Gold Cup 2009 (was: Denman)

One improver I remember well as I backed it in the CH under similar circumstances to MDN..giant strides in the last two outings before the big one


COLLIER BAY
11 Mar 1995 - RPR = 137
21 Jan 1996 - RPR = 161
12 Mar 1996 - RPR = 173

36 lbs improvement in 12 months
======================


12 months ago MDB had a RPR of 158 and yet it seems amazing to people that he has improved a paltry 20+lbs

Collier Bay is one of many examples as well
 
Was Collier not a younger horse though and open to significant amounts of improvement. Not that MDB might not be, he could fall into the Rooster Booster caption but still even RB was nearly winning a lot of decent handicaps. MDB struggled in earlier season handicaps before springing a surprise in the Hennessey. Not sure the overall form is the same as RB.
 
Years ago you used to see a lot of improvers Cantoris..compared to today...quickly improving as well

I mean ridiculous ones..off pretty low marks then improving to win real good prizes..within a season.....off the top of my head

HOLEMOOR STAR
MR MOONRAKER

the above two improved 20/30 lbs each in the same season and were trained by the same person..can't remember her name now

MAYOTTE
CORPORAL CLINGER
COLLIER BAY

there's plenty more but my memory deserts me...sorry but they are out there
 
That's exactly where you're wrong though. He wasn't burly at all (although you would have expected that he should have been) - I was there. In fact he looked quite spare for him (which gave the impression he could be race fit, when in fact not). The explanation given for this by the trainer was that he has been much lighter this season and they have not had anything to work off. This explains his weakness. Last season they were able to build him up and then work it off, which is what is preferred with most racehorses... this adds strength.

I am not wrong - the horse looked decidedly burly and he didn't look especially tight either. If you think that is how a fit racehorse should look then I really worry for you. Yesterday Denman looked much as he did in the paddock for last year's Hennessy - and other people who would know exactly what they're looking for in a fit horse (and who are familiar with Denman and how he would usually look) agreed with me.

Rory makes an interesting point - thinking about it, one thing he didn't do was stride around the paddock quite bullishly the way he often does; and as UG says, the only point I saw him stretch his neck out and look like trying to take a bit of a hold was passing the winning post on the first circuit.
 
Years ago you used to see a lot of improvers Cantoris..compared to today...quickly improving as well

I mean ridiculous ones..off pretty low marks then improving to win real good prizes..within a season.....off the top of my head

HOLEMOOR STAR
MR MOONRAKER

the above two improved 20/30 lbs each in the same season and were trained by the same person..can't remember her name now
Holemoor Star and Mr Moonraker were both trained by Susan Morris and were the same age; they improved significantly as second season season hurdlers after their juvenile campaign. Both were able to compete just below the top level (both won Champion Hurdle trials on the same day, but neither were within a stone of winning such a race). Mr Moonraker, incidentally, once finished last in the Gold Cup. Perhaps that's an omen!

The problem is that huge improvement in second season horses is absolutely par for the course but not so for those who have already established a high level of ability over several seasons. That kind of improvement is much less common and you'll really need to find example of fourth season chasers improving twenty pounds to illustrate your point properly. There are one or two out there though ~ hell, there is an obvious example of a fifteen year old improving two stone to be placed in a Gold Cup.
 
Would that be that be Mac Vidi ? Wonder what they were expecting when he was four.
 
Last edited:
my memory is not that good Rory :D

there is a reason for MDB improving though..its like its not possible he has improved...which I find puzzling

I see no one has answered my question re the rating of the race had Denman won..thats a real difficult one int it? :p

well it int..it would have been 180+ :whistle:
 
my memory is not that good Rory :D

there is a reason for MDB improving though..its like its not possible he has improved...which I find puzzling

I see no one has answered my question re the rating of the race had Denman won..thats a real difficult one int it? :p

well it int..it would have been 180+ :whistle:
Madison De Berlais has improved, but I personally doubt that he has improved enough to win a Gold Cup, especially as Cheltenham is arguably not ideal for him. He's good enough to be considered though, and I don't think anyone here is denying that.
 
When you look at the best trainer we have and the fact he has the best two chasers in the last x years...it makes you appreciate how well Hen Knight did to win the GC with one horse in 3 successive years

she got absolutely lambasted for running BM the bare minimum of runs...but she has given a master class in just how you go about it

those that knocked her may now see that over running good horses doesn't get the same results

It's pretty clear to me that neither KS or Denman are winning anymore GC's...which is a real shame imho

I wonder how many Hen Knight would have got out of them
 
Madison De Berlais has improved, but I personally doubt that he has improved enough to win a Gold Cup, especially as Cheltenham is arguably not ideal for him. He's good enough to be considered though, and I don't think anyone here is denying that.


aye..thats fair comment Rory..the course is a ?

but it is really hard to see who can win now

KS - no horse has ever won a GC after winning one then losing one
Denman - won't run
Neptune Collonges - is this going straight to the gC? or is it running next week - either way I don't rate the horse
Exotic Dancer - looks the only one you can rely on to run his race

looking at them..MDB is certainly a contender with pretty good credentials.
 
Trends are as pointless in horse-racing as they are in coin-tossing unless there is an underlying reason for the trend.

A trend without reason brings in factors that cannot affect the race. When we already have all the factors (form, going, trip, ability, form, opposition etc.) we could want, I can do without non-existent ones.

If however there is a reason behind that trend, then that reason can go in the mix with all of the other factors and be given a prominence that each of us see fit.

Simply picking out a trend and fitting it around past events is, as Euro says, worthless. Horse races are won by one horse on the day, finishing ahead of all of the other horses that turned up on the day. What other horses have done in the past is usually irrelevant.

Reasons are interesting. Trends are not.
 
The reason Chasers tend not to regain their Gold Cup`s is because of injury and the toll winning one takes out of them in the first place. But KS has proved neither of those reasons are relevent to his quest in 2009.
 
Eddie Freemantle has an interesting take on it in today's Observer:

"The large huddle surrounding Denman's trainer Paul Nicholls suggested that the Gold Cup winner's defeat was the story of the day, with Madison Du Berlais's handler David Pipe all but ignored by members of the press.

But let us imagine what the headlines would have been had Madison Du Berlais remained snowed in at Pipe's Somerset base, as he nearly was, and had missed the Levy Boards Chase. Denman would have been hailed for his 25 length demolition of Albertas Run, last years' Sun Alliance winner whose latest run was a creditable eight-length second to Kauto Star in the King George.

Yet Denman came in comprehensively duffed up by a horse who was supposed to be 19Ibs his inferior at yesterday's weights. And it could not be said that Ruby Walsh, who kept pushing right to the line, was easy on his mount. Nicholls looked shocked, although he said, unconvincingly, that he was 'satisfied' with the run. He expanded on that with: 'I'm pleased with the run. He needs to improve on that. He might improve for the run and going the other way round'.

The 'might' told the tale. There are no certainties in racing. The reference to going the other way round refers to Denman's known preference for a left-handed course, as at Cheltenham.

'I am making no excuses' said Nicholls, and he was not. It certainly was not being put down to the well-documented problem Denman had with a fibrillating heart in the autumn, a difficulty that most vets would not expect to have an effect on his future.

The truth is Madison Du Berlais should be given plenty of paludits for this performance, vastly superior to his surprise win in the Hennessy at Newbury in November and, significantly, completed in a time that was around 10 seconds faster than the 128-rated Strawberry later on the card. Such was the ease of victory that winning rider Tom Scudamore had time at the finish to make a contemptuous 'hurry up' gesture to Walsh in the distance.

The winner and Denman had the race to themselves from a long way out, pulling well clear of their toiling rivals down the back straight. From the fifth from home, it was evident that Madison Du Berlais had the big horse's measure and he drew farther and farther clear in the straight.

This was the sort of thing that Denman has done to others through his career. He has broken many horses and perhaps this was the day he himself was broken by another"
 
Last edited:
EC1, that stat is worthless, for one reason because the premise that horseraces always run true to stats is demonstrably false; and for another, because KS was still suffering the effects of an injury last year and should not have run. He certainly didn't give his running - his courage got him home in 2nd

I think your eagerness to convince yourself that MdeB is the Gold Cup winner may be blinding you to the beedin' obvious :rolleyes: which is that apart from Denman, KS is the class horse in the race

If Denman were mine he would have put away for the season when it was clear that he was not responding as quickly as it was hoped to being back in training. I would still like to see that happen - ie I'd hope that PN and the owners will pull the plug for this year and give the horse more time to get over - or to forget - his sickness.

We know that intended runs have constantly been put back; and that the horse has been taking much longer to come to himself than was expected. Consider also what we have been told in the last 48 hours:

- that the Gold Cup last year totally bottomed him, that he was very quiet, more or less unwell, for quite a while after the race
- and that he took a very long time to come back to himself
- that the fibrillation appeared more or less as soon as he went back into trianing in September
- that Nicholls was "still very worried' two and a half months after the initial fibrillation problem was discovered
- that Nicholls felt, at that point (ie c.November) that if he could get the horse fit enough to win at top level in Feb/March it would be "his greatest ever training feat"
- that Ruby could not get him interested in racing for quite a long way into the race yesterday
- that he at no point pulled; nor raced with any real enthusiasm (except possibly over a few fences down the back half-way through the race)
- that he was so out on his feet in the final stages yesterday that he almost fell over the last

Madison was the in-form improver yesterday, whilst ALL the other runners had question marks over them. I therefore don't think we should take too much comfort from the way they were all so strung out. It was imo a poor race, for its level.


In respect of fibrillation: I added the personal info just to point out that I do have some experience of fibrillation and its likely prognosis and consequences (inc my vet's opinion). I don't think we really need silly personal remarks speculating on the causes... As it happens, my former husband had a heart a murmur - we only found out when he went for a company medical on taking a new job. It didn't bother him in the least and he was able to do very long days of hard and sustained physical activity

Fibrillation is a very different thing. It can be caused by either physical or mental stresses; but the point is it comes and goes (often in varying degrees, and pretty unpredictably) but when it comes, it's very unpleasant indeed. Your heart stops, sometimes for several seconds, and when it gets going again it's like a heavy door slamming to and fro in a gale - but irregularly. It makes you feel very nauseous, also shaky and neuraligic, it 'puts your heart in your throat'; and it's very scary indeed.

You do then tend to avoid - whether consciously or unconsciously, the effort or the situations which cause it. You can be clear as a bell for ages but you also know that IT CAN RECUR AT ANY TIME given the conditions

Of course horses remember - their bodies tell them what they need to know. Sometimes a horse which has come very near collapse for any reason just will not put itself though that barrier ever again. Some will lose interest in the whole shooting match - like Lord Atterbury after his near-collapse in the GN - and other horses will save themselves a bit.

I think we saw yesterday either a horse who is still sick, or a horse which is gone at the game mentally. Either way, I think pushing him for this year's GC and even worse the GN is foolish. If they turn him away until September they may still have a horse next year.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top