King George VI And QE Stakes

Headstrong said:
So many people on here, and we've seen it with other big races, just decide what they think before the race and don't seem to actually WATCH the thing objectively at all :confused:
Click to expand...

Erm, you did say that Headstrong!! Hence why I commented on your observations that no-one (bar yourself, it seems) is capable of watching a race objectively.

On the contrary, the 'debate' may have morphed into how good Youmzain is, but to start with some people were claiming - and still are!! - that Youmzain was unlucky to win the KG, which is patent nonsense. On that day he wasn't in with a chance of winning the race - as I have also said before - for whatever reason. The interference certainly didn't cost him his chance of winning that particular race.

As for the overweight - it was dealt with as it always was and announced over the course tannoy, I don't know about the BBC but take Imagine's word for it that they announced it (as the channels usually do) and the information will have been put up on betting shop screens. The overweight notices don't come in until the jockeys have weighed out so aren't even known until around 20 minutes before the race so could hardly have been reported in that morning's media!!
 
Last edited:
Looks like cross purposes here - initially I thought you were claiming not to have said no-one watches races objectively.

As for the Youmzain thing - you started off by saying how unlucky he was, and how much interference he met, and what a crap ride Hughes gave him and seemed to be strongly inferring that Youmzain should have been a lot closer - a closer 3rd place possibly, he wouldn't have troubled the first two - if it weren't for said interference and the crap ride he received. I see you then afterwards said DOM probably still would have won anyway - the inference was still there that Youmzain may have won it however.
 
I never said Youmzain would have won the race - I said all along he was never in with a chance of doing so. My whole argument therefore, as with several other posters here, has been that it's very unfair to diss the horse on this run, which several DOM supporter have done - my point being all along, that *anyone using THIS RACE* to put down Youmzain so far in the general pecking order, wasn't watching the race properly.

We have imo had this phenomenon in other races where one horse ran way below par
Btw you are inferring incorrectly! - and you meant implying anyway LOL

Re the overweight for PB, it wasn't reported on the *tv media covering the race* [obviously it couldn't have been int he morning media!!] - and that was remarked on the following morning on atr. It's a poor show, unprofessional, as a lot of people watching at home would be betting on the race
 
Last edited:
Imagine says it was reported on the *tv media covering the race*, ie, the BBC. You can lose the *stars*, you straightaway attacked "the media" (of which I thought you were claiming to be proud to be a part of now?????) of not reporting it until the next day. It will have been displayed in betting shops, Imagine says the BBC made it clear and it was certainly broadcast oncourse - so how much more do you want the *media* to broadcast it? I wouldn't be surprised if ATR and TurfTV also mentioned the overweight.

As for "and you meant implying anyway LOL" - I said inferring and I meant inferring. I do know the definition of the word, I'm not seven years old and I have been to school. Would you like me to post up the dictionary definition of inferring for you so you know what it means also?

With regard to Youmzain, I said all along and I will say again - and you all know that I don't hold the same awe-inspired opinion of the beast as some of you do - I was talking about the race on the day, ie the King George VII and Queen Elizabeth Stakes, when discussing the animal on this thread, something which I made patently clear at all times. Some people - not necessarily you, although your analysis of the race was vague at best, with the constant assertions that Youmzain was unlucky/received a crapola ride, yada, yada, then the covering-your-back bit that you think DOM "probably" would have won anyway - are still asserting that Youmzain would have won the race were he not to have received interference. I'm not entirely sure which planet those people are inhabiting though!
 
Last edited:
Youmzain never had a chance from about 2 seconds in. You don't give up that kind of start in a Group 1 and have a chance of winning. Anything else that happened after that was just incidental.
 
Dom you have twice misread what I've written, or just ignored it. You've then said I inferred something - not that you or anyone else could have any idea what I might or night not have 'inferred' - when your sentence clearly indicates that I implied it.

If you make certain points, as I did, you don't then 'infer' something from what you've written yourself; though you might be implying something! - not that I was in this case. As usual when it's pointed out you've got something wrong you just start abusing the other poster.

Re the overweight, as I'd ALREADY pointed out above, the atr piece the following morning was exactly commenting that none of the TV media picked up the fact. That was the point of interest.
 
Headstrong, I haven't misread what you've put - you've heavily implied (happy?) that Youmzain's winning chance was scuppered since he was so "unlucky" but neatly covered your back by then saying that actually, you think that Duke Of Marmalade "probably" still would have won the race. Which part of that is wrong??

I'm bored of this now.

When it comes to the overweight, yes, I saw what you put - which completely ignored Imagine telling you that the BBC made the point about the overweight clear. Which part of the TV media do the BBC not belong to?
 
I've no doubt that the overweight was mentioned on the day, but why isn't it included in the result on the RP site?
 
That I have no idea of Gareth. It certainly should be - it's a fairly common occurence for riders to put up overweight and definititely should appear in the results. In all fairness it's usually only 1lb ow but with apprentices especially it tends to be anything between 1lbs and 3lbs usually although I've heard even heavier put up.

One day lat year at Wincanton Josh Guerriero put up a ridiculous amount of overweight on one of Bob Buckler's (don't htink he's ridden for him since!) - it was so much overweight that I went to the weighing room to query that it was correct. I forget how many pounds over he put up but it was enough to nullify his claim and add a couple of pounds - it was something mad like 9lbs overweight.
 
Problem solved - he wasn't putting up overweight on Papal Bull. I thought that would be odd since, as the KG is a WFA race, Papal Bull was carrying 9st 7lb. He was riding at 9st, so put up 2lb overweight on his other two Ascot rides (Fathsta in the handicap and Ares Choix in the Princess Margaret).
 
Saves me the trouble of rooting around for the racecard Gareth to check to see if he did put up overweight!
 
Shadow Leader said:
As for "and you meant implying anyway LOL" - I said inferring and I meant inferring. I do know the definition of the word, I'm not seven years old and I have been to school. Would you like me to post up the dictionary definition of inferring for you so you know what it means also?
Click to expand...
I can only infer from the above that Shadow Leader must have bunked off the day they taught the difference between those two words; Headstrong 1 -0 Shadow Leader :D:D
 
From The Guardian's Chris Cook:

In a year when the self-confidence of British Flat racing seems at an all-time low, when our best races go unsponsored and are routinely picked off by foreign raiders, it seems entirely appropriate that Papal Bull should be revealed as the best horse in the country. The five-year-old, who has won two of his last 11 races, was handed that honour yesterday by Timeform, but their bouquet came with a matching brickbat, as it was emphasised that the horse's character remains under suspicion.

To the disgust of his owners, Papal Bull has long been tagged with the famous Timeform 'squiggle', meaning he is regarded as unreliable by that respected organisation. Of the many horses to have borne that stigma, he is now the highest-rated for more than half a century.

On a mark of 132, up from 121 a month ago, Papal Bull is joint-third in Timeform's brand new global rankings, an innovation designed to assist in the development of a narrative for the Flat season. He is one point behind Duke Of Marmalade, who recently outbattled him in the King George at Ascot, while the ratings are topped by the American champion, Curlin.

David Stack, spokesman for the syndicate that owns Papal Bull, disputed Timeform's assessment that his horse is a "difficult ride" and "often looks moody". "He just enjoys showing himself off," said Stack, who feels that back pain was sometimes to blame when the horse appeared unenthusiastic last year.

Timeform's Kieran Packman said that, because of Papal Bull's high profile, there had been a long discussion about whether the squiggle was justified. "We remain to be convinced and we'll watch his next couple of starts with interest," he added.

According to Stack, the next target is a race in Germany a week on Sunday before Papal Bull is aimed at the Arc de Triomphe and the Japan Cup. He will then be retired to stud, meaning British racegoers have almost certainly had their last chance to see the best horse around. "We've had a lot of interest from the owners of a lot of high-class mares," said Stack, happily.

Aidan O'Brien may only have the second-best horse in the world at his Ballydoyle yard but he already dominates the betting for next year's Classics.

His Masterofthehorse and Black Bear Island were yesterday cut by Ladbrokes to 20-1 for the 2009 Derby, from 40-1 and 33-1 respectively, after both were impressive winners in Ireland earlier this week. They share favouritism with O'Brien's Rip Van Winkle, who is also second-favourite for the 2,000 Guineas, behind only his stablemate Mastercraftsman.
Click to expand...

The Timeform Global Rankings are at:

http://www.timeform.com/display_articles.asp?page=Global_Rankings.asp
 
132 for Papal Bull is well over the top, have Timeform had a new intake of staff or something? Duke of Marmalade`s rating I have no problem with, but not for his KG victory. He was more impressive over 10f.

Also:
Sakhee`s Secret (dog) 128
Yeats (legend) 127

Fuck Timeform and it`s constant bias both against stayers and for sprinters. I mean ffs Prime Defender couldn`t even win a Handicap after finishing close-up in the July Cup. I wouldn`t have any of the current sprinters over 120.
 
Last edited:
Off the top of my head I don't know, but I know the tailpieces that accompanied them then were far more entertaining e.g. 'a well-bred thief that will never win again' or 'eight hundredweight of cowardice'. It would have been most entertaining to hear Noel Meade's views if the latter description was attributed to Harchibald.
 
This just goes to show the ineptitude of Timeform. They decided before the race that Duke of Marmalade was worthy of a very high rating, and to justify this they have to rate Papal Bull 132 despite the fact he has no previous form within half a stone of 132.

Sakhee's secret & Yeats' respective ratings (in different ways) are just plain wrong.

How relevant are Timeform nowadays?

Or is Papal Bull massively improved after 20 odd races? ;)
 
I think they`re still relevent and to be honest most of the time they do get it right.

The Papal Bull thing is a massive rick but it isn`t his final rating. If the form takes some knocks over the course of the rest of the season they will adjust it.
 
I think racing here could really do with a new daily newspaper and a new rating company / institution to shake up the comfortable surroundings the RP and Timeform currently find themselves in.
 
Andrew Hurley said:
This just goes to show the ineptitude of Timeform. They decided before the race that Duke of Marmalade was worthy of a very high rating, and to justify this they have to rate Papal Bull 132 despite the fact he has no previous form within half a stone of 132.

Sakhee's secret & Yeats' respective ratings (in different ways) are just plain wrong.

How relevant are Timeform nowadays?

Or is Papal Bull massively improved after 20 odd races? ;)
Click to expand...

Despite disagreeing with you about Duke Of Marmalade before the race, and being a big fan of Duke Of Marmalade, I completely agree. Papal Bull cannot be rated 132 with any amount of confidence and that does not even take his temperament into account. I think DOM is a 130 plus horse, but I cannot have him achieving that in the King George and I won’t just give it to him and the runner up just because I think DOM is capable of it.
 
Back
Top