Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As my search for the Cesarewitch winner goes into its third day I find good news for Pied Piper fans … in the month of October he is 3 from 3. Price is too short for me, but good luck to you all.
The trouble is that saying enough is enough will be taken by opponents and very possibly the general public as “We accept horses will die in the National and have no further plans to try to stop that”
Managing what must remain unsaid is the real problem. It’s little to do with horses and everything to do with the elephant in the room.
Another thought- instead of moving the start 60 yards forward, they could have put a small fence at 60 yards, say two foot high, unconventional enough to make jocks think twice about rushing it.
Nice one, Alan. The last time this blew up – ragged starts, rush to the first etc, I suggested something similar- 3 sets of stalls, modified with plenty room for steeplechasers. Either stagger the opening of each and alter the weights accordingly, or set stalls 2 say 30 lengths behind set 1 with set 3 a time or handicapped equivalent behind set 2.
Nice work, Ruby. Maybe they should make a real radical move and chicane the fences all the way to the Canal turn, which would then be approached pretty much head on like a normal fence, leading them more gently on to the run to Valentine’s. They have plenty land on the inside – currently a nine hole golf course – to do this.
Damned if they changed it, damned if they didn’t. A death in each of the last 3 pushed them right up against it. The public will hardly notice. I suspect only a few could tell you the trip it’s run over and the maximum field size. It’s The National, and the buzz will be the same for the man on the Clapham Omnibus.
An astute observation by Mr Potts. I suspect he is spot on re the World Pool input.
What I hope for from a betting viewpoint is Lucinda to abandon the Grade 1 route with Corach Rambler and concentrate on The National with him. Smaller field, better jumpers (how will they decide on jumping gradings?) and CR’s ability to race much more prominently now makes him superb value at the current 20s. And, as I think Lucinda will come round to it, I’ll be topping up on him.
Am with Bobby here *Bobby frowns* This Geremia looks a good value ew bet. He’s unusual in that his warm up race was finishing under 4 lengths behind the winner in the Cambridgeshire, and he’s odds on to be slowly away here, one of his quirks, but that’s not too bad a thing over this trip. 7lb claimer takes the ride, first time in 2 years he’s been ridden by a claimer. His record claimer-ridden is 1212.
Skybet offers 8 places, but have just cut him to 33s. Paddy Power still go 50/1 but to 7 places – take your pick.
A cracking race with a long shortlist for me, but my two other bets will be Temporize, tough and improving in a new yard, and the lovely big filly Grand Providence, lightly raced and improving. She is 10/1 with Skybet, and Temporize at 16/1. I’ll back them both EW too. Might even do a Trifecta!
So stamina, as we use it, can only refer to a race run under what we would term acceptable conditions: the ground, weight carried, and, crucially, all jockeys adhering pretty much to the ‘standard’ pace used in these events. After all, every race is a challenge to find out which horse has been ridden to have used up its ‘race allocation’ of 100% right at the time it passes the post.
A race where ‘standard’ pace is not observed could result in extremes – a 7f horse barely lasting 6, or a miler winning at 12f. Is there an argument then for every jockey to set out with the sole strategy of running down that 100% fuel gauge to hit empty on the line?
Yep, tiny was overdoing it. What I meant was that in maybe 90% of the races you highlight for a potential stayer getting the trip, yes, of course the chance is much greater than it would be on heavy ground. But this assumes that jockeys will ride a ‘sensible’ race, and that does not always happen. Maybe ten percent of the time – certainly bigger than ‘tiny’ – they will go too fast and your tyro stayer will have very little chance of lasting it out.
What is stamina? How would you define it? People think of 12f + on the flat, but I remember a horse from the sixties, Sica Dan, who was famous for being the fastest racehorse perhaps in Europe, but only for four furlongs. He could never see out five. A big lesson in there, I think, when trying to define stamina.
Thanks, Ian. I’m pretty hopeless at recognizing sarcasm/irony unless it is blatant. I used to take everything literally and had to kind of self educate myself out of that. Had such tests been available when I was a kid, I think I would have been some way along the autism spectrum. Anyway, thanks for expanding on your post.
Ginger, thanks again for going a bit deeper in your thoughts. I am not so sure that a horse might be ore likely to stay a trip on firm ground because of the faster pace you get on such ground, but these tiny factors are what make racing such an enchanting pastime.
And from a punting viewpoint, I doubt there is any major edge in going against the herd where ground is concerned, this was just more of a talking point for me. Having said that, if a horse has won its first three races, say, on good ground and it tries to add another on soft ground. The market would price in that question mark, whereas I’d always be happy to back the horse, believing it much more likely it will act than many punters would.
And lest I give the impression that I just ignore the going, not at all. When starting on any race I’m going to bet in, the first thing I do is sort each runner using its Racing Post form. I sort the rprs first from best to worst then check them against ground, trip and headgear (sometimes jockey too). If there is a big swing under any of those headings, it’ll make a significant difference to how I proceed.
This process quickly and easily highlights ground dependent horses, but it is experience of this process that has left me with the general impression that to the majority of racehorses, the going is not a big factor. To those affected by it, it’s a huge factor and one the punter must immediately heed, but there simply are not as many such creatures as the general racing ‘ambient knowledge’ would have you believe.
Spot on, Ginger. I raised the point because I see increasingly, especially on ITV, assertions that ‘he has a high action, wait and back him on soft ground.’ I wanted to point out the vet’s reasoning to allay thoughts that somehow, nobody quite knows why, high actioned horses go better on soft ground. It’s a simple, mechanical explanation. The whole subject reminds me of when I was a kid and you’d hear adults say of some children, ‘Ooh, he has long fingers. He’ll make an excellent pianist.’
“Tbh I find the OP a somewhat bizarre question for such an experienced punter to be asking.”
Had I been in your position there, Ian, it would very much have made me stop and think why such an experienced punter would believe that. As with everything in life, people’s established beliefs lead to natural cherry picking of what they hear and read. A couple of others here have, understandably gone that way too – Oh, he doesn’t think the ground is important!’
Off course it’s important, but not for nearly as many horses as people think. The standouts at the very top end, like Ace Impact, tend to be nominated by those who claim going is first and foremost, and I think this is fed to a large extent by the fact that superb conformation/action is much more likely to be found in top class thoroughbreds. Such conformation demands the perfect, sound surface to work at its best.
Frankel tracked so straight I loved watching him just for that. He was made for top of the ground in executing the mechanics of the game, but was so good he could grind it out in ground he hated. Nashwan was another glorious mover.
If you look on that grade of thoroughbred as, say, a £20,000 indoor track bike, it’ll be a rare one who can cope with a mountain bike trail. But given all the conformation flaws – and there are many – throughout the general racehorse population, they’d cope with mountain bike trails much better than the elite, though would get lapped by the elite in the latter’s perfect conditions.
Conformation and the way each horse adapts to it drives its going requirements. Were every horse built the same, going would not matter at all outside of the equine psychology of racing. Which brings me to the often-quoted high action element. As I understand it from a veterinary viewpoint, horses with a high action ought to generally favour soft ground, but only because it softens the impact on limbs which drive downwards rather than reach forwards. I’ve seen quite a few high actioned horses run very well on top of the ground, not so many the other way around, but just to say that it is, in my experience, not a given for high actioned horses to love soft.
Nice work Rob – well done. Could prove a turning point in the career of Kubler Racing
Striking how deep a grey Dessie was in his young days. I saw him in his retirement at a charity do and he was as white as aspirin.
Good point, AP. The only one that comes immediately to mind who would have defied that is Night Nurse, though, in a way, it is the exception that proves the rule. And I think that applies in general in this debate. The Facile Vega and Dessie pictures here would make a hugely convincing case for the style were those horses jumping like that at every flight and in every hurdle race. I think that was the point I was trying to get to originally; I’ve never noticed a horse who looked consistently in his jumping style to make a persuasive argument for chasing.
