Rainbow View

Ardross said:
My observations were based on :

1. The numerous withdrawals even of horses with form on good to firm

2. Gosden's son's observations were entirely accurate . Loads of dust was kicked up - it looked like very dry fast ground.

3. Walking right close down by the rail , whilst not in any way an exact science tends to give you some idea of what the ground is like as watering can spray over. It was very firm down there .

I accept that i did not have my own personal going stick and walk the track with it. The above factors however suggest that it is more likely than not that the ground was firm .
Click to expand...


thanks Ardross

some good points there
 
rorydelargy said:
Saucer of milk etc etc........
Click to expand...

Not really, and I don't need you getting self righteous either!

In my opinion the chances of Ardross being on the track, let alone being in the position to walk it and assess the state of it were about as likely as my chances of doing so on the same day, even with me being at Salisbury.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I didn't see the need for that, rory, to be honest.
Click to expand...
Apologies if I've got it wrong, and for the record I've been a defender of EC1 in general as he has plenty to offer. Unfortunately, he has a habit of both sneering at the opinions of others while simultaneously complaining about others being negative towards him. If he just had a bit of manners, then he wouldn't need to keep taking breaks from the forum.

It's possible that I'm being hyper sensitive and remembering too much of past issues but it seems when EC1 decides he's right on an issue, then any disagreement, however polite and well reasoned (see my post re New Approach), is almost taken as an insult. That in itself is demeaning to other posters, whether it's intended or not.

Back on topic, the bottom line is that the clock can, and does, lie. It's absolute madness to think you can identify precise going descriptions based on a simple reading of the stopwatch. Like all tools, it is useful when used correctly, but can become a blunt instrument if used incorrectly. Timeform (there's a clue in their name, btw) rated the ground on Sunday considerably faster than on the previous day, which isn't surprising as sunshine and strong breezes will dry the ground out surprisingly quickly. They rarely give firm as a going description but had no hesitation in doing so for the 1000 Guineas.

Rainbow View may very well have regressed from two to three and certainly has issues of temperament to deal with, but she was undoubtedly unhappy on extremely lively ground which did not help her chance of winning at all. To dismiss the ground as overwatered and no faster than good is very wide of the mark.
 
Rory, I don't follow all the threads so I'm unaware of 'previous' between the majority of contributors. I re-read the latter couple of pages of the thread after your comments and just couldn't see your motivation, that's all. EC was reiterating a point made earlier but I reckon most of us do that quite a lot, especially if we think we're right!
 
Ardross said:
My observations were based on :

1. The numerous withdrawals even of horses with form on good to firm

2. Gosden's son's observations were entirely accurate . Loads of dust was kicked up - it looked like very dry fast ground.

3. Walking right close down by the rail , whilst not in any way an exact science tends to give you some idea of what the ground is like as watering can spray over. It was very firm down there .

I accept that i did not have my own personal going stick and walk the track with it. The above factors however suggest that it is more likely than not that the ground was firm .
Click to expand...


I take it you realise I was agreeing with you?
 
Back
Top