Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Lydia and Steve are RUK.
If they’re the faces of the channel, God help us all.
Like you, I think that Jonathan Neesom is by far their best presenter; he should get much more airtime, preferably in partnership with Mellish. The latter knows his stuff but can’t deliver it in any coherent form; he’s still better than Hislop, who simply regurgitates the same old hackneyed drivel ad nauseam.
Don’t agree at all re Lydia Hislop she is a class presenter. Steve Mellish (really knows his stuff) and Jonathan Neesom are outstanding also.
The best three on Racing UK / ATR by an absolute street.
Nick Luck, Mat Chapman, Sean Boyce are also very good.
Mark Howard, Martin Kelly are worth their salt.
Some others are tolerable, some are dismal Bob Cooper, Mick Fitgerald, Oli Bell, James Willoughby fall into the latter category.
It is STILL the best race in the world for me. Not it’s not always won by a great horse but it shouldn’t be.
The hope, the expectation, the occasion make it the event it is. There is nothing quite like Derby Day.
How could Gosden consider pulling Kingman out? Today’s ground was exactly what the horse wanted and that’s not aftertiming, everyone knew that surely?
I think that man over-thinks and over-worries.
I agree it was not good viewing and certainly helped the winner who would of benefitted from it. The jockey on TNT was certainly looking over and at the half way stage the 3 at the rear of the field ended up 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
The point I’m making is in any race a change of tactics shouldn’t necessary be made public.
Agreed, although if a horse is likely to be used as a pacemaker I think that should be made public. I do, however, think punters have to be protected. I understand that as a jockey Richard Hughes’ responsibility is to the owner of the horse and to the trainer but it looked to me like the punters who backed that horse were treated with utter contempt as Montiridge was given no chance of running to his mark.
If authorities allow this sort of thing to happen unchallenged then not only is it unfair to punters but it is also open to corruption. The easiest way to get a horse beat is to do something that disadvantages it and I think that here is a key point.
I think Richard Hughes should be made to explain HOW he thought the tactics he used were going to increase his horse’s chance of winning that race. I’d love to hear that. In fact next time Hughes is interviewed on RUK / ATR / C4 I hope somebody has the bottle to ask him that very question and to push him on his reply if necessary. As yet, as far as I’m aware, no-one has asked him. If they have could somebody fill me in on the conversation please and if the question is asked over the coming days could someone point it out please in case I miss it?
Nathan. I think changing tactics is fine if it’s an attempt to be of a benefit to the horse and therefore an attempt to improve the horse’s chance in a race.
I cannot see in this case, how anyone on earth who knows anything about horse racing or the horse in question could possibly have thought those tactics were going to benefit Montiridge.
Was it simply awful tactics from Hughes? Was he under orders to ride the horse that way to help benefit Olympic Glory? Was he under orders from the owner / trainer to ride Montiridge that way?
I did drop an email to the BHA and received this cursory anonymous response below;-
Thank you for your email.
I can assure you that all races are watched closely by the stewards and monitored by betting analysts.
Any concerns over the rides given to a horse are fully investigated by our integrity department and Disciplinary hearings held where there is evidence of a breach of the Rules of Racing.
Regards
Subject: Newbury- Lockinge Stakes- ride on Montiridge
Dear Sir/Madam,
I went to Newbury on Saturday where the G1 Lockinge Stakes took place.
This of course resulted in a comfortable and populist win for the short priced favourite Olympic Glory, ridden by Frankie Dettori and trained by Richard Hannon.
However I was surprised that the stewards did not enquire into the ride given by Richard Hughes to the stablemate of the winner, Montiridge.
This horse was 9/1 on Thursday but was backed into 9/2 on the day.
The horse (which had had a start this season and should not have been over- fresh) set the pace, initially ploughing a lone course, before burning itself out after 6f and finishing last.
Ridden this way backers had no chance.
Arguably it did not run on its merits and was used as a pacemaker to set the race up for the favourite.In his Saturday Racing Post column, Hughes strongly supported the favourite Olympic Glory and stated that the stable believed that Montiridge COULD win a G1 itself but that it would not be this one. I guess punters should have read between the lines and drawn their conclusions.
I was NOT a backer of Montiridge and have no vested interest other than the credibility of racing. I am sure that connections could readily excuse the ride but was surprised no questions were posed on the day by the stewards.
Yours faithfully
That is well written and thank you for the feedback. However the passage in bold doesn’t sit well with me. Firstly, on the morning of a race punters are often travelling to meetings or checking prices or form or weather conditions etc they simply cannot read every quote by every trainer, jockey or owner about every horse racing on that day.
Secondly, Hughes’ comment that the stable believed that Montiridge could win a G1 but it wouldn’t be that day is surely an opinion on the horses chance (which is fine). He doesn’t say anything about giving the horse a totally different ride to what suits it in order to (maybe) set the race up for it’s stable companion.
At one time here in the US horses from the same yard were put on the same ticket.Back one you backed both.A good idea in my opinion.So the pacemaker is the same price as the fav.or whatever the other horse from the yard, for whom he is pacemaker, is priced at.Hope I am clear.
Similar as in France on the PM – coupling owners horses.
I’m not sure I’m in favour of that system to be honest.
I don’t like slamming jockeys or moaning about rides but I really do think it is totally unfair on punters when a fancied horse is ridden completely differently (some may say sacrificed) and no-one has any idea that that is going to happen. I’d press anyone, anywhere to tell me they truly expected Montiridge to be ridden as he was.
The game is hard enough without that sort of thing.
Maybe trainers should have to declare a possible pacemaker at the 48 hour stage? I’m not sure how feasible that is I’m just thinking to myself as I go along really. At least if a trainer declared a POSSIBLE pacemaker punters would have in mind that possibility then they could choose to take the chance on backing that horse or not.
I think Australia is a well deserving favourite but should he be odds on? Not for me.
The Derby is usually one of those races that is better being judged after the event but at this stage contrary to some of what you read in the press and hear via the media I think it could be potentially a decent renewal (lets say all stand their ground).
More than once over the last few years it’s been O’Brien horses, maybe another Irish (top) contender and ……………………… where’s the home challenge? This year we have the usual O’Brien squad, Fascinating Rock and then quite a few lightly raced and / or progressive home challengers: Arod, Snow Sky, True Story, Kingston Hill, Western Hymn, Romsdal (if he runs) all are interesting and with legitimate chances. I wouldn’t rule True Story out just because he got beaten in a small field Dante, he has stamina on both sides of his pedigree and is almost sure to see out the trip. With the likes of True Story, Romsdal and Western Hymn you have three horses there who will not fail for stamina. Kingston Hill may or may not stay, the same with Arod and Snow Sky almost certainly will.
Compare this Derby with Camelot’s Derby when the field was atrocious to the point where Main Sequence finished second and to be frank I reckon I could give him a race.
Australia is a very deserving favourite in that I think the third in the Guineas is the best piece of form on offer by some way BUT given that he is still only a G3 winner, O’Brien’s history of hyperbole, he hasn’t proved his stamina and we don’t know if he’ll handle Epsom, together with the fact that there are quite a few unexposed challengers lining up – is he really more likely to win the race than not? I wouldn’t say so. Somewhere around 7/4 – 2/1 I’d say would be a more accurate reflection of his true chance.
The odds for Australia seem a little ridiculous.
What I would like to know is why nobody is talking about Kingston Hill any more?
His win the in Racing Post Trophy was to my eye pretty impressive. And the fact that Grey Gatsby has turned his Guineas form around recently bodes well for KH IMO.
But 14-1
I am not a gambler, but even I feel that is worth a punt!
He’s a sneaking under the radar horse isn’t he? If he gets the trip he’s a player.
IMO yesterday’s Lockinge was a weak renewal. Olympic Glory was in a different league. He goes well fresh and blinkers have sharpened him up. Only doubt was the ground, which he got away with but was also of no help to the likes of Tullius and Top Notch Tonto.
Of those behind, Tullius is just a G2 6 year old horse who started his season in the Lincoln Handicap. Top Notch Tonto did too much but in any event needs soft and is held by the winner on past meetings. The O’Brien horse was sweaty in the paddock but showed promise first time on turf transferred from US dirt and many of Aiden’s seemed to need a race this season. Montiridge was given a puzzling ride similar to that of Toormore in the Guineas, setting a fast pace and initially racing alone. He could have been said to have acted as pacemaker for his winning stablemate and was a spent force after 6f. If you backed him you had no chance. Hughes was strong on the fav in his RP column and said Montiridge could win a G1 but it wouldn’t be this one! Perhaps that was a clue.
The older milers look weak and I wouldn’t go overboard about Olympic Glory who had run of the race on the day. Toronado (same ownership) is talented but another hit or miss type who seems to have breathing issues. Likely they will be kept apart for a while.
Perhaps a younger pretender will rule the roost? I thought the Guineas was strong and it is too early to write off unplaced horses like Toormore. Ascot will reveal more.There is talk of stepping up Olympic Glory (and Tullius) in trip.Hughes’ ride on Montiridge was a disgrace IMO – unless it was previously made public that he was likely to set the pace.
Anyone who knows that horse knew he had no chance of winning the second Hughes did what he did and therefore I’d argue that that horse was not given the chance to achieve it’s best possible finishing position.
I’m all for pace makers they guarantee a proper pace to run at but punters should at least be informed. Montiridge had been backed from 9/1 on the Thursday to 9/2 on the off and yet was ridden to have no chance whatsoever of winning the race.
The french 2000 Guineas took place at Longchamp today.
The winner
Avenir Certain
was quite impressive, showing great speed in the last furlongs. She’s still unbeaten and is an interesting filly to follow in her next races.
Veda
finished 2nd (an Aga Khan-bred filly) and was impressive as well making huge ground in the home straight on the winner.
That’s the French 1000 Guineas. The 2000 Guineas was won by Karaknotie.
Oh sorry. I have no idea what was in my mind.
No problem, we all make mistakes.
I was quite impressed with Avenir Certain, more so than Karakontie. I don’t think he’s any more than an average winner. The filly has a fine turn of foot.
The french 2000 Guineas took place at Longchamp today.
The winner
Avenir Certain
was quite impressive, showing great speed in the last furlongs. She’s still unbeaten and is an interesting filly to follow in her next races.
Veda
finished 2nd (an Aga Khan-bred filly) and was impressive as well making huge ground in the home straight on the winner.
That’s the French 1000 Guineas. The 2000 Guineas was won by Karaknotie.
One more thing I’d like to see RUK do is decide on a principal meeting (particularly big meetings) and show that meeting alone whilst showing lesser meetings behind the red button.
Just put me in charge of the channel, I’ll sort it out.
No thanks, get back in your straitjacket.
Red button – An ATR idea that was only available to Sky viewers.
More chat – no, that’s another thing ATR do too much of.
A better idea would be to broadcast 2 channels on the busy days, one subscription free.
The chat doesn’t have to replace anything other than endless replays I don’t see any loss just a gain.
Red button – OK
IF
they can broadcast 2 channels without increasing the subscription fee. I really can’t see that happening but if it does, very good!
ATR’s coverage is abysmal.
The only programme worth watching is Sunday Forum and even then only when either Matt Chapman or Sean Boyce are hosting. Bob Cooper, dear me, he’s like a doddery old grandad and I spend most of my time yawning when he’s on.
RUK isn’t perfect but better, they need more programmes – example why no flat season preview programme? Epsom Derby – why not a programme the night before the race? Get people in the mood. There should be far more studio programmes, some people love the chat not just the action. Why not a RUK version of Sunday Forum?
The race coverage is good.
Presenter wise there are a couple of lightweights Oli Bell, Niall Hannerty but most are decent and one or two are outstanding.
Glad Ascot is coming to RUK the race coverage will be much, much better.
One more thing I’d like to see RUK do is decide on a principal meeting (particularly big meetings) and show that meeting alone whilst showing lesser meetings behind the red button.
Just put me in charge of the channel, I’ll sort it out.
I was one who said it is a poor spectacle when the field splits. I would like you to explain to me please how my comment was "sour grapes" or I made it because there was a 40-1 winner?
I backed Toormore and War Command who both would’ve been beaten however the race had been run.
I have no complaint about the winner nor have I any link to Kingman or Australia therefore what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
You, Stilvi and whoever else wants to believe that punters are all neutral and totally subjective commentators in their analysis in the aftermath of a race, where they have had an opinion and/or a bet, have the right to do so. However, I find it hard to believe that if War Command or Toormore had won you would have been anything less than a happy camper.
Opinions often start based on what TV commentators say and we had two analysts in Graeme Cunningham and Jim McGrath who had just seen their hard work and opinions blown out of the water with a 40/1 winner. The natural reaction is to look for a reason that they were so badly wrong and question whether it was a freak result.
John Gosden was quoted as having blamed the draw and that is sure to have set off a feeling of being hard done by amongst Kingman backers. I was on Kingman at 9/1 and he was my second biggest take out from the race after Toormore at 20/1. I have no complaint whatever about the draw, the split or the spectacle. One horse was beaten by another who had a stronger finish on the day.
I didn’t watch Channel 4’s coverage so whatever Jim and / or Graham said means nothing to me.
Of course I’d have been happy had either of my horses won but there was no excuse, had the field stayed together still neither would’ve got close to winning (IMO). In a funny sort of way it could be argued that I was reasonably pleased to see Night Of Thunder win as I was pretty convinced that Kingman and Australia were woefully short in the market and at least a big priced winner goes a little way to reassuring me that I’d got my tissue right to some degree.
For what it’s worth I think Gosden is talking rubbish about the split affecting Kingman but that’s just my opinion.
I don’t like to see fields split in Group one races because these are top grade races and should be won by the best horse on the day and the result shouldn’t be affected by a lesser pace one side of the track or softer ground on one side of the track which can happen. A group one winning horse should be winning the race on merit and we should be limiting as many contributing factors to the result as possible.
You seem to be intent on making a point (again) which doesn’t exist. I haven’t read anyone criticising the race purely because there was a 40/1 winner.
It is self evident that the big outsider winning has been the cause of the outcry. Had the favourite prevailed there would be little comment.
People don’t want to mention the fact that an outsider won because they don’t want their comments to seem like sour grapes or pocket talk.
The best horse won on the day and I await the explanation on how the race would have been more spectacular if they had raced in one group.
I was one who said it is a poor spectacle when the field splits. I would like you to explain to me please how my comment was "sour grapes" or I made it because there was a 40-1 winner?
I backed Toormore and War Command who both would’ve been beaten however the race had been run.
I have no complaint about the winner nor have I any link to Kingman or Australia therefore what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
