Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Was Mambazo that horse that was ridden from the front at Kempton, then dropped out the back and never put in the race by William Carson next time out?
It’ll be interesting to see how he’s ridden tonight…
He must be a real liability when he’s trying to cross the road…
In all seriousness though that was an absolutely shocking display from Nicky McKay, and I can’t for the life of me work out why he didn’t look left at least once – he looked right, for prolonged periods, three or four times.
He’ll have plenty of time to think about how his neck works now, though I’m praying we don’t hear the usual ‘ah, poor lad, he’s gutted’ from connections.
No, Mikky, it was to be the decision of either David Pipe or the travelling head lad TO trot the horse up. As neither told the stable lass to comply with the stewards’ request, she did nothing. Whether that means they told her not to do as asked, or didn’t inform her on way or another, we don’t know.
Imperial Harry and Seven Is My Number didn’t exactly look on top form for Pipe either…
The same theory can’t be applied in this case, Gingertipster, because you can’t predict interference, whether it be accidental or intentional. And, should an in-racing incident prevent a horse from winning, it is only right that the ‘winner’ be demoted (assuming of course that the beneficiary of the stewards’ decision would have won, without question).
It’s the ‘until I’m told otherwise’ that would worry me, GD
He’s currently 10/1 for the Supreme, and 11/4 for the Triumph, and I wouldn’t put it past McManus to change his mind and have a crack at the former. Just looking at the markets, 5 firms introduced Franchoek into their Supreme betting today…
When you back any horse you have to factor in the competence of the jockey, and as such any dropping of hands resulting in the loss of first place (or second, third or fourth for each-way punters) is something you have to take on the chin. No-one likes losing in such a manner, but it’s the risk you take if you back a horse ridden by someone who doesn’t ride out to the finish.
To suggest that stewards should have the power to, in effect, correct jockey error is ludicrous. As FOF points out all hell would break loose if you had, even if somewhat fortuitously, backed the eventual winner and were only paid out on half of your stake. And I would imagine the owner of the winner would argue with the stewards giving away half of their prize money.
I thought he looked well enough in himself, Bulwark, but it’s always extremely difficult to tell with grey horses. The only worry I had was the temperament he showed as they made their way on to the course, but given the delays I’m prepared to mark it down as a one-off.
I can’t imagine that the ground caused him to travel badly, or jump like a boar with no knees, but it is a possibility. Factor in the quality of the ride (in my view at least), the time spent in the parade ring and the pace of the race and, whilst disappointing, it’s form I have no hesitation in dismissing.
If we were to take it as a sign that The Grey Berry just isn’t cut out for hurdling, then the effort of Norman The Great has to temper enthusiasm in Binocular’s Triumph prospects also. As it is I would just like to see what Hobbs has to say about the run, and if they take him out of the Triumph.
He was a bit edgy as they walked on to the track, dave, but given that the entire field had been circling the parade ring for around 40 minutes I would forgive any signs of temperament.
The pace wasn’t what you might call brisk, but The Grey Berry was restrained at the back of the field, sometimes detached by a couple of lengths, and never given a chance to work himself into the race.
There is the possibility that he didn’t get home on the ground, but I’d put today’s performance down to the preliminaries, the ride and his jumping.
Obvously an eye will have to be kept on his Triumph entry, but given that the ability to jump doesn’t tend to be regressive, and that the horse was put into the race far earlier on his debut (well, he wasn’t put into it at all today), my guess is we’ll still see him line up at the Festival.
My view would probably be different if ‘Hobbs’ didn’t appear in the trainer column, but time will tell…
Wallace asked how the trick with the photographs was done, and I merely explained that two fairly large parts of how the trick was portrayed can be readily ignored, simply because they don’t relate to how it was achieved.
It’s a technique used regularly by Brown to confuse the audience and mask exactly what is going on. My hope was that, with those two aspects not under consideration, Wallace might be able to start to piece it together…along with what was actually in the show.
So, my comments were in no way criticisms of the trick itself, simply statements to narrow down the possibilities as to how Brown puled it off (as per my previous remark about stripping away the unnecessary elements).
Try reading, and understanding, what’s actually written.
I would agree that Mick Channon is ‘difficult to read’, though I find the following a particularly useful rule of thumb with him: if it’s odds-on, lay it.
He has though, I notice, started putting videos of his horses’ workouts on his website. The site itself is fairly poor, but I thought this was an interesting feature.
Other than Channon, I tend to be wary of Phillip Hobbs, Mark Johnston, Richard Hannon, Evan Williams, Alan Swinbank, Gary Moore (moreso than the rest), Henrietta Knight, Jonjo O’Neill and Richard Guest/Lee/Phillips. And, on occasion, the female trifecta of Emma Lavelle, Venetia Williams and Lucinda Russell.
