Epsom Derby 2012

Camelot
good winner of a bad edition, rated now in mid 120s now.I dont think he is much better than what he showed today.


they will avoid Frankel like a plague, I dont see the clash happening in 10f


about the Leger
it is out of fashion, if they think the horse is good the logical program is Irish Derby and trageting the Arc.



if they think it is a sensational horse try to run Frankel in the International , but I dont think they will do it.
 
Do you reckon JP McManus will put a bid in for Main Sequence and target him for next year's Champion Hurdle?
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Did Nijinsky put a bit of hoodoo on other attempts?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Of St Leger winners Snurge and User Friendly the closest after Nijinsky. Crow 2nd to Ivanjica 76. Dunfermiline 4th to Alleged. Boucher 72 famously ran front running splits on a par with Deep Diver in Abbaye and Lyphard in Moulin before fading.
Interesting what John Oxx had to say in Arc parade ring in 09. He said he could see how Nijinsky got so upset with crowds, photographers and tv cameras invading his space.
 
Not a bad time it seems. Beaten only by Galileo, Lammtarra, Kris Kin and Workforce in the last 20 years. Puts him up there with some nice animals.
 
True, David, but I don't know enough about race times to start talking about them in too much detail.
 
Zenyatta said:
Steve, those last few posts do you no favours at all. I am sure anybody could see through the smoke if they tried.

I don't think I can really add anything because all I would be doing is repeating what I have already said.

If I refer you to Steve's piece on the 2000 Guineas (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/2012/2012_2000_guineas_preview.htm) you will find that he has done exactly the same thing. He has conducted a flimsy dosage analysis, made one selection from it, then disregarded the rest in favour of Camelot (the short priced favourite and a non-qualifier) and Born To Sea (another non-qualifier), who are quite blatantly two form selections who bear no resemblance to the dosage analysis whatsoever.
Click to expand...


This is very silly. I can’t quite determine whether you are being deliberately obtuse or are simply taking in what it suits you to take in. I have taken the trouble to outline my rationale, not that it was incumbent on me to do so. I try to give anyone the benefit of the doubt and extend to them the courtesy of an explanation, but when all I’m getting in return are insults it is clearly self defeating... And you say I’m not doing myself any favours! Have a good look at yourself will you.

I have explained that Dosage is a stamina index that is useful in identifying stamina potential where form may be lacking or inconclusive. It is not a magic solution to all things. It confines itself to stamina aptitude. It does not attempt to determine such things as ability in an individual.

You seem to be fixated on the idea that I should stick exclusively to Dosage method in these articles. Although I do explain Dosage method within the context of word count restrictions this is not what I’m primarily attempting. In writing an article I may want to incorporate Dosage as an aid to arriving at a race prediction, but I also look at as much other evidence as is available in arriving at a conclusion. In other words I am asked to exercise my judgement in arriving at a race prediction.

I am showing both what the Dosage selects in terms of stamina suitability and looking at other variables that may have an impact in determining the result. Why this is so apparently difficult to take in a little mysterious.

Perhaps we ought to draw a line under this as I suspect we will only be repeating what has been said. I'm certainly losing the will to live and others on the forum are taking no enjoyment of it.
 
As you can see I'm back from a very enjoyable couple of days at Epsom. I'd love it if we saw Camelot go for the St Leger now. I hope connections will allow it. It may be more sensible to target the Arc, but Triple Crown winners are rarer than hens' teeth and it's still one of the very few things they have left to achieve.
 
Euronymous said:
Was basically a pacemaker, a role that cost him a good second. Seems a bit pointless running Camelot at the Curragh when they can take the race with this horse.
Click to expand...

Aye, and what a pacemaker.
Ryan Moore did a cracking job, holding Astrology just far enough in front to draw the others into the race, yet still setting strong enough fractions to ensure a proper test. A man, doing a man's job, and so much different to the usual balls ups perpetrated by the Coolmore 'boys'.
 
Last edited:
Camelot and the St Leger

this is becoming absurd, the race is out of fashion, Oxx had the chance with STS but prefered to glory going the Arc.


I imagine coolmoore will be cautious with him,



About Astrology winning the Irish Derby
I am not sure he can beat Dermots horse.
 
sunybay said:
Camelot and the St Leger

this is becoming absurd, the race is out of fashion, Oxx had the chance with STS but prefered to glory going the Arc.

I imagine coolmoore will be cautious with him,

About Astrology winning the Irish Derby
I am not sure he can beat Dermots horse.
Click to expand...
I don't think it now has anything to do with what is fashionable. For all the fantastic horses and sires they have had, they will surely have been wondering if any horse could ever win it again and this year they find themselves with very strong candidate.

I remember when Nijinsky did it in 1970, it was heralded as a remarkable feat and when racing commentators banged on about how he was the first to do so since Bahram in 1935, that 35-year gap seemed like 350. I suppose someone born in the mid-1990s might feel the same about Nijinsky (whose Derby win was far better than Camelot's, by the way).

It's now 42 years since Nijinsky, which is maybe just a reflection of how few realistic candidates there have been or, as you suggest, it wasn't commercially attractive. Maybe it still isn't commercially attractive but maybe they feel it's time to have a shot at history.
 
Last edited:
I think he is very likely to line up for the Leger now.
Had he been beaten at Newmarket, they wouldn't even consider the race for him, but the horse is answering every question and he ought to have a great chance to be a part of history.

In my opinion the brave move was to run him in the Guineas, something that connections of Motivator, Authorized and others didn't.

There were doubts about STS staying the Leger's trip, that's why he didn't run at Doncaster ( I am pretty sure STS would have beaten Mastery), but Camelot should stay the trip just fine.

The question for me now is how to plan his programe til then. If he wins the Tripple Crown, he won't stay in training next year. I would rest him now, Great Voltiguer, St leger and Arc three weeks later and hope horses beaten by Camelot so far this season frank the form in coming months.
 
Last edited:
The Leger is a fine classic to win, but I am not a racing purest, times have changed and Camelot, as the heir to the Ballydoyle throne of top breeding sires such as Montjeu and Galileo, should be tryed and tested in the races where the opposition is strong or likely to be at it's strongest. He can not be a great until he has beaten something of really high quality and been in some sort of a battle.

The closest we've seen of that so far was when beating French Fifteen in the 2000 Guineas.

Yes, it could be argued, apart from Excelebration what has Frankel beat, (Canford Cliffs for a start!), and has Frankel ever really been in a battle? But Camelot is a hold up horse where as Frankels briliance in terms of raw speed has allowed him (or made him) do it the hard way in the sense of winning from the front as he did in last years 2000 guineas or racing very prominently.

In short, Frankel hasn't met his match and probably never will, but that is undoubtably because of his sheer brilliance, where as Camelot still has it to prove for me. Brilliant yes, sublimely brilliant as Frankel is, not yet. So how can that best be achieved?

It's a case of go the safe route, or go 'all in' in the sense of taking on Frankel. If he beat Frankel fair and square over 10F then in theory he can surpass Monjeu and Galileo as a stallion: If they don't then they probably can't overtake those two stallions who raced a decade ago. I note Sea The Stars never won his group 1's by great dfistances as Camelot did yesterday, that is because as already stated he was up against some top notch group 1 horses.

To summise, the real races/events that would make Camelot a greater stallion prospect than Montjeu and Galileo, and bring the horse racing generation further than it has been the last decade as a result, would be The Eclipse, Arc, Champion Stakes at Newmarket, and possible the Breeders Cup.

The Irish Derby, Irish Champion, St Leger will be like allowing a premiership footballer show off his brilliance in the Championship for a couple of odd games. It only provides the opportunity to show off his skills but not the real endurance that is what being a true champion is all about.
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
He can not be a great until he has beaten something of really high quality and been in some sort of a battle.
Click to expand...
As far as his race record goes, perhaps. But Sadler's Wells wasn't thought of as anything other than a good G1 horse and he became one of the all-time great stallions. Rainbow Quest also made the grade from decent racehorse to supersire.

Camelot's bloodlines alone would ensure his popularity as a stallion. He's now a Guineas/Derby winner, which will cement his position as an in-demand sire. He could win the Arc and other races without enhacing his value that much. But if he could win the Triple Crown it would cement his place in history.
 
Surely putting up great performances on form terms is more important regarding stallion prospects credentials than winning certain G1 races.
Excelebration did much more for me in winning a G2 than when he won a G1 in France.
So you think has won a bunch of those G1 races. Workforce won a Derby in record time and an Arc, but it would be hard to call either of them " a great " . Camelot is no more than a mid-120 rated horse at the moment and unless he improves through the season ( or his form turns up to be better than what it actually seems to be now) his best chance of being considered a great is winning the TC and exploiting his versatility when he retires to stud.
 
Last edited:
To clarify, just for my tuppence worth, it would be better if Camelot met Frankel at some point.

Both connections of both horses should go for it.

I selected the races that I thought it might be more likely to happen in, thats all.

Otherwise this could be known as the year when two (fill in superlative) horses never even raced against each other.
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
To clarify, just for my tuppence worth, it would be better if Camelot met Frankel at some point.

Both connections of both horses should go for it.

I selected the races that I thought it might be more likely to happen in, thats all.

Otherwise this could be known as the year when two (fill in superlative) horses never even raced against each other.
Click to expand...

Camelot v Frankel is a more realistic prospect than Frankel V BC. If F v BC took place at 7f then F would have the advantage as he stays further..BC would be at the extent of her stamina.

The only problem now is that if C is going leger then he is unlikely to drop back to 10f would have thought
 
I've seen on the telly that Timeform has given Camelot a 130+ rating.

I think they got Camelot 123, Main Sequence 116, Astrology 115 and Minimise Risk 101 before the race which really would have been proved spot on after yesterday's race, with Thought Worthy not handling the track and Mickdaam running bellow par.

Looking forward to read how Timeform ended up with that 130 rating for Camelot.
 
Camelot was 123 over a mile. It's pretty obvious he had scope for improvement anyway given that he'd only run three times, especially so when stepped up in trip.
 
Back
Top