EC1
On a break
I wonder if they watered the stand side to remove the bias..is that what you meant?
Ascot speed figures
- Thread starter EC1
- Start date
It wasn't that strong.
I think there might be a clue in Vase to be honest which was run on a combination of both courses (I know the others were too, but I think the fellow saddo stopwatch slaves will kind of understand what i'm suggesting).
Although it would tenuous to try and do it off the one race, it seems to more fully embrace both courses and has recorded that sort of sits in the middle a bit. It's significantly slower than the round course suggesting that some of the effects of the straight course have shown up in it, but near enough to it to try and extrapolate something I think? I've actually got the Buckingham Palace as being quicker than the Vase, but it's not as much as I'd normally expect it to be, and you'd probably need to take a wee bit off it anyway for being the last race up on what's starting to look like drying ground.
Doe sanyone know of any watering plans?
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 24,823
Not sure what I mean. Just brainstorming for an answer.
EC1
On a break
if they just watered the stands side it would explain it - there was an obvious bias previous days..whereas now they have overdone it
the jocks would have still thought the standside was favoured though
the jocks would have still thought the standside was favoured though
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 24,823
Yes, that's what I meant 
EC1
On a break
FINAL DAY
46 BIG AUDIO
124 BRONZE CANNON
79 ART CONNOISEUR
81 HIGH STANDING
101 DRILL SERGEANT
------------------------------------------------
Going: Rnd Course Good/Firm (+26lbs per mile)
------------------------------------------------
I haven't bothered calcluating a separate GA for the straight because its clear that the Wokingham time is faster than both of the races that took part on the stand side - highlighting completely how slow the standside was in comparison.
The farside Wokingham was won in 74.19 whilst the Jubilee was run in 74.90..both races truly run. Big Audio's time again highlights the slowness of ground standside as well..as with yesterdays 2yo race.
Thats two days now that the times clearly showed the standside was NOT the place to be after its clear they had tried to remove the early week bias.
Not one mention of selective watering on the beeb..but its so obvious it has been done.
I never heard one pundit question how course records were occuring on the round course..with a supposed slower straight where all those races finished..it would not have been possible to break those records if the high side was slow.
Making figures at these meetings can be very enlightening
46 BIG AUDIO
124 BRONZE CANNON
79 ART CONNOISEUR
81 HIGH STANDING
101 DRILL SERGEANT
------------------------------------------------
Going: Rnd Course Good/Firm (+26lbs per mile)
------------------------------------------------
I haven't bothered calcluating a separate GA for the straight because its clear that the Wokingham time is faster than both of the races that took part on the stand side - highlighting completely how slow the standside was in comparison.
The farside Wokingham was won in 74.19 whilst the Jubilee was run in 74.90..both races truly run. Big Audio's time again highlights the slowness of ground standside as well..as with yesterdays 2yo race.
Thats two days now that the times clearly showed the standside was NOT the place to be after its clear they had tried to remove the early week bias.
Not one mention of selective watering on the beeb..but its so obvious it has been done.
I never heard one pundit question how course records were occuring on the round course..with a supposed slower straight where all those races finished..it would not have been possible to break those records if the high side was slow.
Making figures at these meetings can be very enlightening
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
just read the thread on TRF about draw bias
I am amazed nobody on their can see what happened...why the jocks eventually didn't want the standside in a splitting field
they didn't want low in the Wokingham..because that side was lengths slower
there were no course records stand side ..not even close
I am amazed nobody on their can see what happened...why the jocks eventually didn't want the standside in a splitting field
they didn't want low in the Wokingham..because that side was lengths slower
there were no course records stand side ..not even close
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
No, but I think if you were forced to be on the stands side the best place to be was right on the rail, but no-one went there! Then again, no-one other than Dettori and Moore ventured further than a couple of horse closer to the far rail either, which was clearly the fastest place of all to be of all. Bizarre behaviour all round, with the exception of the two mentioned.
EC1
On a break
i don't understand why we weren't informed that selective watering had taken place to correct the early week bias..why the secrecy?...are they afraid to admit there was an initial bias?..the actions taken have made it worse tbh
as the week went on if they had left well alone the farside caught up..dried out...which was why the round course times were so fast
its a bit of a mess really...did they initially overwater the farside?
alll that money spent on the course so it "looks right" but we can't get an even surface to race on.
as the week went on if they had left well alone the farside caught up..dried out...which was why the round course times were so fast
its a bit of a mess really...did they initially overwater the farside?
alll that money spent on the course so it "looks right" but we can't get an even surface to race on.
Well I'm not sure that jockeys would rank too highly on your list of intelligent sports people. Above boxers, lower than athletes and about on a par with footballers. For all his lack of charisma Ryan Moore has shown a few times however, that he is one of the more thoughtful and diligent, and I'm always slightly pleased for one of them (Davy Russell comes to mind) when I see a bit intelligence or innovation rewarded
Just doing my times today, and basically could disagree with a dot or comma of what EC's said. the straight course (for the second day running) is unrateable. Shades of Newmarkets opening 2 days in July 2007, when they reversed the draw bias overnight and punters got stuck away in their thousands
Just doing my times today, and basically could disagree with a dot or comma of what EC's said. the straight course (for the second day running) is unrateable. Shades of Newmarkets opening 2 days in July 2007, when they reversed the draw bias overnight and punters got stuck away in their thousands
EC1
On a break
i don't see an end to it Warbler tbh
you can take advantage if you are doing the math each day for sure...but when you look back on the week as a whole it looked oh so much better early doors before they tampered about with it
as you say..punters put away in general..which doesn't sell the game very well...which they are supposed to be trying to do
its pretty clear that any corrective watering is done to save face..to make it look right..the problem is they are tampering with race results..they are changing the outcomes of races which is totally wrong.
if the wokingham high split had run against the standside Jubilee field..the wokingham winner would have been a Group 1 winner...its absolute madness.
you can take advantage if you are doing the math each day for sure...but when you look back on the week as a whole it looked oh so much better early doors before they tampered about with it
as you say..punters put away in general..which doesn't sell the game very well...which they are supposed to be trying to do
its pretty clear that any corrective watering is done to save face..to make it look right..the problem is they are tampering with race results..they are changing the outcomes of races which is totally wrong.
if the wokingham high split had run against the standside Jubilee field..the wokingham winner would have been a Group 1 winner...its absolute madness.
Last edited:
Its a tough one.
Priority one they tell us is safety. On the straight course I got the following
Tuesday = +2.63
Wednesday = +2.56
Thursday = +3.39 (though I'm guessing a bit because the Norfolk looks all wrong)
None of those are dangerous variance figures, and Ascot routinely generates faster corrections. The first two would be a tad slower than G/F and if +3.39 is right, I'd call it G/F.
It's difficult not to think they weren't stung by the criticism over the Hunt Cup when the far side was tested for the first time, and by Wednesday they'd watered the draw out of it.
I can't rate Friday with any sense of confidence. They've clearly watered again, but its the round course that's betraying it. I've got the Albany as very slow in comparison to the previous days +0.91 and closing handicap +3.13
Today's card was a farce as you've highlighted and for the reasons you've pointed out. Punters who weren't at work might have stood a chance as they coudl have adapted to what was unfolding. Those who have to bet in the morning or night before will have got mullered betting on a false premise.
I can't find any evidence that this was down to dangerous ground, and I have little doubt, like you that this owes to Ascot refusing publicly to acknowledge their showpiece track was riding with a bias, but privately they're desperate to take remdial action. So much so in fact, that there's a possible argument to suggest they allowed the round track to verge towards becoming dangerous on the Friday at what i think was probably +4.93.
I can't find any other explanation other than trying to equalise a draw bias which was today exposed as they got it wrong and completely and spectacularly reversed it aka Newmarket 2007 when punters were stuck away again. I'm relieved that Record Breaker got me out even, (although my 'one that got away story' (or two that should be), was in the Chesham. Anyone studying the form and developments during in the week was in trouble today, and if confidence is removed then racing like any market will suffer through lack of investment.
For punting purposes a mobile draw bias effectively reduces you to about 2 or 3 races on a card, but I don't suppose anyone was offered half price entrance.
I've only made ratings for the round course on the final two days, but that is just a minor inconvenience. Removing a bias through watering is fine if you can do it (well actually I don't think it is, and I'd rather have one and have it exposed and factored in etc). It's just that it's a very imprecise science to ensure you create a level playing field every day, and as today showed, they got it wrong and reversed the previous days.
note to self
turn off computer, disconnect telephone and go no where near television or car July 8th-10th
Priority one they tell us is safety. On the straight course I got the following
Tuesday = +2.63
Wednesday = +2.56
Thursday = +3.39 (though I'm guessing a bit because the Norfolk looks all wrong)
None of those are dangerous variance figures, and Ascot routinely generates faster corrections. The first two would be a tad slower than G/F and if +3.39 is right, I'd call it G/F.
It's difficult not to think they weren't stung by the criticism over the Hunt Cup when the far side was tested for the first time, and by Wednesday they'd watered the draw out of it.
I can't rate Friday with any sense of confidence. They've clearly watered again, but its the round course that's betraying it. I've got the Albany as very slow in comparison to the previous days +0.91 and closing handicap +3.13
Today's card was a farce as you've highlighted and for the reasons you've pointed out. Punters who weren't at work might have stood a chance as they coudl have adapted to what was unfolding. Those who have to bet in the morning or night before will have got mullered betting on a false premise.
I can't find any evidence that this was down to dangerous ground, and I have little doubt, like you that this owes to Ascot refusing publicly to acknowledge their showpiece track was riding with a bias, but privately they're desperate to take remdial action. So much so in fact, that there's a possible argument to suggest they allowed the round track to verge towards becoming dangerous on the Friday at what i think was probably +4.93.
I can't find any other explanation other than trying to equalise a draw bias which was today exposed as they got it wrong and completely and spectacularly reversed it aka Newmarket 2007 when punters were stuck away again. I'm relieved that Record Breaker got me out even, (although my 'one that got away story' (or two that should be), was in the Chesham. Anyone studying the form and developments during in the week was in trouble today, and if confidence is removed then racing like any market will suffer through lack of investment.
For punting purposes a mobile draw bias effectively reduces you to about 2 or 3 races on a card, but I don't suppose anyone was offered half price entrance.
I've only made ratings for the round course on the final two days, but that is just a minor inconvenience. Removing a bias through watering is fine if you can do it (well actually I don't think it is, and I'd rather have one and have it exposed and factored in etc). It's just that it's a very imprecise science to ensure you create a level playing field every day, and as today showed, they got it wrong and reversed the previous days.
note to self
turn off computer, disconnect telephone and go no where near television or car July 8th-10th
EC1
On a break
Totally agree with all that Warbler.
The meeting started off great then as you say the Hunt Cup was the turning point where they decided to try and correct it
Yesterday was laughable when you compare the Wokingham to the Jubilee..that is the best highlight of how slow the standside was..obviously the 2yo races highlighted it too..their times are meaningless for rating puposes... but I prefer to look at older horses for confirmation.
If we say that High Standing has run a par time for the race..which is fair..maybe it was above par...then the Jubilee was approx 28 lbs per mile slower than its par...and no one has even mentioned it post race.
I am reading now elsewhere that the Wokingham was apparently faster far side due to the pace being there...28lbs faster due to pace diffences over 6f????:blink:. They must have walked it standside in the Wokingham and the Jubilee to have such a big difference.
The Jubilee was a real good pace race and should have provided us with at least a par time as minimum for class ..if the going was the same both sides..instead its approx 28lb slower.
this is why courses are getting away with this sort of thing...even when they blatantly cock up you get people explaining away the situation by saying..well bias doesn't exists.. its just where the pace is..unbelievable.
water if need be..but don't be so heavy handed like this just to make it look right.
The meeting started off great then as you say the Hunt Cup was the turning point where they decided to try and correct it
Yesterday was laughable when you compare the Wokingham to the Jubilee..that is the best highlight of how slow the standside was..obviously the 2yo races highlighted it too..their times are meaningless for rating puposes... but I prefer to look at older horses for confirmation.
If we say that High Standing has run a par time for the race..which is fair..maybe it was above par...then the Jubilee was approx 28 lbs per mile slower than its par...and no one has even mentioned it post race.
I am reading now elsewhere that the Wokingham was apparently faster far side due to the pace being there...28lbs faster due to pace diffences over 6f????:blink:. They must have walked it standside in the Wokingham and the Jubilee to have such a big difference.
The Jubilee was a real good pace race and should have provided us with at least a par time as minimum for class ..if the going was the same both sides..instead its approx 28lb slower.
this is why courses are getting away with this sort of thing...even when they blatantly cock up you get people explaining away the situation by saying..well bias doesn't exists.. its just where the pace is..unbelievable.
water if need be..but don't be so heavy handed like this just to make it look right.
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 24,823
Great thread, guys.
I am not averse to the theory that pace can dicatate the apparent effect of the draw. I was convinced almost all the pace in the Hunt Cup was stands' side. In other races I thought the far side looked strongest and that view seemed vindicated the way things panned out.
We'd mused about possible watering on Friday but without any offical word it seemed we were just speculating so I didn't give it as much credence as I should have and I genuinely felt there was an even balance of pace across the track in the Wokingham.
It was only when the majority of the field headed for the far side that I realised you weer right about the watering and I virtually knew my fate from that point. I can ojnly console myself for stating in advance that High Standing would win the far side race. I was quite confident about that and the withdrawal of the Fahey horse just amde it all the more certain.
I don't know of any other forum that gets under racing the way this one does.
It's back with a bang.
I am not averse to the theory that pace can dicatate the apparent effect of the draw. I was convinced almost all the pace in the Hunt Cup was stands' side. In other races I thought the far side looked strongest and that view seemed vindicated the way things panned out.
We'd mused about possible watering on Friday but without any offical word it seemed we were just speculating so I didn't give it as much credence as I should have and I genuinely felt there was an even balance of pace across the track in the Wokingham.
It was only when the majority of the field headed for the far side that I realised you weer right about the watering and I virtually knew my fate from that point. I can ojnly console myself for stating in advance that High Standing would win the far side race. I was quite confident about that and the withdrawal of the Fahey horse just amde it all the more certain.
I don't know of any other forum that gets under racing the way this one does.
It's back with a bang.
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
Right.
Year upon year after year a 'draw bias' exists after a couple of big field races where ooo loook, one side has beaten the other, therefore theres a draw bias. Doncaster, Newmarket, Ascot, wherever you choose, this has been happening for decades. The next day, the other side wins and all of a sudden it MUST be because they knew all along there was a bias and hamfistedly threw water on just one side to try and even it up. Why can it never be that there isnt a bias, and that the races were fair. Why ?
It couldnt be that the races panned out differently. No, they must have watered just one side in an amateurish manner.
Dandy Man in the Kings Stand a couple of years ago, whine whine whine whine. The so-unlucky bolllocks was soon exposed for sooner or later they always start winning up the other side, guaranteed. Jockeys can never decide where they want to be. Their behaviour in traversing tracks at Newmarket and Ascot often leaves me scratching my head in despair.
With absolute categorical certainty I can tell you they did not try to correct any of your percieved draw biases by watering one particular side. So find another reason for your figures.
Why did they go so slowly in the early stages of yesterdays Golden Jubilee? It was bizarre to my eyes to see a group one sprint run like that, but that may have had some bearing on the times.
Year upon year after year a 'draw bias' exists after a couple of big field races where ooo loook, one side has beaten the other, therefore theres a draw bias. Doncaster, Newmarket, Ascot, wherever you choose, this has been happening for decades. The next day, the other side wins and all of a sudden it MUST be because they knew all along there was a bias and hamfistedly threw water on just one side to try and even it up. Why can it never be that there isnt a bias, and that the races were fair. Why ?
It couldnt be that the races panned out differently. No, they must have watered just one side in an amateurish manner.
Dandy Man in the Kings Stand a couple of years ago, whine whine whine whine. The so-unlucky bolllocks was soon exposed for sooner or later they always start winning up the other side, guaranteed. Jockeys can never decide where they want to be. Their behaviour in traversing tracks at Newmarket and Ascot often leaves me scratching my head in despair.
With absolute categorical certainty I can tell you they did not try to correct any of your percieved draw biases by watering one particular side. So find another reason for your figures.
Why did they go so slowly in the early stages of yesterdays Golden Jubilee? It was bizarre to my eyes to see a group one sprint run like that, but that may have had some bearing on the times.
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
There have been several courses where massive historic draw biases have suddenly disappeared. There has also been cases of clerks turning round after a big sprint and admitting they watered one side in an attempt to annul the bias. By their own admission, it does happen but, unless you believe the massive historic draw biases disappeared by coincidence it clearly happens without their admitting to interfering. It suits their partners the bookmakers for the punters not to know the race has been turned into a lottery so it suits racing as well. They therefore have a reason to withhold the information from the public. If they insist on playing this shell and pea game with their customers such conjecture is inevitable. I'm so sick of having fiddling clerks on top of fiddling trainers and jockeys I'd love to see the whole industry go to the wall despite the fact it would cost me money.
EC1
On a break
I think many punters don't like to think that VOC's do this sort of thing.
Sorry UG, but I can't agree with any of your post because the evidence tells me that that the COC at Ascot really believed the bias was there and tried to correct it
EC1
On a break
I would just add that I didn't really bother with what was happening draw wise early on..it was only the slowing of the standside that got me wondering
I didn't really care about the draw because I don't really play heavy in big field races tbh
so I have no axe to grind...and never once mentioned any draw bias before the silliness of trying to correct it occured....just don't understand why one side of the course needs slowing down when its not firm..ie a danger to horses
i can guaratee at some point the clerk will admit to watering to correct a perceived bias though
it wasn't just the Jubilee that was slow..Giganticus and all the 2yo's races were lbs slow from Thursday onwards
were they all steadily run?
I didn't really care about the draw because I don't really play heavy in big field races tbh
so I have no axe to grind...and never once mentioned any draw bias before the silliness of trying to correct it occured....just don't understand why one side of the course needs slowing down when its not firm..ie a danger to horses
i can guaratee at some point the clerk will admit to watering to correct a perceived bias though
it wasn't just the Jubilee that was slow..Giganticus and all the 2yo's races were lbs slow from Thursday onwards
were they all steadily run?
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
Canford Cliffs is very good, but is he this good?
CC = 6f time 73.64
6f Wokingham 74.19
6f Jubilee 74.9
so..according to Ascot it was the same ground all week..
either Canford Cliffs is pegasus or the ground is seriously slower later in the week..2yo's no matter how good don't run faster than the Wokingham..10lb faster too :blink:
CC = 6f time 73.64
6f Wokingham 74.19
6f Jubilee 74.9
so..according to Ascot it was the same ground all week..
either Canford Cliffs is pegasus or the ground is seriously slower later in the week..2yo's no matter how good don't run faster than the Wokingham..10lb faster too :blink:
EC1
On a break
found this on betfair clerkwatch thread..saved me having to do it
Ive actually got the Jubilee faster 48.05 to the Wokinghams 48.18, now considering they didnt go mad in the first furlong, the gas must have been stepped up a bit in the middle two furlongs. They could have watered the last two furlongs a bit more standside because they finished better over on the far rail and were not kicking the turf up anything like they were in the Jubilee
to people that think the standside wasn't selectively watered...can you explain how a G1 field can run a final time 0.7 seconds slower than a B handicap after hitting 2 out at virtually the same time?
the answer is simple..somebody selectively watered it for his own sake..not for the safety of horses..he watered it to save face.
that thread is well worth a read by the way for people that don't believe this is happening a lot
Ive actually got the Jubilee faster 48.05 to the Wokinghams 48.18, now considering they didnt go mad in the first furlong, the gas must have been stepped up a bit in the middle two furlongs. They could have watered the last two furlongs a bit more standside because they finished better over on the far rail and were not kicking the turf up anything like they were in the Jubilee
to people that think the standside wasn't selectively watered...can you explain how a G1 field can run a final time 0.7 seconds slower than a B handicap after hitting 2 out at virtually the same time?
the answer is simple..somebody selectively watered it for his own sake..not for the safety of horses..he watered it to save face.
that thread is well worth a read by the way for people that don't believe this is happening a lot
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
I see you got a response Colin to your post
Not exactly a "belief" - just a loud mouth making an unsubstantiated claim.
Saturday: going stick 11.1, 1mm rain and 4mm watering overnight.
Wind 10mph, 60% humidity, temperature 18C
Friday: going stick 10.8 , 4mm watering overnight
Wind 15mph , 45% humidity, temperature 19C
Thursday: going stick 10.9 , no watering overnight
Wind 15mph , 45% humidity, temperature 18C
The figures indicate that the light watering to refresh the turf only balanced what evaporated each day. Saturday was the fastest going. After 4 days the Ascot stands side had taken a hammering - the far side was pristine. Poached turf takes longer to dry out.
Its funny because I always thought Robert99 was quite a clever chap, the above posting is not only rude to me
..its also naive and inaccurate...quoting going stick readings :lol:...and then saying Saturdays was the fastest going :lol:..well, thats odd because Ghaanati broke the track record on Friday when the going was firm.
I'm very disappointed with you Robert...thought you had more about you.
Maybe you would like to answer the question posed in the post above..I'll be interested in your answer
Not exactly a "belief" - just a loud mouth making an unsubstantiated claim.
Saturday: going stick 11.1, 1mm rain and 4mm watering overnight.
Wind 10mph, 60% humidity, temperature 18C
Friday: going stick 10.8 , 4mm watering overnight
Wind 15mph , 45% humidity, temperature 19C
Thursday: going stick 10.9 , no watering overnight
Wind 15mph , 45% humidity, temperature 18C
The figures indicate that the light watering to refresh the turf only balanced what evaporated each day. Saturday was the fastest going. After 4 days the Ascot stands side had taken a hammering - the far side was pristine. Poached turf takes longer to dry out.
Its funny because I always thought Robert99 was quite a clever chap, the above posting is not only rude to me
..its also naive and inaccurate...quoting going stick readings :lol:...and then saying Saturdays was the fastest going :lol:..well, thats odd because Ghaanati broke the track record on Friday when the going was firm.I'm very disappointed with you Robert...thought you had more about you.
Maybe you would like to answer the question posed in the post above..I'll be interested in your answer
Last edited:
To be honest EC I doubt Uncle Goober has maintained a 24 vigil of the course any more than he's set up his own rain gagues across the track to see what was going on. Having said that, if he's adamant that no attempt was made to alter the going to take out the draw bias, than I'd tend respect that opinion too, as he won't have made it up and will be relaying this in good faith.
The thing that would seem to support his supposition is the performance of Markab who also appears to have beaten the Jubilee time running down the stands side and doing so without the benefit of other horses to help him along.
You know full well that taking track records set by the like of Ghanatti and Perfect Stride is only limited evidence of how the straight course was riding, although I think it's fair to say that if the straight course wasn't riding quick enough to support a track record it wouldn't matter what they did on the round course. My suspicion is that they've watered selectively and I think the evidence does point to that being the case, you need to see the sections though. I also feel that an explanation of Markabs run is important though, as that one would seem to support what Uncle Goobers suggesting
The thing that would seem to support his supposition is the performance of Markab who also appears to have beaten the Jubilee time running down the stands side and doing so without the benefit of other horses to help him along.
You know full well that taking track records set by the like of Ghanatti and Perfect Stride is only limited evidence of how the straight course was riding, although I think it's fair to say that if the straight course wasn't riding quick enough to support a track record it wouldn't matter what they did on the round course. My suspicion is that they've watered selectively and I think the evidence does point to that being the case, you need to see the sections though. I also feel that an explanation of Markabs run is important though, as that one would seem to support what Uncle Goobers suggesting
G-G
Senior Jockey
Last edited:
I suspect they probably have (I'm don't know this though) hence the use of the word 'suspect'. The turn around from the Hunt Cup to the Wokingham is massive, and is just too drastic. we saw it happen at Newmarket in 2007 when it subsequently emerged that they'd tried to water a bias out of the track on the first day, witht he effect of reversing it on the second.
Goobers invited us to look for other explanations and I can accept that the performance of Markeb lends support to his assertion that the Jubilee wasn't truly run, as all things being equal the 4th horse home in the handicap running in isolatoion down the stands side, shouldn't be beating the group 1 horse half an hour earlier. I'm struggling to believe that 'where the pace was' can account for the massive difference between the Wednesday and the Saturday though. I don't know enough about Chris Stickels but I'm certain Nick Cheyne used to water selectively so it isn't unheard of at Ascot.
Goobers invited us to look for other explanations and I can accept that the performance of Markeb lends support to his assertion that the Jubilee wasn't truly run, as all things being equal the 4th horse home in the handicap running in isolatoion down the stands side, shouldn't be beating the group 1 horse half an hour earlier. I'm struggling to believe that 'where the pace was' can account for the massive difference between the Wednesday and the Saturday though. I don't know enough about Chris Stickels but I'm certain Nick Cheyne used to water selectively so it isn't unheard of at Ascot.