Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Tooting,
I’ve can only manage Le Creuset ovenware, ramekins & the like.
You must be doing better than me! ;)
Hi Guys,
I’m still of the belief that low-drawn horses, particularly ones who can race up with the pace, have got to have an advantage on turning left-hand tracks, because they will invariably travel a shorter distance than those drawn wider. I always use the analogy of an athletics race, say the 800m, or the 4 x 400m relay, where the runners have to keep in lane for the first lap (or lap and a bit), & then break towards the inside. Imagine if all the athletes had to start in a straight line, rather than use a staggered start; there would be absolute uproar, because the wider drawn runners would have to run further than those nearer the kerb……but this same thing happens in horseracing every day. I do agree, that for a bias to have an effect, certain constants & circumstances must be in place. Imo, these are:<br>1. The race has to take place on a turning course.<br>2. The field has to be big enough to cause inconvienence, & thus a negative bias, to badly drawn horses.<br>3. The race really must be truly run. Otherwise, clever jockeys may well be able to overcome a poor draw.<br>4. A large majority of the field, need to be of similar ability, a very competitive race, I suppose. Because imo, for draw bias to work, you need them to be scrummaging for position, especially on the turns, with wider drawn horses, trapped wide. That tends to lead me towards big field handicaps; with maidens, sellers, classified stakes etc. being bad races to consider for a potential draw bias, because they are not always that competitive, & a couple of runners can just out class the rest.
If I can go back to the card at Lingfield, it comprised of two handicaps, a nursery, five maidens & a seller. I wouldn’t worry too much about the draw in the maidens & seller. Even though there were plenty of runners, imo there was no real depth in the maidens & this made the draw far less important. There were only a few decent horses in each race, against loads of 33/1 & 66/1 shots. A Loder/Sheik Mo horse won the first at 1/4f from stall 16, & a Gosden/Sangster won the second at 9/4f from stall 14, & this is on the AW at Lingfield! I struggle to call that draw bias, it’s top stables plundering weak maidens, those horses probably would have won wherever they were drawn. The two 6f handicaps were more of a mystery, they were both won by horses coming from off the pace, with low drawn horses leading, then weakening in the straight. There may be some sort of bias there, but I don’t think it’s as bad as it looks at face value in John’s post. At most LH tracks, in a true run race, I’d still want to be on something drawn low.
I agree that Fallon has a very good understanding of the draw, probably far more so than he’s given credit for, as he doesn’t seem to talk about it in too much depth. It’s backing him when he’s on a real going day that’s the problem for me!
Hi Rob, I’m one of the 99% who disagree with you here. You surely can’t claim that nearly every horse in the KG has not run it’s race……just because you don’t like the result!
It’s fair to say that some may not have run to form, maybe it was over-wated for Grandera, but the connections of Boreal & Aquaralliste are saying it was a bit quick? I’ll be rating the race via Zindabad & Storming Home, who are pretty consistant performers, I can’t think of any reason why they shouldn’t have run to form.
If that proves to be a correct judgement, both Golan and Nayef are, to your horror, G1 performers, maybe not quite up to Sakhee 2001 class, but genuine G1 performers all the same. Storming Home finished 9l behind Golan & Nayef in this years race, last year he got within 3l of Galileo & Fantastic Light. If you take that very literally, this race was better than last years? Probably a bit unfair, as SH was a very progressive 3yo last year & the KG probably came at the right time for him…..the point I’m getting at is that this KG is certainly not a bad one, & the time backs that up.
The highlight of this race has got to be the brilliant training performance of M.Stoute, & the performances of Golan & Nayef (Nayef btw has now run in six G1’s, has won 2 & been placed in 2 others, & finished 4th in another, if thats not consistant G1 form, I don’t know what is)
<br>
I bottled out of laying Grandera, he probably is the most likely winner. In saying that though, I still need to be persuaded he should be a 7/4 shot……he’s no Sakhee.
I have put a bit on Sakhee tonight at 4.6/1, I know it sounds a bit silly, but in the unlikely event that he did run, he certainly would not start anywhere near that price, & if he’s declared a non runner I’ll get my money back. I did end up backing Aquarelliste each way at 16/1.
My attempt at the first three are Aquarelliste, Zindabad & Grandera.
<br>
Mark Winstanley may be a bit fickle. In todays Weekender he says "Get on Golan & Aquarelliste to give Godophin pair the elbow."
To give credit where it’s due, I think the Weekender have excelled themselves with their KG coverage today. All the regulars have reviewed the race, & there’s a full page pedigree review by a lady called Rachel Pagones as well.
<br>
Nice reviews Mesh & Tony25, my streamlined thoughts at the moment are;
I think there has got to be a question mark about Sakhee even taking part. There’s been no rain as yet & the weather looks set fair for the rest of the week. Even if they water, the best I think it will be good to firm, will they risk him on that type of ground, or save him for the Autumn?
Grandera will probably have his ground, but has never won over 12f in his life…I suppose there’s a first time for everything though! I’d be happy to try & take him on at below 2/1.
I really do hope that Aquarelliste runs, I’d look forward seeing her. If she was a guaranteed starter, I’d be having a bit on her at 16/1, that looks overpriced considering Golan, who she beat in the Arc, is only an 8/1 shot & hasn’t run for 8 months. I’d be happy to forgive her the last run.
I’ve always though highly of Nayef, & I’ve got a hunch that he is an Autumn horse. If you break down his form (I’ve ignored his Dubai win beacuse I don’t know where to put it!), his record between Apr-July is 38334, & between Aug-Oct it is 111111. You can argue that some of those 1’s were soft races, but I’m convinced he’ll be winning over the next few months.
On the likely fast ground Zindabad looks sure to run his race. I think I’d be a bit dissappointed if he was good enough to win a race like this, but I suppose anything is possible. I can’t see why Storming Home should finish in front of Zindabad? I’d hope, for the status of the race, something of true G1 class will finish in front of both of those.
<br>
Hi Escorial, I think your last paragraph sums up the situation quite well, it’s as much about what people "hoped" he would do…..& that was fuelled further by his peformance in the 2000gns, which was perceived as unfortunate or unlucky. I take your point about Aramram being a miler, but to re-phrase my argument slightly; if J.Spencer had started his run earlier on HW in the 2000gns, imo he would have finished further than 5l ahead of Aramram.
I actually feel sorry for the horse a bit (HW), he probably had the hardest race of any in the 2000gns after being given so much to do, then the effort to get as close as he did to HC in the Derby on softish ground, that’s alot of hard work for no tangible reward. I see Godophin were pinning their Eclipse hopes on HW having had edge taken off of him by those hard races, & I think that’s a fair point. In no way is it an excuse for HW not achieving wonder horse status (btw. I think he’s still genuine G1 class) but those races may be worth considering when looking towards the rest of the season. I believe the 2000gns was his race….& he really should have won it! I still have a belief, that the result of that race, was the one that Coolmore wanted, I’ll leave it at that. He hasn’t been a betting proposition for me since then, & is not likely to be in future races.
With regard to Compton Dragon, do you think that was his true running in the Jersey stakes, if it was, it would make Meshaheer a cracking bet for what looks to be a weakish July Cup. Over the past few weeks a few of the G.Butler horses have been running a bit below par, maybe there was something not quite right there. On a slightly different note, there is definitely something wrong with the E.Dunlop horses.
I wasn’t really impressed by HW yesterday, even accepting the fact he travelled so well into the straight. I suppose he didn’t need to do any more, but I was hoping to see a more impressive performance in the last two furlongs. It’s something of an irony that probably his most modest performance of the year, wins him a G1.
We may be doing Sholokhov a disservice here also, he was good, but he could just be getting better. For a few strides there in the Irish Derby I thought he had High Chaparral in trouble.
Esc, I understand the door you’re pushing at with the form of RoG & HW, & the fact that you can’t keep making excuses for a horse that finishes behind another….but I still believe it was a travesty that HW got beat in the 2000gns, & that it had nothing to do with the horses ability at all. It’s very logical to use Aramram to calculate collateral form, which does put RoG & HW very close together (both beat him about 5l), but that doesn’t take into account the way HW was powering away in the 2000gns, another furlong & probably would have been 10l or more ahead of Aramram. If HW & RoG were to clash again, & both were well, the only possible way I could see HW getting beaten would be on very soft ground, with RoG seems to handle so well.
Hi Steve, it’s not a case of me misunderstanding the dosage theory….it’s just a case of me politely questioning it. The theory may be set in stone, but it’s principles are surely not above debate, are they? The point about the number & quality of chef de race sires is very fair one. The secondary lists seem do seem by far the best direction to follow. Btw, do you intend to use the secondary lists in any way?
Sal, don’t start on Mr.Prospector crosses or I will end up out of my depth! :confused:<br>At the risk of repeating myself, my comments were not just about HW’s tail female line. It was much a more general point, that probably applies to 100’s & 1000’s of poor horses, who just don’t pick up many dosage points from certain parts of their pedigree due to lack of qualifying sires. I know, I know…..that’s what dosage is all about. ;)
<br>
Hi Steve, you weren’t trying to be patronising in your last post, were you? And here’s me thinking I do understand the principle, what part don’t you think I understand?
One of the points I was getting at is very fundamental one. That being being dosage will reflect speed/stamina etc. only where there are chef de race sires in that particular horse’s pedigree. I understand that is at the very heart of dosage. My debating point is; with so few chef de race sires, is it right (or fair) to totally ignore any other influence. As an example, who’s to say that Val De L’Orne is not an influence for stamina, whilst, say, Chaucer is? It’s very subjective. I think I’d be more comfortable if there were a larger pool of chef de race sires. What are your views on that issue?
To reiterate another of my points. When a horse gains an unhealthy pertcentage of dosage points from one half of his/her pedigree (& I accept it could be either side). It’s not unreasonable to suggest that that half of the pedigree is going to be disproportionately represented in his final dosage figures. I accept this is the norm for dosage calculations, but I am not totally at ease with this. Which brings me back to Hawk Wing, in his case you could agrue his dosage represents his sires side OK, but is not that representative of his dams side. His dosage, whilst being accurate, ignores stamina infuences that a pedigree analylsis would not.
After all that, I am a great supporter of the dosage theory, but I’m not adverse to seeking, & bolting on additional information where I feel it may help.
Sorry, it’s not really Steve Roman’s dosage theory, is it.
The other point I forgot to mention; is whilst I totally accept different parts of a pedigree are more infuential than others (& are thus given more dosage points). If the belief that sires & dams pass on their abilities & preferences in at least equal proportions is correct. There surely needs to be some balance between the way dosage points are contributed from the sire’s side and the dam’s side of a the pedigree, respectively. A situation where a horse is getting say 26 points from his sire’s side & 4 points from his dam’s side, or vice-versa, is not ideal, is it?
Steve, I’m comfortable that the female line is included in dosage calculations, I have never suggested otherwise.
….but as you say, it can only be factored in, when there are qualifying stallions in that particular part of a horses pedigree. In HW’s case, he gets very few of his 30 dosage points from his dam’s side because of the lack of chef de race sires in his female line. That does not necessarily mean there are no stamina influences there, for example. It is just that they are not recognised by the dosage system. If you have a colt like HW, whose dosage points are so skewed towards his sires top line, with relatively little contribution (points-wise) from his dams side, does that constitue an accurate reading?
I’m not suggesting dosage calculations are of no use. I am questioning why a chef de race stallion assigned as solid or professional, should be seen (& calculated) as being almost guaranteed to pass on his influence, yet a non chef de race sire will be completely ignored. I realise that is the way of Steve Roman’s dosage theory, but does it not pay to use a little bit of poetic licence in these instances.
Then you’re on to the very subjective issue of; what is a prepotent stallion and a chef de race sire, & who decides? A different debate for a different time, I think.
<br>
Do you think that Hawk Wing is short of stamina? I understand his dosage figures lead people to think that, but there’s quite a bit of stamina on his dams side…..it’s just that using the Chef de Race criteria laid down by Steve Roman, that dam-side stamina doesn’t find it’s way into his profile. It’s commonly accepted that the dam imparts a lot of her traits to her offspring, some say more so than the sire, but in Hawk Wing’s case the vast majority of his dosage points actually come from his sire’s line. I’m not criticising the calculation of dosage, or any of the Steve’s work, I follow it all with interest & respect, but if you haven’t got many Chef de Race sires in your pedigree, from a dosage point of view, your knackered, regardless of how fast, slow, good or bad your horse may be. I think even Steve Roman may have started to think along those lines. I’m not totally certain about this, but I think he is now producing secondary lists of the influences of non-chef de race sires & dam sires. I’m assuming these are being produced to compliment a normal dosage profile? Going back to Hawk Wing, the dam side of his pedigree may not be that classical, but there is stamina in there. The progeny of HW’s dam-sire, Val de L’orne, have an average winning distance of 1m5½f.
I don’t think HW is a bet at current prices, & he’s probably not likely to be a bet now at all, but I do fancy him to get 12 furlongs. I’ll grant you a few other Derby contenders may have a likelier dosage profile, but I’m not sure if any of them possess the amount of class that Hawk Wing does.
I certainly agree that the best horse did not win the 2000gns, but was that the jockeys fault or the trainers? I saw AOB walking the course before racing had started, & I’ll bet he wasn’t doing it just for the exercise, he was trying to establish where the best ground was.
AOB has clearly given Spencer instructions to race on an unfavoured part of the track, & riding to orders Spencer has ended up closest to the stands rail. If AOB told Spencer to hold the horse up as well (we don’t know that) I don’t see what else the poor jockey could have done. If Spencer was not told to hold the horse up, then I agree he was just too slow to react to the threat from the far-side group. Imo HW would have won if he had been raced prominently down the centre or stand side of the track.
Who are the winners & losers, well the punters were the losers (including me). AOB & his family were winners, having now bred a classic winner in RoG, & AOB gets a 1-2 in a classic thrown in for good measure. Alex Ferguson was a winner, he’s now a classic winning owner, ironic as the Coolmore operation seem to have been buttering him up for some time (or maybe they are patronising him & no-one actually realises!) Maybe he’s the new chairman in waiting of Man Utd., with the Coolmore supremos as the controlling shareholders?
Whatever the reasoning, I find it a most unsatisfactory outcome, & my opinion of AOB has gone down quite a bit since last week. Sttill a great trainer, but his own man & punter friendly, I’m now not sure. The fact that HW is now 1/3 to reverse the placings in the Irish 2000gns says it all.
btw Well done Escorial on your jockey booking hunch. Although I’m still convinced that on a level playing field the likes of RoG & Redback will be well & truly put in thier place….but then I’m still smarting from my loss!
Sal, I think you are correct in saying Majed’s rating is based on his hurdling form. I don’t have a problem with the way those type of horses are handicapped, there has got to be a system, its never going to please everyone.
The area I do agree with Raymondo on; is the fact that an experienced, seasoned chased can be kept out of a race like the GN by a horse that has not raced over fences for some time. There is a minimum age limit for the race, maybe there should be an even more stringent quality threshold, and an experience threshold that all runners have to meet. It would be a nightmare to enforce, but is it right that a horse should be able to run from stones out of the handicap? Is it right that a 5yo with ten completed chases to his name can’t run…but a 9yo who has only had a few runs over fences & fell on occasions can? Is it right that Majed whose last nine races have been hurdles, should be allowed to run? I’d be saying no to those types of question.
I think if these type of controls were in place, you would get an even more competitive race, & maybe one with fewer casualties, thus making it a bit more palettable to the non-racing public.
As an aside (& honestely not Pipe bashing), maybe the trainer deliberately campaigned Majed that way (not getting him a chasing mark, knowing full well that was his only real chance of getting the horse into the race proper). A little bit sneaky, but I don’t think any rules have been broken.
<br>
I always thought that coupling the pacemaker with the horse he was making the pace for, was a good idea, but there would only be a few cases where such a practice would even be admitted to. If Godophin have two in a race, they normally tell you they are both there running on their merits (I suppose their results back them up a bit, don’t they)
I’m not sure if you can take much further without infringing the owners human rights. If they own a horse & it meets the entry criteria of a race, why shouldn’t it be allowed to be entered or run. With the JC & BHB’s staunch support of owners, I don’t see them even considering such a proposal.
Do strongly agree with stronger sanctions & even punishment for trainers who break or are seen to manipulate the present rules (even if that does mean more rule changes).
<br>
