Really:blink: That's the Phoenix isn't it?
Well I fear you might be right. Something does need testing, with the Curragh's timing's mechanism, or the RP's reporting, joining eye-sight on the list of possible candidates then.
There were three races run over C&D that day. The handicap which featured a top-rated horse of 98 was won in a time 0.62 secs faster, and the listed fillies race 1.07 secs faster.
In total the following horses all completed the course faster than Mastercraftsman;
Kingsdale Ocean
Nasterelli
Copper Dock
Fair Penny Lane
My Girl Sophie
Shaunas Princess
Romeos on Fire
Lady Schmuck
Elletelle
Aleague of their own
Akua Ba
Age of Chivalry
Dementicata
Ghost Milk
Wychwood Wanderer
In addition, I'm struggling to find any evidence it was "fast ground" too. Not a single horse got within 3.5L to 4L's of standard that day. If that was truly fast ground, something would have done. My own going correction brought it out at +1.32 (quicker side of Good).
Now I'm no great lover of the standard times at Longchamp and reckon they're just about the most ancient around, but 39 horses beat standard on Arc day (including Mastercraftsman - it's just that 3 other horses also beat it faster than him, a filly also ran it faster than him too).
Now the obvious explanation involves the difference in class of races, but that is why we make an allowance using class pars, in order to give some of this time back to lower grade horses and try and equalise things thus. I actually found myself having to omit the Phoenix from the calculation though, precisely because it was one of the two slowest adjusted races and would otherwise risk contaminating the calculation.
If wind was a factor at the Curragh, then the only evidence I have would suggest it was working against those at longer distances, as the 10F race was the only one on the card that adjusted slow (-0.45) which was also omitted.
If you break the races down into mile aggregates you get the following
-0.97
-1.29
-1.57
-2.40 (Mastercraftsman)
-2.94
-4.12
-4.45
These aren't the sort of times you see for fast ground, (Goodish? yes) anymore than its any evidence to think that Mastercraftsman's been in a fast race.
Now this isn't to take the argument into a mathematical jousting match regardless of what it might appear to look like. I just don't see any evidence that;
a) The Phoenix was fast (and certainly compared against the Lagadere)
b) The ground was fast
Therefore any objective conclusion at this stage would have to be that Mastercraftsman had never been exposed to a truly run fast pace (or never seen one out anyway that resulted in an overall fast time) until such time as he ran in the Lagadere. Whether there's any significance in the fact that the first time he was required to go with a fast pace he lost, is another issue, but essentially the one I'm posing? Is it also coincidence, that the first time both horses were asked to do this Intense Focus reversed form? Is it an additional coincidence that when he was asked to do the same again, Intense Focus put up another career best and won the Dewhurst?
I'm no great fan of Intense Focus (don't like the horse) but the numbers are neutral, and that's what they're telling me on their limited interpretation at this stage. When he was met with a similarly slow pace again, in the Leopardstown trial, then he's under-performed, probably being done for lack of gears.
If I were Bolger I'd be tempted to throw a pacemaker in myself, and if I were O'Brien I'd be more inclined to throw in some roadblockers instead.
There is an old adage with any speed analysis however, that says just because a horse hasn't run a fast time doesn't mean it can't. So far to date though, both of the Ballydoyle horses have found opponents more capable of doing so when the gun's been put to their heads and they've been unable to respond.
If we get a moderate pace, the whole thing is obviously redundant. If we get a quick one though, all of the front 4 in the market look vulnerable to differing degrees on what they've shown so far.
Well I fear you might be right. Something does need testing, with the Curragh's timing's mechanism, or the RP's reporting, joining eye-sight on the list of possible candidates then.
There were three races run over C&D that day. The handicap which featured a top-rated horse of 98 was won in a time 0.62 secs faster, and the listed fillies race 1.07 secs faster.
In total the following horses all completed the course faster than Mastercraftsman;
Kingsdale Ocean
Nasterelli
Copper Dock
Fair Penny Lane
My Girl Sophie
Shaunas Princess
Romeos on Fire
Lady Schmuck
Elletelle
Aleague of their own
Akua Ba
Age of Chivalry
Dementicata
Ghost Milk
Wychwood Wanderer
In addition, I'm struggling to find any evidence it was "fast ground" too. Not a single horse got within 3.5L to 4L's of standard that day. If that was truly fast ground, something would have done. My own going correction brought it out at +1.32 (quicker side of Good).
Now I'm no great lover of the standard times at Longchamp and reckon they're just about the most ancient around, but 39 horses beat standard on Arc day (including Mastercraftsman - it's just that 3 other horses also beat it faster than him, a filly also ran it faster than him too).
Now the obvious explanation involves the difference in class of races, but that is why we make an allowance using class pars, in order to give some of this time back to lower grade horses and try and equalise things thus. I actually found myself having to omit the Phoenix from the calculation though, precisely because it was one of the two slowest adjusted races and would otherwise risk contaminating the calculation.
If wind was a factor at the Curragh, then the only evidence I have would suggest it was working against those at longer distances, as the 10F race was the only one on the card that adjusted slow (-0.45) which was also omitted.
If you break the races down into mile aggregates you get the following
-0.97
-1.29
-1.57
-2.40 (Mastercraftsman)
-2.94
-4.12
-4.45
These aren't the sort of times you see for fast ground, (Goodish? yes) anymore than its any evidence to think that Mastercraftsman's been in a fast race.
Now this isn't to take the argument into a mathematical jousting match regardless of what it might appear to look like. I just don't see any evidence that;
a) The Phoenix was fast (and certainly compared against the Lagadere)
b) The ground was fast
Therefore any objective conclusion at this stage would have to be that Mastercraftsman had never been exposed to a truly run fast pace (or never seen one out anyway that resulted in an overall fast time) until such time as he ran in the Lagadere. Whether there's any significance in the fact that the first time he was required to go with a fast pace he lost, is another issue, but essentially the one I'm posing? Is it also coincidence, that the first time both horses were asked to do this Intense Focus reversed form? Is it an additional coincidence that when he was asked to do the same again, Intense Focus put up another career best and won the Dewhurst?
I'm no great fan of Intense Focus (don't like the horse) but the numbers are neutral, and that's what they're telling me on their limited interpretation at this stage. When he was met with a similarly slow pace again, in the Leopardstown trial, then he's under-performed, probably being done for lack of gears.
If I were Bolger I'd be tempted to throw a pacemaker in myself, and if I were O'Brien I'd be more inclined to throw in some roadblockers instead.
There is an old adage with any speed analysis however, that says just because a horse hasn't run a fast time doesn't mean it can't. So far to date though, both of the Ballydoyle horses have found opponents more capable of doing so when the gun's been put to their heads and they've been unable to respond.
If we get a moderate pace, the whole thing is obviously redundant. If we get a quick one though, all of the front 4 in the market look vulnerable to differing degrees on what they've shown so far.
Last edited:
