Forum Replies Created
- Posts
He beat Dylan Thomas on Good To Firm in the Tattersalls or are both me and The Racing Post mistaken.
Forgive me but I am a little confused here.
Michael Stoute is quoted as saying Notnowcato is equally as good on any ground but most people on here seem to blame the ground when he is defeated.
People on here are saying Notnowcato is not as good on faster ground when I referred to his defeat by Manduro.. Hold on a minute, he beat Dylan Thomas on GOOD TO FIRM, then got thrashed by the same horse and Manduro on SOFTER going at Ascot (GOOD).
Notnowcate was 2nd in the Eclips on GOOD TO FIRM, he won the Earl of Sefton on GOOD TO FIRM.
So how the hell can his 5L defeat by Manduro on GOOD ground be put down to the horse not being as good on a ‘faster’ surface.
‘Baffled’
Mike
The criticism of AOB’s jocks here is ridiculous. While the pacemaker is there to artificially enhance the chance of the favourite winning, he also, by design, is there to decrease the chances of anything which would prefer to win off a false pace, so I think the move by those in blue and orange to get him haring off into oblivion was genius. If that breaks rules on "team tactics", then those rules should be torn up forthwith.
Yes it was really genius!!!! Remind me again which horse of Aiden O’Briens these genius tactics benefited.
It was very interesting reading through this thread and the ‘upcoming’ names that were branded about as ‘golfers to watch in the future.
Immellman, Scott and Stenson were the names mentioned most, however the fact that they are all in the top 20 in the world and are generally at the forefront of the betting for most tournaments they play, hardly make them up and coming golfers to watch. In my opinion. Adam Scott is the 2nd biggest bottler on the tour, the amount of tournaments he should have won but threw it away in the last round remains countless. For the record, the biggest bottler on the tour is undoubtedly Justin Rose. You can almost put your mortgage on this guy being one of the early round leaders, but again he just doesn’t know how to finish a tournament off.
Anyway, I am going to throw a golfer at you to watch on the European Tour. In an average tournament he is generally around the 50/1 mark, but in the big European events when the big names turn out he is usually massive odds. His name is Maartin Kaymer and he is a young German golfer being hailed as the new ‘Bernhard Langer’. Personally I would just back him blind every week until he becomes so well known the odds don’t reflect his true chances. He is a star of the future for certain.
Mike
And of course, you being so bright, knew the Irish horses had been entered as spoilers before the race,and therefore weren’t ridden at all on merit; just to screw the pace for the non AoB horses.
I’m fascinated, how exactly did they “screw the pace”?
Or, how did they slow down the non AO’B horses? Do you think they were blocking them?
And, given that Authorized was at the back of the race for the first half, how was he not “screwing the pace” for Notnowcato, GW and Admiralofthefleet?
I look forward to your analysis of these issues.
Steve
Steve,
You have to admit, whether it worked in their favour or not (evidently not), the AoB horses did spoil the role of the pacemaker.
The pacemaker set off at a normal pacemaker’s pace, the 2 AoB horses then took him on. The jockey on the supposed pacemaker then said to himself, “hang on, I am supposed to be leading”, so he then quickened and went faster than would have liked in all probability. The 2 AoB horses then clearly slowed, leaving the pacemaker way in front and setting far too fast a gallop, which is why it was ignored.
I don’t really care what the AoB horses did as they did nothing underhand, and in the end an AoB horse didn’t win the race – but anyone would have to be stupid not too see what their intentions were, which in my opinion was to spoil the role of the pacemaker, making the pacemaker a non existent part of the race. Whether it worked or not, well thats open to debate.
Mike
These two races in one are always unsatisfactory from a purist’s point because they ask more questions than they answer. For what it’s worth, my view is that Notnowcato has been underrated(but not by you, Bosranic) and this form should(subject to evidence of a fairly run race) be rated very highly indeed.
And therefore, the fact that Manduro beat Notnowcato over 5L probably means that Manduro is fully justified in being hailed as the best 10f horse in Europe.
Mike
"Not sure why I called Notnowcato the wrong name 3 times lol (Notnowcate)"
Not sure why you called Francome wrong 3 times either (Francombe???)
Lol
It wouldn’t help those trainers that have been aiming their horses at the race by cancelling it would it.
But that’s irrelevant, because the trainers who have aimed their horse at the race won’t be running now will they – instead what we have got is a totally brand new race over 1 and half furlongs shorter, which will now benefit the trainers of 8 and 9f horses.
But still, I guess this is better than not having a race at all so I take your point on board.
Mike
The Magnet Cup day is a massive day for both the sponsors and the racecourse, and to move it to another day would negate the amount of effort put in by the brewery, their pubs, and the York executive, in to making this possibly the best attended meeting of the racecourse’s annual fixture list.
However, changing the distance of the race at such short notice is certain to impact on what is probably racing’s premier 10f handicap, and is bound to change significantly the chance of a number of horses that have been specifically trained for the race.
The question is, imo, is this summer really that bad, or the racecourse in such a parlous state, that a decision to change the distance couldn’t have been held of until at least the 5 day declaration stage?I totally agree that it’s a massive day for the Sponsors and the racecourse but that perhaps is part of my point. Have they put the racecourse and the sponsors before the trainers and owners, as without the trainers and the owners they wouldn’t have a race meeting anyway.
Like I said earlier, I may be making too much of this, but I just think reducing one of the seasons top handicaps by a massive 288 yards (almost 1 and a half furlongs) at such short notice, will not go too down well with the trainers/owners of genuine 10f horses who have been aiming at the race all season.
However at this stage, I think the chances of the meeting going ahead is probably about a 2 in 10 chance. They say the back straigh is totally waterlogged and the rest of the course is currently heavy – and with only one ‘dry’ day forecast in the whole of July then will York avoid anymore rain?
I guess we will have to wait and see.
Mike
I love interviewers when they are not prepared for the interview, just like a few years ago when an American golf interviewer was interviewing the latest winner on the PGA Tour….
INTERVIEWER: "How will you celebrate the win"
GOLFER: "Not sure, last time I won I jumped in the lake at the 18th"
INTERVIEWER: "I remember that, you got quite wet didn’t you"
Well you would get quite wet if you had just jumped in a lake wouldn’t you lol.
Mike
Is there more rain forecast next week or is the waterlogging already so bad it will take a week to drain?
There are a couple of races on the Friday that have been shortened as well. It does seem a drastic step so we can only assume that the back straight is in a dreadful state.
I suppose they could have moved the John Smiths to the same day that the Silver Cup will now be run on (July 28th) but then if horses were being aimed at next Saturday, wouldn’t that also cause a disruption in their preparation?
The Silver Cup has already been scrapped and has been replaced by a 7 furlong race so that they don’t have to use the back straight. They may as well have just changed the whole race programme, or better still abandoned the meeting lol.
They say the recent rain has been so bad that the back straight is waterlogged and the rest of the course is ‘heavy’. So going on that, if York has anymore rain next week it sounds as though the whole meeting will be in jeopardy anyway – plus, they havd a fire recently that did quite a bit of damage to the restaurants, so maybe they are hoping for more rain lol.
Mike
I’m on Archipenko at 25/1 earlier in the week on the assumption that he didn’t handle the hill at Epsom which is therefore not his true running. I’ll be disappointed if he is not placed at least.
Good call. Even though I can’t see Authorized getting beat, I also think it will be hard to keep Archipenko out of the frame and I wish I had 25/1 each way. But still, you need one of the front 3 in the betting to under perform, and though I hope it’s not Authorized, I can see this happening.
Mike
Yeats
It isn’t me that is differentiating, it is the authorities. Hence why one offence was deemed worthy of a 6-day suspension whilst the other over twice as long.
DJ,
Thats because Dettori’s offence was far worse than the guys who got a 6 day suspension. Excessive use of the whip normally carries a maximum ban of 7 days, but Dettori’s whip abuse was deemed to far more severe than the norm. In fact, I think it was quoted that he hit the horse 25 times in the space of 2 furlongs, and even worse was not giving the horse time to respond.
The incident was referred to the Horseracing Regulatory Authority by the Ascot stewards who warranted the incident worthy of more punishment than they could impose. The stewards can only impose a maximum of 7 days, but obviously the HRA can impose what they like.
Mike
Also, what yo have got to remember is that it works perfectly well when the roles are reversed.
By that I mean, if a horse wanders about and interferes with another horse with the jockey not being able to do anything about it, then the horse gets disqualified and the jockey suffers no punishment – which is absolutely correct, why should a jockey be punished if a horses veers aross the track and bumps another horse.
So on the other hand, why should a horse be disqualified if it does everything asked of it, runs a straight line and wins a race on pure merit, even though the jockey exceeded the amount of times he is allowed to use the whip.
The rule on disqualifying horses and giving jockeys bans for whip abuse or careless riding etc is very clear and 100% correct in my opinion, though I also totally agree that it does look a bit contradictory that a jockey can break a rule and the horse keep a race. But like I said, a horse can break a rule and the jockey doesn’t get punished so it works both ways.
Mike
In light of the authorities deciding that Dettori’s actions were so severe that he deserves to be banned for a fortnight, am I alone in thinking that given the distances involved in the Queen Anne and that Dettori has improved his placing by flagrantly disregarding the rules that his mount should be disqualified?
This is a discussion that has been going on for a while.
My opinion is why should the horse be punished, why should the horse lose the race when he did nothing wrong.
You have to remember, under the HRA rules regarding reversing placings and disqualifications, a horse can only be disqualified if it prevents another horse from winning in the eyes of the stewards. Therefore as Ramonti didn’t interfere with any other horse or prevent any other horse from winning then under the rules of the HRA it was impossible for them to disqualify Ramonti.
The person that broke the rules was Frankie Dettori and he has been punished accordingly. In my opinion the decision to ban Dettori and leave Ramonti as the winner was the only decision they could make and the correct one.
Mike
Below is the official rule;
"If a rider does not present himself to be weighed in, his horse shall, on an objection under rule 170 (iv), be disqualified unless the Stewards are satisfied that he was justified in not doing so, by reason of illness, accident or extraordinary circumstances, that he weighed out at not less than his correct weight and the proper weight was carried throughout the race".
So that tells me that if someone is shot after a race then the result will stand lol, on the grounds of it being an exraordinary circumstance that he couldn’t weigh in. However the result would only stand if he correctly weighed out and the stewards were satisfied that he carried the correct weight throughout the race – though if he knew he was going to be shot at the end of the race he might have been a bit heavier with some extra weight in his underwear lol.
Hope this helps,
Mike
