Forum Replies Created
- Posts
And of course, anyone who can work a stopwatch would have far superior knowledge, despite the different camera angles and imprecise delineations?
Not to mention the ‘superfast’ 33/1 shot Lesson In Humility who, far from being pressed, challenged or led right up to the furlong pole. Nor was it a "snap visual impression" to see the field still virtually in a line with one and a half to go, it’s still the same every time I watch it, a sure sign of none too searching a pace earlier.
And if you feel the majority of the field "was being pushed along at an early stage" I’d suggest you put down your watch and view a few more races, because your present race reading skills wouldn’t get you a job at the Beano.
End of discussion, imvho!The sectionals, for those who prefer reasonably reliable evidence to guessers opinions :-
Golden Jubilee
first 2f – 25.86
middle 2f – 21.73
final 2f – 27.31The third furlong was particularly quick which is why most of the field were being pushed along before halfway.
Wokingham
first 2f – 25.90
middle 2f – 22.13 (Markab leading by 0.52 secs)
final 2f – 26.16Basically most of the Golden Jubilee field were knackered before the final furlong, going too fast and racing each other too early on the easy ground. Art C and Cannonball stayed on past beaten horses to pick up the pieces.
In the Wokingham the pace was a little more even with, contrary to the commentator, Jimmy Fortune and co, the faster pace being with Markab on the stand side. Again the whole field was slowing down in the final 2f but not as dramatically on the better ground on the far side where again High Standing and Asset stayed on past beaten horses.
There are some useful pointers for future races in there which could not be gained by guessing as to the pace and its effect.
More poppycock, I’m afraid Blackheath, as a quick look at the GJ replay on ATR will verify.
Not only are the whole field bunched until the final quarter, the early pace is so steady that the commentator (Richard Hoiles) was moved to comment on it – not once, but twice.
Imo, the CoC comes out with a deal more credit than those viewing the results through their pockets; Greg Wood included, no doubt.You are digging yourself a big hole here reet hard.
Unlike you I did not write my post after a quick look at ATR but after a very long look taking sectional timings of the Golden Jubilee and Wokingham. Richard Hoiles could have been correct about the first half furlong but they soon quickened and reached the 4f to go marker quicker than in the Wokingham. Perhaps he based the second comment on his impression of JJ The Jet Plane and Sacred Kingdom and the relatively bunched field. He may not have taken into account the very quick Lesson In Humility niggled along to get front rank and the majority of the field pushed along at an early stage. I don’t blame him for that, snap visual impressions are often misleading. But anybody who wants their opinion taken seriously would not rely on them would they?
Scenic Blast is 18 plus hands high. Would look more at home in a Budweiser advert.
Do they have drugs that make horses taller as well?
Along with his 7ft 6in jockey and 9ft plus handler they make quite a spectacle for those with tall screen TV.
Blackheath
As Robert99 pointed out in an earlier post on the subject, the stand side ground was poached by the end of the meeting, purely as a result of traffic throughout the week. That much is evident on the replays by the divots being kicked up, but that does not mean the ground was any softer, and it certainly didn’t hinder Art Connoisseur coming up the stand rail to win the Golden Jubilee.
Conspiracy theories apart, it’s difficult to see what possible advantage the Ascot executive could feasibly gain from anything other than a fair and even racecourse?Well if you do not accept evidence from trainer’s and jockeys, how about times?
Since 2002 when the Golden Jubilee was first raced on the Saturday alongside the Wokingham the Golden Jubilee has been won on average in a time 0.40 faster than the Wokingham. Spread 1.04 faster to 0.05 slower.
On Saturday the Golden Jubilee was 0.71 slower !Ah the pace must have been slower I hear you say. No it wasn’t. In the Golden Jubilee they went through the first two furlongs marginally faster.
So by design or incompetence the stand side was made much slower than the far side. By around a second might be a fair assessment (0.40 + 0.71), though those that believe there was a stand side advantage before Friday nights watering might claim a bigger turnaround than that.
Is it right that a Clerk of the Course does that ruining the chances of many horses and punters?
carvillshill
Presumably those would be the same lazy minds that have based their opinion of the watering of Ascot on the Friday night on the comments of trainers and jockeys who actually walked the course beforehand and had runners in the race?
Just one example from a Greg Wood piece –
"The ones that came up the stands’ side looked like they’d been out jumping," David Nicholls, who had four runners in the Wokingham, drawn 31, 20, 19 and 3, said yesterday.
"The lass who washed down Van Bossed [who started from stall 3] said that he was covered in mud, but on the others, there was no mud at all. Something certainly happened somewhere to level it up compared to the rest of the week. You have to remember that it’s still really a new course, and so you’re bound to get teething problems, but if it’s all the same for everybody, people won’t get as upset as they are.
"What happened on Saturday took a lot of people by surprise. I spoke to Kevin Ryan after he’d walked the course and he said that no way did you want to be stands’ side. There was no sort of a race there, but we won’t get our money back."
So a lazy mind would be anyone who doesn’t agree with you and the official line despite all of the evidence to the contrary?
What this thread says to me is that enthusiasts of horse racing expect those in a position to influence how the sport is broadcast and presented to do that for the good of the sport. Some hopes !
As for the acceptance of change there are three types of change. Change for the better, change for the worse and change for changes sake. Politicians are always telling the people that they must accept change. What they mean is comply and do it my way.
Broadcasting and the media will be dumbed down. Resistance is futile.
If that is so why are their performances at 5f so much better than at 6f.
I would accept that at 5f they have proved the point (Overdose apart) but at 6f Aussie sprinters have not stood out as better than anyone else’s.
Quite so.
MJ is a fine trainer, but a poor loser.
That would be relevant if he had lost to an Aussie sprinter, but he hasn’t. Also he was expressing the same concerns when Takeover Target was found with steroids in his system last year.
There are always those who prefer to bury their head in the sand over performance enhancing drugs, but if cycling and athletics are any example that is not a clever thing to do. Those sports have suffered badly and have had to resort to intrusive and costly out of competition testing.
The accusations will linger because Choisir came over looking the equine equivalent of Ben Johnson and his improvement was the source of wonderment at the time. Also Takeover Target was caught with steroids in his system, and it is thought that some part of the effect of steroids can last indefinitely.
So just as drug use in athletics and cycling etc means that all exceptional performances are looked on with suspicion so on past evidence are the Australian sprinters. Also for me Overdose who is hiding in Hungary with a foot problem which no one was allowed to look at whilst he is protected by heavies?
There must be several Royal Ascot races which deserve the title
favourite’s graveyard
but the King’s Stand takes some beating. Since Lochsong won in 1994 the only winning favourite has been Miss Andretti. Over this period there have been winners at 33/1, 25/1, 22/1 (last year), 20/1 x 2, 16/1 x 2 etc.
They are both the same 13 lengths.
Add neck, 3 lengths, 3 1/4 lengths etc = 13 lengths
Find it difficult to agree with a pace bias. Rievaulx World (12) is very quick, but Mythical Flight (3) is a fast front runner, Captain Gerrard (7) has led every race he has been in for nearly two years and Equiano (9) made all last year and now has blinkers.
The videos I have seen suggest that Scenic Blast is a hold up horse who is brought through the field to challenge. Is that how you expect him to be ridden or misleading?
European so called sprinters are much of nothing.
Yes we hear the same thing every year but the Golden Jubilee has been won by European (British) sprinters for the last three years.
The Betfred.com Temple Stakes (group 2) Haydock 3.10 has prize money of £100,000, £56,770 to the winner has attracted a poor fields considering the prize money.
Owners and trainers moan about the cash on offer but when there is a big purse, this happens.
Sorry that is total nonsense. Amongst the declarations are :-
A double Group One winner
Another Group One winner
A Group 2 winner
Three double Group Three winners
Two other Group Three winners
and Listed winners.The fact that the going is very heavy and most horses don’t act on it isn’t anyone’s fault.
Interesting…
It was suggested on here that Goodwood might not be ideal for her prior to the race and I noted her trainer expressed similar reservations in the RP quotes prior to the race.
She will still be of real interest on a more conventional track, especially if her recent defeat is taken at face value by the market. She is definitely best when held up with cover…
Crimson Fern ran one of her best races leading throughout until caught on the line by Hoh Hoh Hoh at Sandown last August off 94. I backed her at Bath but was not expecting her to do as well on a downhill track. Best not to be too dogmatic about run style though. She ran too freely to halfway at Goodwood, for whatever reason?
This question revolves around the issue of power and williness to use it.
The horses are the product. If the horses don’t turn up there is no race meeting, nobody can bet on it, nobody can earn a living from it. A completely different situation from many of the sports mentioned above. Racecourses, on course bookmakers, caterers and others would eventually go broke if the horses did not turn up.
In many other
professional spectator sports
there have been battles between the owners of the facilities and organisations eg football clubs and Football League versus the players over the maximum wage.
In horse racing there have been only very minor skirmishes eg last years Yarmouth prize money protest.
If racehorses owners had ever been an organised determined group prepared to take on Racecourses I am sure that there would be appearance money and plenty of it. The fact is they never have been. So the Sunday appearance money scheme is just a token to overcome minor resistance to Sunday race meetings.
There is the argument that racehorse owners need racecourses and vice versa. However these days one group is making substantial profits out of it and the other group is paying very large sums for the privilege. Sums that make the Levy almost irrelevant.
There is a unhealthy lack of balance there.
Not to mention the ‘superfast’ 33/1 shot Lesson In Humility who, far from being pressed, challenged or led right up to the furlong pole. Nor was it a "snap visual impression" to see the field still virtually in a line with one and a half to go, it’s still the same every time I watch it, a sure sign of none too searching a pace earlier.