Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I don’t understand why Fortune is 66/1, I really don’t. He gave Rip Van Winkle a great ride in the Eclipse last year, was near perfect.
That makes two of us.
There’s so many names ahead of him in the betting that I’d be putting a big black line through for a variety of reasons.
Fortune ticks more boxes for me than most of the other contenders:
– Big race experience
– Not attached to a big yard at the moment
– Irish, so would have few reservations about moving here
– Brings no real baggage with him
– Has worked with Aidan previously (at Jim Bolger’s)Since Jimmy Fortune appears to be a very good jockey, it may not be his jockeyship that caused the split with John Gosden before the 2010 season began, after a five year association. Although it was denied at the time, it can’t have helped the situation that the stable jockey lived a long way away from the stable. There were some words from John Gosden at the second Breeders Cup after he chose a different jockey from Fortune, that I interpreted (perhaps wrongly) that there might have been times when Fortune was not able to commit totally to the stable’s cause, and therefore it was felt that that situation could work both ways. If it is the case that Fortune is looking for a good balance between his life inside and outside racing, it may not fit in with the high pressure job at Ballydoyle.
Perhaps it would be more helpful for punters if the authorities were to be equally concerned about the horse’s weight. The jockey’s weight and overweight are published before the race. Should we renew the old campaign to have the horse’s weight published before the race too, like they do in Hong Kong. The Racing Post (and others) could publish it with the rest of the horse’s form. I know the bare data is not much use in two year old and some three year old racing, but the variation in a horse’s racing weight would be a useful bit of information. Also, it would give us all something more to argue about – sorry, hold intelligent discussions about.
So who do you think will get the gig sir?
Richard Hughes. But only for a year. He has all the necessary attributes, and I think that one year would suit both parties well. Coolmore will look for a long term replacement over the next 12 months, it might need that long to prise someone away from their top class current job. Hughes has a chance of a lot of Group 1 glory in his homeland, without the two meetings a day, helicopter trips to evening meetings, etc.
Imperial Call
I’m not sure Queally would be welcomed back to Ballydoyle. Aidan thought a lot of him but Queally was keen to go to England and was only apprentice there for about a year.I don’t know either of these two gentlemen, but would Mr O’Brien really have a lost-lasting grudge against an apprentice who had the ambition, confidence and energy to go abroad to further his career?
Himself
Christophe Soumillon, sacked by the Aga Khan for comments he made about trainer, Andre Fabre’s height, would be an inspired and wise choice.I think the incident with Andre Fabre was about the fiftieth problem that the Aga Khan had with Monsieur Soumillon. I think he had decided that once it got to fifty he had to do something about it. He certainly has the talent, but Coolmore is a very professional outfit who would not appreciate any indescretions. Also, it was only about a month ago that he signed a contract to ride for the Wildensteins next year. If he was to be bought out of that contract, it would be difficult for him to return to France.
The Coolmore/Ballydoyle owners have identified in the past that they need a jockey who: is tactically clever, doesn’t panic, gets horses running for him, is strong in a finish, is a great judge of pace, gives good feedback after a ride, hardly ever loses a race he should win, is very experienced in Group 1 races, etc, etc, etc.
When they find the closest to what the want they hire him. Then something, we know not what, happens and they lose him. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: to lose one top jockey may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose several looks like carelessness.
So, either their selection criteria are not good enough, or the way they fit this essential cog into their machine is inefficient. Which will they change? The most likely is that they will not change anything; they will hire another top class jockey who will leave just as he is about to bring maximum benefit to the Coolmore system.
Of the top European jockeys with widespread Group 1 success, Soumillon has signed a contract to ride for the Wildenstein family in France in 2011, while Dettori, Lemaire and Moore won’t move from their current jobs. But Olivier Peslier is good enough and smart enough and just the right age to suit the Coolmore profile, to put in a couple of years and then leave. If they want to be bolder, they could always try for a top Australian, they certainly have enough contacts there, and history has seen lots of top class Aussies riding in Europe.
Another good example to quote to those negative people who say "Nice guys never come first". These two top men are a credit to themselves, their families, and the sport.
Very mixed feelings. Both of them are very personable and excellent jockeys. There was a part of me that said Hughes, because he would have fewer chances to do it in the future. Then I realized that is not really true, because he may have just the same sort of year next year and be close to becoming the champion in 2011. In all fairness, Hanagan deserves to win it. I hope he does.
Prufrock and Glen,
The number of horses in training, owners and trainers are declining.
….
So, my question is: …. what would you specifically do to remedy the situation? Again specifically, what would you suggest as a means to arrest the decline in HITs and ownership and what would you do to encourage an increase?
richard
The number of horses in training has been on an increasing trend for decades, and seems to correlate more with the FTSE 100 than the competence of the racing authories. There are roughly 8% more horses and 10% more trainers than in 2000 (Source: Raceform). In 2009 there were more horses in training than ever, so it was not hard to understandand a decline in 2010 (about 4.3%) given the economic situation.
What should we do about this awful situation? Put our shoulders to wheel and our noses to the grindstone to increase the national GDP. More people with more money tend to want to buy racehorses. It’s a luxury of huge social status and a lot fun for your money. The owners currently spend nearly £300 million every year having their horses trained and raced, and about £100 million on acquiring new ones at the sales or their own breeding operations (Source: BHA). This seems to apply whether we have race meetings run the way they were decades ago (eg. the brilliant Cartmel), or with all the bells and whistles of super-duper championship races (the brilliant Ascot).
In many commercial sectors, and I suppose non-commercial arenas also, there is a theory of the threshold of competence. Employing people below the performance threshold negatively affects the performance of the organisation. Employing people above that level does not appear to add greatly to the performance of the organisation on average, and can have a detrimental affect – Nobel prize winning chemists, physicists and economists tend to do what they are interested in rather than what the company wants them to do. Not all sectors are like this, especially rapid growth new-industry sectors. Depending on whether we want an industry/sport like the NFL or the Premier League, or an industry/sport like horse racing in Ireland, France and Germany, perhaps we should populate the seats of the Board at the BHA with members of the Jockey Club. Slightly more competent in some ways and somewhat less competent in others. You pay your money, and you take your choice.
It was interesting looking at the BHA website for various bits of information. There is a section called “What we do”.
Nowhere does it mention anything about money.
That is, no mention of their role in acquiring funds from outside sources to pay for all their activities, or prize money, or the pension funds. It may be hidden in the nether reaches of the website, but strange that it is not mentioned as a primary function.
Lol. Whether it was, or was not, a misplaced comma, my earlier post remains a question, rather than a statement of my own views on the matter.
I am surprised that you, as a writer, and one close to the racing game at that, have led such a sheltered existence that you are not aware of the prevalence of journalists asking a question to which they expect their audience to supply an implied answer. Perhaps you are too young to appreciate the bad old days pre-regulation, pre-licensing of individuals, in the City when a chap could ask a simple question in a coffee house “Will XYZ company still be solvent in two weeks?” (but likely to be much more subtly phrased) in the expectation of picking up some cheap shares in the next day or two.
I would have thought that with your great experience and knowledge of racing, you would be almost the best-placed person to answer your own question about Jim McGrath’s credibilty. You might have said: “This man has said, this, this and this. Done that, that and that. The consequences have been very bad/good. Therefore he has reduced/increased credibility.” In the absence of further information in your post, I thought that PigMan’s interpretation of your question was very fair.
The English language is fraught with pitfalls of interpretation. I hope no-one’s credibility as a grammarian, or debater, or opinion maker, has suffered in the course this interchange of views. There, no question, just a hope for a good outcome for everybody.
Had Prufrock not used the comma, Marginal Value, it would have indeed indicated that someone had already called in to question Jim McGrath’s credibility. As it is Prufrock has merely introduced a comparable, albeit without unarguable context. If a GCSE student reads in to the question as you have suggested, there’s no unequivocal justification for them being considered to be correct. The wording doesn’t allow for definitive interpretation, thus making Prufrock’s astonishment equally and perfectly plausible.
It does annoy me when people try to be clever and serve only to show a distinct lack of understanding.
Perhaps you ought to re-read my post. Your first sentence appears to suggest that I was advocating the deletion of the comma, when clearly I was advocating its replacement with a question mark. The use of “merely” in your second sentence is merely the equivalent to “I was merely helping him to his feet” as the aggressor grasped the tender inner flesh of the victim’s upper arm and gave it a severe pinch and twist as he lifted the man to his feet. I accept, as you state in your fourth sentence, that the wording does not allow for definitive interpretation, but that was the whole point of Prufrock writing it as he did, he was “merely”, “innocently”, asking a completely innocuous question. That was the whole reason why I wrote my post the way I did.
Perhaps I spend too much of my time in polite society, where the value of saying what one means takes precedence over saying things at a very oblique angle. As for trying to be clever; is that the clever of a good education, of proper manners, of polite society or the more-modern clever of having made a mess of something and saying: “Who? Me? No, I would never do such a thing”.
Pig Man, I think you’ll find I asked a question – one that no-one has bothered to answer – not made a statement. I am astounded that you are astounded.
I am astounded that you are astounded that PigMan is astounded at your question. What a disingenuous post. You write for a living and yet are astounded that someone has noticed that you added a phrase after the comma in you original question. If you meant the question to be one question then the question would have finished with a question mark at the place where you have placed the comma. That question would have been a simple and complete question requiring more information from Carvillshill about his view on the credibility of RFC. You chose not to stop there. You added something new to the debate that no-one else had mentioned. You asked about Jim McGrath’s credibilty. Not the BHA’s credibility, not Paul Roy’s, not the Racing Committee of the BHA. It
would
be a question of Jim McGrath’s credibilty if the RFC people had said that they could no longer work with the BHA as long as Jim McGrath was playing an active role. But that isn’t the case, it is the opposite.
We live in a world where lots of people, converse, read, write and exchange views. People are very clued up about writing, debating and journalism. I suggest you might want to take a copy of the relevant posts on this thread and show them to a random selection of people who knew nothing about racing or the people involved and ask them what they would infer from your two part question. I know that educational standards are supposed to have slipped in recent years, but if those texts and that question were put in front of an English GCSE class, and the exam paper asked what should be inferred from your question, I would be disappointed if the class didn’t say: “The questioner is defending the RFC organisation and attacking the motives or ability of JMcG”.
Queen Gertrude gives a very ironic answer to her son’s question when she says: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” She is impugning the credibility of a queen in a stage play who declares her constantcy for her king. Hamlet asked the question of his mother because he is questioning his mother’s strength of attachment to his own late father.
Ironically, the BHA today raised Frankel’s official rating by three pounds, without him having to stretch a leg, on the basis of Klammer’s performance last weekend. He’s getting better every week. By the end of the year he may be a true champion.
Mind you, how much credence should we allow the BHA hadicappers. Originally, Frankel’s ten length beating of a horse who had just won a £50,000 Listed race in France was rated five pounds inferior to Dream Ahead’s ten-and-a-half length beating of a horse who had just been beaten nearly nine lengths in a Chester nursery.
Credibility is what other people think, constancy is what one possesses within oneself. Clever bloke, that Shakespeare. He could tell the true attributes of a queen, whether she was a real queen or a stage queen, but I wonder if he could tell a champion horse from a pretender.
Four for Phoenix Tower 2008, Lockinge, Prince of Wales, Eclipse, Juddmonte International.
The second horse to finish behind Frankel has had another run, (other than those who ran in his maiden win). After Rainbow Springs, beaten 13 lengths by Frankel, finished third in the Group 1 Marcel Boussac, now Klammer, beaten 10 lengths by Frankel has gone on to win the Group 3 Horris Hill at Newbury. It seems like the people who thought the Royal Lodge was top form have a bit more evidence to support their case.
Casamento is a good bet at 3/1 to win this. The two others with the best potential ability to win this are Dunboyne Express and Zaidan, but both have been injured and have not run for a couple of months or more. Zaidan’s Chesham Stakes contained four horses that have gone on to perform well at Listed/Group level and he beat them very easily. That was over 7f in June. If he is over his August injury he may well have improved enough to do very well here.
If Foghorn Leghorn had run since, then yes. But he hasn’t.
The BHA handicappers had the same, or more, information as the rest of us. As others on TRF have pointed out, the significance of the winning distances on the day might have alerted them to the possibility that the going was sufficiently unusual for only a few to truly act on it. The slowness of the race time in comparison with the Cheveley Park and the Nayef Joel, and the pace of the race from the off, might have alerted them to the possibility that some horses were knackered before they got to the last furlong. The implication is that Hooray would have beaten Strong Suit, Approve and Irish Field by more than Dream Ahead did. Does that give her the right to claim “… the best two year old form on offer”?
There is a small amout of evidence that Dream Ahead was brilliant in the Middle Park, and a lot more evidence to say that he was his usual (Prix Morny) very good. The BHA handicappers made their choice and gave their opinion. If that sort of choice had been made in the scientific or commercial realm, there might be questions about who had been having quiet conversations with the Maketing Department to enable a bit of “drumming up of business”. Maybe the BHA needed a big race of the year in case the Champion Stakes fell flat.
As Sir Humphrey Appleby, (remember him?) might say:
“I am cynical, you are realistic, they (the BHA handicappers) are the epitome of probity.”
Or, “I am tenacious, you are stubborn, and they are just being commercially aware.”
Choices and opinions. Where would we be without them?
Can’t quite see how there can be any justification in lowering Dream Ahead’s rating until other Middle Park runners race again. May be I am missing something? Palpably not over his previous excertions on Saturday. Beaten before stamina came in to play. It may well turn out he needs certain circumstances (6f on soft) to produce his best, but in my opinion, at the moment, he’s got the best 2 year old form on offer (without a "p).
The justification for lowering Dream Ahead’s official rating is that the BHA handicappers ought to be upfront enough to admit that they misinterpreted the form of the Middle Park. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, because nothing in racing is perfect and easy to assess, it is all about opinion.
They could have said that Dream Ahead performed roughly as well as he did in the Prix Morny and that the other major runners ran well below form. They could have said that Dream Ahead was brilliant and the other major runners ran relatively OK. They took the second option. Which was fine and dandy until you look at the position in the race of Foghorn Leghorn. Foghorn Leghorn was within one and a half lengths of Strong Suit, Approve and Irish Field. Dream Ahead beat him by ten and a half lengths. Three weeks prior to the Middle Park Foghorn Leghorn won a Nursery by one and a half lengths off a mark of 85. One week prior to the Middle Park Foghorn Leghorn was beaten nearly nine lengths off a mark of 90. To justify Dream Ahead’s Middle Park rating the BHA handicappers have had to raise Foghorn Leghorn’s mark to 105.
On his day, Peter Chapple-Hyam is a top-notch trainer, but I struggle to believe that he has wrought 15 to 20 pounds improvement in that time in Foghorn Leghorn’s ninth race of his two-year-old career.
Might that be a justification for the official handicappers to revisit their interpretation of the Middle Park form?
