King George VI And QE Stakes

Desert Orchid said:
Going into the race, Petara Bay's OR was 105. Like the first three, he was held up but couldn't live with them in he second half of the race. He's probably a fair guide to the level of the form, which puts the winner on 128 (at 1½lbs per length). This would also put RRC on a similar mark to Charlie's figure.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't argue over a pound/ length DO
 
Going purely on visual impressions I'd say it was a true run race - the pacemaker wasn't hanging about and Lucarno ran out of puff early just keeping up with him. And that's was my impression watching it - I expected RRC to fall in a heap, which he didn't.

Btw Petara Bay probably had a hard enough race at Newmarket only two weeks ago in the PrOfWales getting 2nd to Papal Bull, and Lucarno in winning that race - so all the more credit to Papal Bull as coming out much the best of the trio today.
 
Headstrong said:
Very exciting to watch, but you have to be sorry for Youmzain being squeezed up like that just as he got going. Great run from Papal Bull, and well done anyone who did/got a tri. I didn't have a bet in the end, wanted to just enjoy it as a race

Don't think watching the re-run it would have made any difference to the final placings though if Youmzain had had a clear run through thought the distance would have been a lot less
Click to expand...

Oh, do me a favour.

Youmzain was beaten upwards of nine lengths and looked woefully one-paced in the finish.

Anyone who thinks he was unlucky is deluded.
 
He met all kinds of trouble in running and was way too far back in the field anyway - as various people inc ex-jockeys observed. Then he was almost eased at one point after being badly squeezed up before being pushed on for third. You can't imo take his run today as evidence of anything - he was unlucky not get a better ride, his run was a shambles
 
Oh please. If he were beaten a length or so then maybe.

As it is, the horse is a perennial loser. He's not the superstar, or unlucky horse too many have claimed.

He was beaten fair and square - by a long way. How anyone can claim that was unlucky is beyond me.
 
Youmzain is a horse who needs his conditions to show his best form. A longer straight, softer ground and a strong pace will see him run to around 127. Good enough to win only a poor Arc but to call him a perennial loser is very harsh.
 
Exactly. It's nto just this race we've seen, and we saw it with our own eyes.
others saw the same, inc Mick Channon - from the race report:

<< Youmzain, who had tracked Duke of Marmalade for the early part of the race, met some interference in the home straight but clinched third place at 4-1.

A rueful Mick Channon said: "He has run another solid race but he didn't get the best of luck. He got turned round sideways a furlong and a half out and if Peslier had done that in France I know what would have happened.

"He will be back for the Arc and we will have a little break beforehand.
It was just that split-second when he was coming with his run, the others had the momentum and it cost us." >>
 
chrisbeekracing said:
He was beat by a better horse, end of story and I don't think he would have won had he waited, I actually think you need to keep going when you get Papal Bull going as if you eased up on him, he would say thank you very much. I disagree with pulling himself up in front, he's never bloody be affraid to go clear at home, so in my opinion thats just the words of a sore loser.
Click to expand...

Obviously, your "bollox" comment was directed at me, Chris, and I am assuming that the above was also. For your information, I had two bets in the race: (1) my maximum stake on Duke Of Marmalade at 5/1 with Paddy Power on the morning the horse was headlined in the Post as an intended runner at Ascot; (2) the same horse laid at 2.06 on Betfair to recover my stake.

You're entitled to your opinion but a little civility wouldn't go amiss.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Oh please. If he were beaten a length or so then maybe.

As it is, the horse is a perennial loser. He's not the superstar, or unlucky horse too many have claimed.

He was beaten fair and square - by a long way. How anyone can claim that was unlucky is beyond me.
Click to expand...

If Youmzain was beaten fair and square i eat my knotted hankie


Have you actually watched the race????
 
RP comments in running

very slowly away, held up in rear, headway 5f out, ridden and not clear run and switched left 2f out, soon squeezed out and lost place, rallied to go modest 3rd inside final furlong, no chance with leading pair
Click to expand...

Was the race reader high on drugs iyo???
 
I think you and SL have your wires crossed. It looks to me like SL (and she's more than capable of defending herself anyway) is saying Youmzain wasn't unlucky not to win, which strikes me as entirely fair. He was unlucky in running, though.
 
I tend agree, Youmzain was 9L's back (reported on track, has it been revised since?) even without an interupted passage, he didn't lose that much. He was beaten, fair and square (and he carried some of my dosh). I'm not convinced yet that papal bull didn't throw the towel in (but I need to see a few replays first)
 
Last edited:
How can a horse be beaten fair and square when it has met trouble in running??

It's RPR will tell you it has run nowhere near it's previous form, why??? because it was not beaten fair and square
 
Warbler said:
It met interference? yes.

Did it lose 9L's for it?

No.
Click to expand...


I do not know how many lengths the interference cost Youmzain, nor do you and nor does anyone else, but just like SL is entitled to think Youmzain was beaten fair and square, your entitled to think the above too


Race is done and dusted, best horse on day won, so no point saying anything else really

all the best
 
Last edited:
As Colin said he lost a lot of ground at the start, then got boxed in, then when he was 'knocked sideways' as Channon put it when starting his run, he wasn't ridden vigorously for some distance whilst he got his balance back

So the 9 lengths he was beaten in the end are immaterial to anything in terms of form. For various reasons he couldn't/didn't run his race - he was only pushed on in the final stages as Hughes once he'd got him going again realised he could get third.

No-one is saying he would have beaten DOM - but to say he was beaten 'fair and square by 9 lengths' is farcical
 
I think we're in danger of taking things too literally!

Youmzain wasn't so unlucky as to have cost him a winning chance. He wouldn't have won on the day, full stop. He was therefore, arguably, beaten fair and square.

He'd obviously have finished closer if he had enjoyed a trouble-free passage (may he should try Preparation-H in future) bu it would take quite a stretch of the imagination to see him winning on the day.
 
That is precisely what I am saying, DO/Warbler.

Had Youmzain had a free passage, he still would have been well beaten - he was beaten 9l, not one length. Had the finish been close, and the horse anywhere near the first two I could have conceded that he was unlucky.

As it was, he finished so far off the first two that the interference he met did not stop him winning, IMO - since he wasn't going to anyway.
 
chrisbeekracing said:
Papal Bull works in blinkers at home and I'm still wondering when he will race in them, when he does the mortgage is going on him, there is a big big race in him one day.
Click to expand...

I would be seriously worried if Papal Bull turned up in blinkers...he is hard enough to deal with beforehand...I think in blinkers he would be a complete lunatic.
 
Oh, do me a favour.

Youmzain was beaten upwards of nine lengths and looked woefully one-paced in the finish.

Anyone who thinks he was unlucky is deluded.
Click to expand...

Oh please. If he were beaten a length or so then maybe.

As it is, the horse is a perennial loser. He's not the superstar, or unlucky horse too many have claimed.

He was beaten fair and square - by a long way. How anyone can claim that was unlucky is beyond me.
Click to expand...

the lone voice of reason yesterday was was as good as youzmain is

he was not unlucky

how obvious before the race that excuses would be made for youzmain
allthough to be fair hughes isnt making any excuses just the inept one
i noticed before the race he has a piece of A4 PAPER in his suit pocket it must have been his prelist of excuses to make
 
<< Youmzain, who had tracked Duke of Marmalade for the early part of the race, met some interference in the home straight but clinched third place at 4-1.

A rueful Mick Channon said: "He has run another solid race but he didn't get the best of luck. He got turned round sideways a furlong and a half out and if Peslier had done that in France I know what would have happened.

"He will be back for the Arc and we will have a little break beforehand.
It was just that split-second when he was coming with his run, the others had the momentum and it cost us." >>
Click to expand...

what a poor loser this man is

cant he just say welll done to the winning connections
 
prince regent said:
yesterday was was as good as youzmain is
Click to expand...


That comment is as daft as saying he was beaten fair and square



Youmzain ran a stone below his best yesterday, that stone puts him right there at winning line, now whether he would have won no one knows, but...

Thats how much the interference cost the horse
 
Now you're surely jesting??

The interference Youmzain received yesterday in no way cost him the race. He was a long way from winnning it.
 
Back
Top