Well I've gone off my idea of Neptunes anyway
Right handed - 1, 1, 1, 6, 1 = 4 from 5
Left handed - 3, 3, 8, F, 4, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1 = 4 from 12 which at face value looks doesn't look too good, as those 1's occurred in races he was entitled to get close or win. The first 5 figures however in the list relate to Cheltenham, and its difficult to think that a horse who hasn't made the first two in 5 previous attempts at the course, isn't trying to tell us something?
On the other side however, you might very well sign up to the idea that the 2007 renewal was a classy one featuring as it did two horses who would/ might have legitimate claims to be considered amongst the very best in history. In any other year Neptunes (off a less than ideal prep) might have been a winner?
To some extent I can't help wondering if Best Mate has half conned us into forgetting just how hard it is to defend a Gold Cup, and similarly, I'm struggling to think of many chasers who've regained the crown of championship race. Moscow Flyer's the only one that comes to mind, and that was arguably because he fell rather than any inate loss of ability (but let's not go there)
There's enough statistical evidence to side against the front two at this very early stage, in addition to that which we have to regard as hunches at this stage. I'm inclined to think there's a few darker horses kicking around at fancy prices, but right now I can't identify them. Last years novices looked particularly weak (Tidal Bay apart) but I can't believe he's destined for a Gold Cup run without serious doubts appearing first in the Nicholls pair
