Thats right Gus. Its seems that some are desperate to find any reason to crab yesterdays race (wrong stable for some ?). He was just beaten fair and square by a progessively impressive horse handled by a trainer who iby far the finest at improving older animals.
King George 2009
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
Errr....I backed Tartan Bearer and was touting him up here.
I am just disappointed a horse that could bustle up New Approach could only beat Ask a nose.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
My initial post was in direct reponse to someone else asking did they selectively water, EC. I forget who asked it but it certainly wasn't I who brought it up.
It's no good accusing me of going native, or not caring about the gambling side (which is an idiotic notion since it's that side which has paid my wages for the last ten years) when you are only guessing yourself about what is going on. I know quite a lot more about Ascot than you might think and, strangely enough, I'm going to believe what I can see with my own eyes and what I am told by people I know and respect long before I believe some conspiracy theory put about by someone miles away who is guessing with a stopwatch, I'm afraid.
It's no good accusing me of going native, or not caring about the gambling side (which is an idiotic notion since it's that side which has paid my wages for the last ten years) when you are only guessing yourself about what is going on. I know quite a lot more about Ascot than you might think and, strangely enough, I'm going to believe what I can see with my own eyes and what I am told by people I know and respect long before I believe some conspiracy theory put about by someone miles away who is guessing with a stopwatch, I'm afraid.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
A progressively impressive horse who was D-E-S-T-R-O-Y-E-D by two 3yo's last time out. The King George used to mean something, look at the roll of honour. Now it's a consolation prize.
EC1
On a break
you believe what is spoonfed to you?..doesn't seem to fit with my view of you tbh...would you like to explain why 3 similar going stick readings can give near on the full range of going descriptions available as described above..you obviously believe going stick readings I assume?..well Ascots readings are a nonsense are they not?
there was no conspiracy theory SL about the selective watering..but as you like using your eyes...your own eyes should have told you where it was wetter..check out pictures of the winner of the Jubilee...then the winner of the Wokingham...one jockey covered in mud ..one jockey clean
its obvious to anyone that hasn't gone native.. just based on that one measure ...what happened with the watering there that day..
you can demean my methods as much as you want ..they make a damn sight more sense than anything I see put forward by the COC defenders that is for sure
it won't alter the fact that the game is being turned into a lottery by this type of action...and watering to Good ground in general is spoiling the game.
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
As they turned for home I was trying to do a quick mental calculation of how the figures were working out. When Conduit took it up from Tartan Bearer and Ask with others just in behind I was thinking Conduit was on course for about 125/126. That would be just about the minimum I'd want to see for the King George.
I said before the race I didn't think it was a quality race but it still worked out pretty much as it should have (whith the notable exception of Look Here) and I still think it paid a huge compliment to Sea The Stars and Rip.
I think we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture and the bigger picture says we have two immense 3yos among us.
As an aside, I think I was the one who posed the question about selective watering but I remain dumbfounded at the decision to water at all.
I said before the race I didn't think it was a quality race but it still worked out pretty much as it should have (whith the notable exception of Look Here) and I still think it paid a huge compliment to Sea The Stars and Rip.
I think we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture and the bigger picture says we have two immense 3yos among us.
As an aside, I think I was the one who posed the question about selective watering but I remain dumbfounded at the decision to water at all.
EC1
On a break
what a coincidence that just two days after the Ascot debacle the COC at Folkestone selectively watered and owned up to it....just a coincidence of course
...but it never happens apparently..its just a conspiracy theory...strange that even when its admitted its done ..its not really happening.
...but it never happens apparently..its just a conspiracy theory...strange that even when its admitted its done ..its not really happening.
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
I don't think anyone has actually said Conduit is at his best over ten furlongs, clivex.
From my own point of view, I argued that he'd run well at 10f in the Brigadier Gerard and, as he was entitled to do, improved on that form in the Eclipse. I can't rate his US win as I don't have figures for his opponents but on RPRs he was better at 12f than at 14½ in the Leger so to suggest he needs 12f is drawing a false conclusion since you could argue the further back he comes from 14½f the better he is. It would be another false conclusion but still there to be argued.
I expected Conduit to be better at 12f than at 10f. I'm a little surprised and a little disappointed that his mark for yesterday looks like working out about the same as in the Eclipse. At the same time, I can't help thinking yesterday's race wasn't quite as fast-run as the Eclipse and that Conduit will be at his best off a very fast pace at any trip from 10f up.
He could make a very interesting Cup horse next season. I'd be curious as to how SteveM rates his prospects in that sphere.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Have you arrived at a figure for him yesterday, DO?
To me, he hasn't achieved a hell of a lot more than he did in the Eclipse.
To me, he hasn't achieved a hell of a lot more than he did in the Eclipse.
EC1
On a break
Conduit's figures at 10f are consistently less than at further - simply because he is better at further - there is no mystery to it
his speed figure of 127 yesterday is representative of his level at 12f..at 10f he is 120/121 ish...same with his form ratings
apart from him running another 5 times at each distance - i really don't know what he has to do to display the clear difference in form at each trip
the left handed/right handed argument is bogus..as I pointed out at the time..there were other factors at play..mainly wrong trip..although I will assume some still believe that theory even though he has just had one of his best victories..on the clock ...at a course he can't act on
his speed figure of 127 yesterday is representative of his level at 12f..at 10f he is 120/121 ish...same with his form ratings
apart from him running another 5 times at each distance - i really don't know what he has to do to display the clear difference in form at each trip
the left handed/right handed argument is bogus..as I pointed out at the time..there were other factors at play..mainly wrong trip..although I will assume some still believe that theory even though he has just had one of his best victories..on the clock ...at a course he can't act on
chroniclandlord
Senior Jockey
The official marks going into yesterdays race were Conduit 125, Tartan Bearer 122, and Ask 120. The result pretty well matches these differentials, give or take a pound.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
It's a difficult result to weight up accurately, Colin.
I had Tartan Bearer on 125? for the Derby last year (below it thereafter) and 121 this season. Conduit has beaten him 3lbs, which would put him on 128, nicely above his Eclipse 125 (but that was a bare minimum remember) and would confirm the view that he'd be better at 12f, or 124 on this year's figure for TB.
The down side for me is that the higher figure also puts Ask on 125 whereas my previous best for him was 121, the figure on which which I based my Arc ratings. However, RPRs had him on 124 at his best. My problem with that is that it makes Cima De Triomphe higher than I have him which would, in turn, push up the figures for the Brigadier Gerard and the Eclipse.
Another however, however, is that we know Stoute's ability to get improvement from his older horses and maybe Ask is better again this year.
With Look Here and Golden Sword disappointing to varying degrees and Alwaary (115p) on the upgrade, rating the race via any of them is likely to be less reliable.
It's possible Conduit won with more in hand than it looked and, for the time being, I'll probably rate the race via Ask on 121.
So provisionally:
Conduit 124+
Tartan Bearer 121
Ask 121
...keeping in mind the possibility that these figures may be conservative.
I had Tartan Bearer on 125? for the Derby last year (below it thereafter) and 121 this season. Conduit has beaten him 3lbs, which would put him on 128, nicely above his Eclipse 125 (but that was a bare minimum remember) and would confirm the view that he'd be better at 12f, or 124 on this year's figure for TB.
The down side for me is that the higher figure also puts Ask on 125 whereas my previous best for him was 121, the figure on which which I based my Arc ratings. However, RPRs had him on 124 at his best. My problem with that is that it makes Cima De Triomphe higher than I have him which would, in turn, push up the figures for the Brigadier Gerard and the Eclipse.
Another however, however, is that we know Stoute's ability to get improvement from his older horses and maybe Ask is better again this year.
With Look Here and Golden Sword disappointing to varying degrees and Alwaary (115p) on the upgrade, rating the race via any of them is likely to be less reliable.
It's possible Conduit won with more in hand than it looked and, for the time being, I'll probably rate the race via Ask on 121.
So provisionally:
Conduit 124+
Tartan Bearer 121
Ask 121
...keeping in mind the possibility that these figures may be conservative.
EC1
On a break
what time figure did you get DO?
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
I won't have a time figure until Thursday or Friday, EC1, when the form book instalment comes in. That's when I'll feel more comfortable about settling on a figure.
EC1
On a break
ok
its a decent time - i think it was an average renewal - I know we aren't getting the cream of the 3yo's in this now but the older horses are holding up the standard of the race
I'll bet if you removed all the decent 3yo's from the last 20 years worth of races...and analysed the race re time and form without them..you would find yesterdays race on a par with most of them.
The KG is no longer a clash of the best 3 v 4yo..its an older horse race now.
its a decent time - i think it was an average renewal - I know we aren't getting the cream of the 3yo's in this now but the older horses are holding up the standard of the race
I'll bet if you removed all the decent 3yo's from the last 20 years worth of races...and analysed the race re time and form without them..you would find yesterdays race on a par with most of them.
The KG is no longer a clash of the best 3 v 4yo..its an older horse race now.
EC1
On a break
Another question for you SL
could you explain how 12yo Caracciola managed to run the last 2f of a 2m6f race faster than a G1 sprint ..particularly as most are convinced the sprint was slow early as well
Queen Alex (over 2m 6f) last 2f = 25.90 sec
Golden Jubilee (over 6f) last 2f = 26.04 sec
looks like they should have run the stayer in the sprint?
or just maybe..the stand side was significantly slower
could you explain how 12yo Caracciola managed to run the last 2f of a 2m6f race faster than a G1 sprint ..particularly as most are convinced the sprint was slow early as well
Queen Alex (over 2m 6f) last 2f = 25.90 sec
Golden Jubilee (over 6f) last 2f = 26.04 sec
looks like they should have run the stayer in the sprint?
or just maybe..the stand side was significantly slower
Last edited:
Agree with all of that. the current prices on betfair are more than generous.
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Quote from the racing manager to Hamdan suggests he is far from sure to go for the Leger so I'd hold fire. Some of that up on betfair is me trying to reduce my liabilities!
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Out of interest EC1, since I believe there are no official sectional times released for both races you mention, where did you obtain the timings? Or are they hand held times recorded from the TV?
I don't recall arguing that the stand side was not singnificantly slower although I remain yet to be fully convinced - the main basis to your argument was, was it not, that the Wokingham winner (a mere handicap race) could not possibly have posted a faster time than the winner of the Golden Jubilee (a group 1)? Did it not occur to you that possibly, just possibly, High Standing (mere winner of a handicap) may be a good horse? He has, after all, gone on to win a group 3 next time out and is still an unexposed horse. Art Connoisseur, on the other hand - the better horse, remember - only beat one home next time out, in a group 1 admittedly. I still can't see your theory holding a lot of water using that as a basis, can you? Anyway, as I was saying, I didn't necessarily dispute the stands side being slower than the rails side - just the assertion that they had selectively watered on purpose, as you are adamant they did (I don't happen to agree).
Besides which, I think we've all had enough of going around the houses on this one. I'll let you get back to your conspiracy theories and I'll be quite content not buying into them, thanks all the same.
I don't recall arguing that the stand side was not singnificantly slower although I remain yet to be fully convinced - the main basis to your argument was, was it not, that the Wokingham winner (a mere handicap race) could not possibly have posted a faster time than the winner of the Golden Jubilee (a group 1)? Did it not occur to you that possibly, just possibly, High Standing (mere winner of a handicap) may be a good horse? He has, after all, gone on to win a group 3 next time out and is still an unexposed horse. Art Connoisseur, on the other hand - the better horse, remember - only beat one home next time out, in a group 1 admittedly. I still can't see your theory holding a lot of water using that as a basis, can you? Anyway, as I was saying, I didn't necessarily dispute the stands side being slower than the rails side - just the assertion that they had selectively watered on purpose, as you are adamant they did (I don't happen to agree).
Besides which, I think we've all had enough of going around the houses on this one. I'll let you get back to your conspiracy theories and I'll be quite content not buying into them, thanks all the same.
EC1
On a break
there is no conspiracy theory...just a simple observation
the stand side was as fast or faster than far side until Saturday when it was significantly slower..there has to be a reason for that..an obvious one
you have not answered the question about the last 2 furlongs of those races..apart from questioning the timings ..but without any argument... the timings are as accurate as its possible to be from hand timing..anyone can check those...they will come up with the same fact..the 2m5f race had faster final 2 furlongs..an unbelievable state of affairs...the wokingham time also points to the far side being faster...as does the silks of riders..as does the fact that 80% of the riders went farside in the wokingham...High Standing is not a G1 winner...and the Jubilee was slow early so should have been lots faster late on than a 2m5f race or the wokingham...in the wokingham they went strong early so were not finishing as fast either.
your attitude towards this smacks of sticking up for incompetence tbh..thats why I will argue the point until the cows come home....you started it back up on this thread..I'm answering it
if you want the game turning into a lottery then fair enough..but don't shoot people who are spotting it left right and centre
the clerkwatch thread on betfair shows you what state we are in re watering..the ascot fiasco was just a small snapshot..its happening every week...I see you don't defend selective watering at Folkestone two days later either..did we imagine being told they had done that....is that a conspiracy theory?
there is no conspiracy in spotting up bollux ups...your constant reference to the term shows me you are trying to squash it but have no logical argument...so you keep wheeling it out.
at the end of the day..I want the game to flourish..you want to protect people within in it..thats demonstrated each time we have a "cheats get caught" thread
like you say..we are going round in circles..thats because you won't have things said against people in the game you like.
by the way...if you go to the RP site for that Saturdays results..you will see no going stick readings for that day at Ascot..but they are there for every other day of that week..I wonder why that is?..I think we know why don't we?
at the end of the day..I don't bet seriously on straight course big field races..so personally couldn't really give a monkeys..in fact I backed High standing just due to the bias...it was posted here so I'm not aftertiming....but I thought we were supposed to be bothered about bringing in fresh people to racing...this isn't the way to do it..by fleecing punters with a total lottery of a game.
the stand side was as fast or faster than far side until Saturday when it was significantly slower..there has to be a reason for that..an obvious one
you have not answered the question about the last 2 furlongs of those races..apart from questioning the timings ..but without any argument... the timings are as accurate as its possible to be from hand timing..anyone can check those...they will come up with the same fact..the 2m5f race had faster final 2 furlongs..an unbelievable state of affairs...the wokingham time also points to the far side being faster...as does the silks of riders..as does the fact that 80% of the riders went farside in the wokingham...High Standing is not a G1 winner...and the Jubilee was slow early so should have been lots faster late on than a 2m5f race or the wokingham...in the wokingham they went strong early so were not finishing as fast either.
your attitude towards this smacks of sticking up for incompetence tbh..thats why I will argue the point until the cows come home....you started it back up on this thread..I'm answering it
if you want the game turning into a lottery then fair enough..but don't shoot people who are spotting it left right and centre
the clerkwatch thread on betfair shows you what state we are in re watering..the ascot fiasco was just a small snapshot..its happening every week...I see you don't defend selective watering at Folkestone two days later either..did we imagine being told they had done that....is that a conspiracy theory?
there is no conspiracy in spotting up bollux ups...your constant reference to the term shows me you are trying to squash it but have no logical argument...so you keep wheeling it out.
at the end of the day..I want the game to flourish..you want to protect people within in it..thats demonstrated each time we have a "cheats get caught" thread
like you say..we are going round in circles..thats because you won't have things said against people in the game you like.
by the way...if you go to the RP site for that Saturdays results..you will see no going stick readings for that day at Ascot..but they are there for every other day of that week..I wonder why that is?..I think we know why don't we?
at the end of the day..I don't bet seriously on straight course big field races..so personally couldn't really give a monkeys..in fact I backed High standing just due to the bias...it was posted here so I'm not aftertiming....but I thought we were supposed to be bothered about bringing in fresh people to racing...this isn't the way to do it..by fleecing punters with a total lottery of a game.
Last edited:
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Oh please, EC1. So, a thread on Betfair is to be taken as absolute fact? Do us all a favour!
Believe what you like. Just stop trying to ram your conspiracy theories down the throats of the rest of us.
Believe what you like. Just stop trying to ram your conspiracy theories down the throats of the rest of us.
EC1
On a break
i'll pass an opinion when i need to SL..i don't need you telling me how to post
if you don't like it..start putting up salient points to support your gone native views
if you don't like it..start putting up salient points to support your gone native views