• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

2000 Guineas

reet hard said:
Why would they water just one side of the course. with only a slight breeze?
IIRCC, the going stick reading was almost identical to yesterday's.
Tell you what, you and Slim watch any future straigt-track races, and let me know how many times I'm wrong. It won't be manybased on years of experience of dealing with other doubters in the past.
It's a myth - which most clued-up jocks would agree.
Click to expand...

You must never watch the annual **** show that is Royal Ascot.
 
The sectionals for the 2000G are up on the RTV site.

My rudimentary understanding of them suggests it was a true-run race.
 
reet hard said:
Why would they water just one side of the course. with only a slight breeze?
IIRCC, the going stick reading was almost identical to yesterday's.
Tell you what, you and Slim watch any future straigt-track races, and let me know how many times I'm wrong. It won't be manybased on years of experience of dealing with other doubters in the past.
It's a myth - which most clued-up jocks would agree.
Click to expand...

No, it is ineffective watering where the jet weakens as it reaches across I reckon. What explanation for the plethora of winning 1 and 2 draw, surely you can’t ignore that?
 
barjon said:
I know it’s water under the bridge, but I am busy cursing myself for a fool for not hedging NT because of the draw. I’ve looked again and again at the earlier races and it seems to me significant that when they enter the dip it is the horses on the far side that do most the moving forward, which indicates that they were on the faster ground. Yesterday, I had concentrated on looking at the final furlong which was a mistake since stamina differences would have obscured ground effect. Pillock I am.
Click to expand...

You are tying yourself up in knots.
 
barjon said:
No, it is ineffective watering where the jet weakens as it reaches across I reckon. What explanation for the plethora of winning 1 and 2 draw, surely you can’t ignore that?
Click to expand...
And the groundstaff haven't a clue what they're doing?
 
Slim
Watch New Seeker's win in the 03 Britannia, where Jamie Spencer made all far side, when many (pundits included) complained all week of the stand rail draw bias.:lol:
If that doesn't make you think again about false impressions, then nothing will.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
Slim
Watch New Seeker's win in the 03 Britannia, where Jamie Spencer made all far side, when many (pundits included) complained all week of the stand rail draw bias.:lol:
If that doesn't make you think again about false impressions, then nothing will.
Click to expand...

One race from 18 years ago?
 
Last edited:
Slim said:
One race from 18 years ago?
Click to expand...
............... and thousands since.

From RP analysis :
A result that really threw the cat among the pigeons with regard to the likely effect of the draw in races like today's Buckingham Palace Handicap and tomorrow's Wokingham. A low draw near the stands' rail had looked best all week, but NEW SEEKER , one of only five to stay on the far side, confounded the theory by making all down the far rail. He was lucky though, as Helm Bank would surely have won but for getting badly hampered at two crucial stages, initially well over 2f out and then again, when full of running, just inside the two-marker.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
And the groundstaff haven't a clue what they're doing?
Click to expand...

What you don’t do, reet, is explain the results. Here they are again, straight track winners’ draw for the meeting: 5 2 2 2 1 1 4 7 1 1 3 6 2 3 3 1 3 1 that’s 50% drawn 1 or 2 and both Guineas 1.

Not only was there a massive proportion of draws 1 and 2, but there were only three above 4 - 5,6,7 - and none at all higher than 7. If those results don’t indicate a bias I don’t know what does.
 
barjon said:
What you don’t do, reet, is explain the results. Here they are again, straight track winners’ draw for the meeting: 5 2 2 2 1 1 4 7 1 1 3 6 2 3 3 1 3 1 that’s 50% drawn 1 or 2 and both Guineas 1.

Not only was there a massive proportion of draws 1 and 2, but there were only three above 4 - 5,6,7 - and none at all higher than 7. If those results don’t indicate a bias I don’t know what does.
Click to expand...
Aye, a pace bias.
It's a fact of life that if a couple of early races are won from the front jocks will favour the side they were won over; even some curly courses.
 
And here’s last years straight track results from two day Guineas meeting, again after watering. 3 5 6 4 3 1 3 4 4 4 2 3 2 6 not so stark for 1 and 2 but 70% wins from those drawn 4 and below.

Take them both together 5 2 2 2 1 1 4 7 1 1 3 6 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 5 6 4 3 1 3 4 4 4 2 3 2 6 and that 81% of races won from draw 4 and below. With absolutely nothing featuring above 7. If there’s similar watering again next year I know where my money is going :)
 
Was there a Guineas draw bias? Swap it around and Native Trail wins, I'd say | Horse Racing News | Racing Post

When I come to rate the Newmarket races I'll be awarding a + sign to any horse drawn higher than 5. I won't be able to quantify how much better than the form they are but it will serve as a reminder to give them extra consideration.

Where there were two distinct groups within a race, I'll be rating them as separate races.

The more I think about the race, the more I'm leaning towards the notion that the draw beat Native Trail but ITV yesterday were at pains to highlight how unlucky Luxembourg may have been.
 
Desert, your super pick Cap Francais had the highest winner’s draw of the meeting at 7, so you can mark him up a tad, too!
 
Desert Orchid said:
Was there a Guineas draw bias? Swap it around and Native Trail wins, I'd say | Horse Racing News | Racing Post

When I come to rate the Newmarket races I'll be awarding a + sign to any horse drawn higher than 5. I won't be able to quantify how much better than the form they are but it will serve as a reminder to give them extra consideration.

Where there were two distinct groups within a race, I'll be rating them as separate races.

The more I think about the race, the more I'm leaning towards the notion that the draw beat Native Trail but ITV yesterday were at pains to highlight how unlucky Luxembourg may have been.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much they would have gone about it if he had been trained by someone else... I think he recovered enough to get there if good enough. Winner had to come round a few a little so don't think Luxembourg was that hard done by to be honest. Will be interesting to see how he gets on in the Derby.
 
barjon said:
And here’s last years straight track results from two day Guineas meeting, again after watering. 3 5 6 4 3 1 3 4 4 4 2 3 2 6 not so stark for 1 and 2 but 70% wins from those drawn 4 and below.

Take them both together 5 2 2 2 1 1 4 7 1 1 3 6 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 5 6 4 3 1 3 4 4 4 2 3 2 6 and that 81% of races won from draw 4 and below. With absolutely nothing featuring above 7. If there’s similar watering again next year I know where my money is going :)
Click to expand...

I can’t believe that no-one appears to think this is particularly significant. Perhaps it’s because people know it and don’t want it bandied about :).
The racing press is beginning to pick it up though and there’s another article, Off the Bit in Racing and Football Outlook this time, about the draw bias and “golden highway near the far side rail”.

Whatever people think, so far as I am concerned the results show that after watering there is an extreme bias favouring a low draw and that anything drawn on the high side has an almost impossible chance of winning. All this means that I won’t be betting ante-post and will hold off until I know the likely conditions, whether much watering is involved and (if so) the draw. In the same conditions I certainly won’t be backing anything drawn high however highly they are regarded. I think Native Trail must be some horse to have got so close from his draw and I agree with the two articles that he would have won from a low draw.

Ps: always assuming they don’t realise they have a problem and tweak the watering system.
 
Last edited:
I presume your opening sentence above is limited to beyond the forum, Barjon.

There was plenty of discussion going into the race about the potential for there to be a draw bias. Some were sceptical, some reckoned it might happen but there was discussion about it.

I myself asked the question about whether the jockeys would tack to the far side to take the race to Coroebus thereby making things a tad more difficult for Native Trail. It turns out the question was irrelevant; the ground did it all by itself.

I wouldn't worry too much about any ongoing lack of discussion on here. I reckon your evidence pretty much took care of the need for debate :)
 
Just surprised that there was no re-action to the post - even an :eek:. Certainly gave me a shock.
 
Last edited:
I think Slim expressed appreciation of it and tweeted a copy.

But you also need to remember that this forum is heavily orientated towards the jumps. Posts and debates will plummet in number and intensity over the summer.
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top