantage.
Usually the winner has enough in hand to win whatever side he’s on. But there are some years when draw has made a difference. Hawk Wing should’ve won in Rock Of Gibratar’s year. Spencer misjudged the pace and came from too far back in his group. Putting up closing fractions that make it pretty clear he’d have won.
Another race I remember well is the 2003 1000 Guineas, having backed Six Perfections ante-post to win a four figure sum. She got on the rail and had nowhere to go, needing to take a pull and come around the whole field to get a run, finishing fast but failing to catch Russian Rhythem. We will never know if it made the difference, but at the end of the year SP was rated 1 lb above RR by Timeform. That year they all came up the same side, but with a straight rail there was nowhere to go on the inner. With these changes a “cut away” provides better opportunity for those on the inner to get a run. In Group 1 races – where a horse is drawn should make as little difference as possible.
Am pleased Mr Prosser has acted on the e-mail I sent suggesting this cutaway option, although it has taken some time.
Value Is EverythingI also wrote last year, this is my e-mail:
Hi Michael,
Re: Stalls Positioning for the Classics:
I am not one who “blames” the position of stalls for Kingman and Australia getting beat. In my opinion Night Of Thunder was the worthy winner (how it was run). 40/1 doesn’t make him a poor quality winner, Timeform rate Night Of Thunder 126 which is slightly above the average 2000 Guineas winner this century.
It is however, difficult for jockeys on one side to be aware just how the other side are going; resulting in some making their move a touch earlier than they would necessarily have done when they’re all in one group. Had Doyle waited longer on a speed horse in a truly run race – it might (and only “might”) have been a different result.
For fairness, ie the best horse winning – I do believe having the draw in the middle is better than an ordinary rail position. We don’t want a return to the days of Six Perfections needing to come around the whole field. However, Saturday’s running did not aesthetically please.
…If anyone’s fault it is the jockeys – jockeys will rightly always want to do what they see as best for themselves/their own connections – so “fault” is not really the right word anyway.
Their decisions are not your fault Michael, but it may be in your power to stop this happening with a suitable remedy. As said; racing along the rail means some hold up horses do not get a run, with far more hard luck stories than stalls being positioned in the middle. But what about a compromise? Keeping the field together AND keeping the chance of “unlucky in running” to a bear minimum?
Having stalls up against a Stand side false rail for 5½ to 6f around 5 horse widths out from the normal rail position. False rail continuing until “The Bushes” or 2f out, whereby a 90 degree corner opens it completely out to the normal rail, full width of track. Allowing hold up horses covered up on the rail to find room to get a run. This has been used successfully at many racecourses. I know it needs a lot of rail on a straight course, but if not wanting to buy more for just one meeting, am sure nearby racecourses will let you borrow. Does not need to go the full 1m2f, gradually going back to the “true rail” from 1m to say 1m50yrds (or whatever is needed). 1m1f+ races could even still have a middle or far side stalls position anyway, it’s the two Guineas races which are most important.
Might be something worth putting privately to trainers and jockeys for their thoughts?
Thanks for reading.
Value Is EverythingYou can not blame Kingman getting beaten by them splitting, first two were on the same (far) side. Doyle possibly went for home too soon in a well run race and Fallon took advantage.
Oh yes I can. What do you think led to Doyle producing the favourite too early? If he was just riding a race to beat Night Of Thunder he wouldn’t have been beaten. I am afraid you defeat your own argument. If you don’t believe that the field splitting was the main factor in the defeat then there really is no point arguing for change.
How do we think this went? They still ran in 2 groups and it seemed high numbers were favoured.
I’m all in favour of cutaway rails at all tracks as they reduce interference and unlucky losers but it was condemned prior to racing by Lydia Hislop & Steve Mellish mainly on the basis that jockeys would all go for home too early at the cutaway. Saw no evidence of this and even if it did happen wouldn’t it be jockey error? Something unlikely with top jockeys.
Tom Segal also criticised the cutaway rail in todays Racing Post and said it should be binned but give no reasoning.
Meanwhile Prosser said the cutaway was generally well received.How do we think this went? They still ran in 2 groups and it seemed high numbers were favoured.
I’m all in favour of cutaway rails at all tracks as they reduce interference and unlucky losers but it was condemned prior to racing by Lydia Hislop & Steve Mellish mainly on the basis that jockeys would all go for home too early at the cutaway. Saw no evidence of this and even if it did happen wouldn’t it be jockey error? Something unlikely with top jockeys.
Tom Segal also criticised the cutaway rail in todays Racing Post and said it should be binned but give no reasoning.
Meanwhile Prosser said the cutaway was generally well received.They ran in two groups, with one group on the stand rail and one in the middle, they merged late on. Had the stalls been in the centre they may well have split with one group going far side and one stand, without merging.
Jockeys chose to split so if there was a draw bias it was their fault, not the cut away. I saw no evidence of a bias anyway.
It is up to the jockey to judge the pace so the cut away has nothing to do with that, they should be able to judge pace.
Had there not been a cut away Territories (who’d been on the rail) might not have got a run.
Yesterday’s race was truly run, cut aways help more in slower run races where you get more “unlucky in runnings” with horses grouped tightly.
There’s no doubt in my mind cut aways help to prevent unlucky horses, I’ve seen less trouble at Goodwood when it is used (less of a 7f/1m draw bias too). Chester’s works well too.
If it helps one in ten Classics to get the correct result then it is a worthwhile initiative imo – although it was “my idea” so would say it – I don’t see any negative other than being slightly against front-runners (with hold-up horses getting less trouble in running).
Value Is EverythingHow do we think this went? They still ran in 2 groups and it seemed high numbers were favoured.
I’m all in favour of cutaway rails at all tracks as they reduce interference and unlucky losers but it was condemned prior to racing by Lydia Hislop & Steve Mellish mainly on the basis that jockeys would all go for home too early at the cutaway. Saw no evidence of this and even if it did happen wouldn’t it be jockey error? Something unlikely with top jockeys.
Tom Segal also criticised the cutaway rail in todays Racing Post and said it should be binned but give no reasoning.
Meanwhile Prosser said the cutaway was generally well received.It was absolutely fine. The best horse won, that’s the main thing.
Is it any surprise when the ‘media’ club together. Hislop and Mellish were just spouting nonsense in little more than a time filler. I think they were disappointed that there wasn’t some sort of major incident to justify their waffle.
Ginger, are you absolutely sure nobody else suggested the idea? I haven’t read anything giving you the credit?
I think on balance the cut away is a good thing but I agree with Ryan Moore that it gives an advantage to horses drawn close to the rail. The two Guineas winners both benefited from both Ryan’s riding (especially his judgement of pace) and the draw. How could they possibly have lost?
Basically if you are drawn near the rail you can run along it in a straight line, tuck in and get some slipstream, and have no fear of being boxed in at the finish.
Ginger, are you absolutely sure nobody else suggested the idea? I haven’t read anything giving you the credit?
It was with a little tongue in cheek I called it “my idea” Stilvi.
Am sure others had the same idea too, but when I e-mailed Michael Prosser nobody else (that I know of) was suggesting this option. So like to think I had a small part to play anyway. 
…And it’s already paid off with Jazzi Top winning for me today having taken advantage of the cut away.
Know I’ve sugggested it before on here too if anyone can find it?
Value Is EverythingI think on balance the cut away is a good thing but I agree with Ryan Moore that it gives an advantage to horses drawn close to the rail. The two Guineas winners both benefited from both Ryan’s riding (especially his judgement of pace) and the draw. How could they possibly have lost?
Basically if you are drawn near the rail you can run along it in a straight line, tuck in and get some slipstream, and have no fear of being boxed in at the finish.
How did Gleneagles “benefit” Kasparov?
And why can’t those racing a bit wider also “slip-stream” before moving out? Before the changes, those racing wide could go either way to get a run while those on the rail only had one option. If that option was blocked they couldn’t go anywhere. Both rail and wide runners have now got two options – fairer.
I would not say there is “no fear of being boxed in”, Belle D’Or did not manage to get a run today. But it does make “unlucky in running” less likely.
Value Is Everything4 reasons:
1. Ryan Moore said before the race in his Betfair column the draw was probably an advantage and I think he knows what he is talking about
2. Racing on the rail rather than the middle of the track is an advantage as it helps you go in a straight line and it is easier for horses in front of you to run straight so you can slipstream easily
3. Gleneagles was drawn close to the rail so didn’t have to waste distance getting close to it
4. If you assume there is no draw advantage you have to explain why horses run in groups rather than in straight lines from stall to finish. It was obvious there would be a rails group and being on the rail makes it easy to join that group.How are those observations any different to if the cut away not been there Kasparov?
Value Is EverythingPoint 1 depends on the cutaway surely, as it was made by Ryan as a direct comment on the new configuration. Points 2,3 and 4 apply to the cutaway because in the previous arrangement with the stalls in the middle it took more effort to get to the rail so the draw advantage wasn’t there.
I suppose it all boils down to whether you think running near a rail is an advantage on a straight track.I would say so but maybe there is evidence that can settle the issue.
Am sure others had the same idea too, but when I e-mailed Michael Prosser nobody else (that I know of) was suggesting this option. So like to think I had a small part to play anyway. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.