I'll come back to Visit, (as there's much less to write) though there's nowt wrong with being sceptical. 
Nahoodh's an interesting one actually, and she's one of those who you kind of hate. To date she's exhibited a trait that is much more common amongst jumps horses on the stopwatch (the likes of Brave Inca and Moscow Flyer are two that come to mind as being notorious culprits).
Basically she's never run a fast time, but what we don't know of course is whether she could if she was asked to? A few months ago Airmail Special was being touted in some quarters similarly. He'd won a couple of slow races by using a devastaing turn of foot at the business end to make a favourable impression etc When he was pitched into the Grand Prix du Paris and asked to race in a way that was slightly alien to him (though it was hardly a fast race of the Scorpion or Rail Link vintage either) he was found wanting.
As a line of investigation, I've found jumps horses exhibit it a lot more than flat horses. They can run a sequence of moderate times, and then produce a stellar one when its needed. Once a horse has proven it can operate like this, then to a large extent you have to take the ability as latent, and trust it's still there (it usually is).
This insight is most usefully deployed against novice and juvenile hurdlers. Every year it seems a good horse (usually in Ireland) wins a slow race by virtue of blasting away in the last 2F's for an impressive winning distance. They invariably get 'overbet' as a result, often going to Cheltenham as favourite, or right up the head of the market. Anyway, the novice races are run there at lickety spit and suddenly the horse is being taken into terrirtory they've hitherto never encountered. In short they're being asked to win a race in totally alien conditions to them, and although some of the better ones can still adapt, there's no shortage of Sweet Wakes either, and at the prices it's usually worth taking the 'jog and sprint' merchants on. Even if you used a crude investigation of limiting yourself to the top 5 TS horses going into the Supreme Novices or Triumph Hurdle, there's a 50% chance you've got the winners name on your shortlist. Admittedly it wouldn't have helped you find Ebaziyan this year, but then since the top rated was mysteriosuly re-routed to the County Hurdle (where he would have come 3rd off level weights) there's grounds for thinking he might very well have won the Supreme? Given that he subsequently came second at Aintree in another very fast time, (having put up the benchmark at Wincanton in Feb) you've got grounds to conclude that last years top novice was Blythe Knight. I disgress......
The same thing can happen on the flat, but it's less common. The last 2yo filly that comes to my mind that won races impressively to the eye, but only moderately on the clock was Sander Camillio. To convert that level of form into her 3yo career she was always going to have to answer much more searching questions when taken into unchartered territory for the first time. In cases like this you're siding with potential over the proven, and thus always taking a chance.
Now you'll have a better idea where Nahoodh sits with Njoom Dubai than I, but working on racecourse speed figures to date, the first named hasn't shown that much. Despite Nick Mordin saying you can't learn anything from slow times (he said that about a year ago) and has since performed a 180 degree reversal in last weeks Weekender I inclined to think you can, but you can only really limit what you've learnt to the winner.
The horse that wins a pattern race in a very slow time, will almost by definition exhibited a change of gear in order to do so (so that gives you an insight of sorts to its ability - albeit something of a limited horizon). This is less clear in a poor race obviously. A horse that wins a seller in a very slow time is much more likely to have done so because its a slow horse etc.
Nahoodh so far, occupies that awkward bracket of being involved in moderately run races, neither very slow or very fast (very similar to Sander Camilio) and she's very difficult to get a handle on. Will she step up when pitched into a faster run affair? or will she find herself unable to cope going flat out from stalls to post? In short I don't know, and think the evidence is somewhat contradictory (Sander Camilio who I was always pretty certain wouldn't).
I'll take Ascot first. I brought her out at 84.75+ and she's lost absolutely nothing in defeat, and today's Moyglare will of course be interesting. That rating however, is only moderate, but the first 3 have pulled well clear. This suggests to me that it's been a moderate to slow early pace, and only three horses possessed the necessary turn of foot to quicken off it. Clearly this is symptomatic of ability, and it's reassuring to know your horse possesses this trait. Indeed, you can probably award her an 'honourary win' under the circumstances in order to assess her more accurately.
However, she's unlikely to be able to win a Guineas under such circumstances, so you still need to find some evidence that she bang through the sections in the style of a Gp1 winner (Sander Camilio never did, and to date the jury's out on Nahoodh after the Lowther).
To a large extent her York win was very similar to the Ascot race albeit that this time the jockey consented to give her a chance, which she duly obliged. I've brought her out 84.64 (about a neck difference). I thought perhaps I'd made an error initially (it's certainly not unheard of, and I can't pretend I'm at all happy at where I appear to have Ravens Pass either).
The key to interpreting the Lowther might very well lie in the proceeding 2yo Stakes race run over C&D half and hour earlier. The race was won by Dark Angel in a time 1.27 secs slw to std. Nahoodh won in a time 1.52 secs slw to std. In other words Dark Angel was 0.25 secs faster. A length further back in second though was another filly, Richard Hannons' Gypsy Baby. This means that Gypsy Baby has run 0.08 secs (about half a length) faster than Nahoodh. One of Mick's other fillies (Johar Jamal) ran about 7th in a time of 1.73 secs slw to std, which means Nahoodh has only beaten her by 0.21 secs (about 1.25L's).
Results reads
1st = Gypsy Baby
0.5 = Nahoodh
1.25 = Johar Jamal
Now there is a matter of weight to equalise them off, and when this is done Nahoodh prevails
1st = Nahoodh
1 = Gypsy Baby
3 = Johar Jamal
It's not the performance of a Gp1 classic winner in waiting though.
Basically, I suppose the best way of summarising the quandry is something akin to "just because she hasn't, doesn't mean she can't", (with regards to running the sort of time you'd expect a Guineas horse to be putting up by now). To some extent though you're backing the potential over the proven. To draw on another example, Arch Swing similarly never put up a fast time until Newmarket when she suddenly fired one in from nowhere when finishing runner up FB. It can of course be done on the day, and as with any ratings mechanism you can always get caught out thus. Arch Swing had shown no evidence to suggest she was capable of winning a 3yo, Gp1 races prior to this on my figures :laughing: .
I think she needs to find at least 12L's to give her chance between now and May, and in all likelihood that figure is probably slightly higher. Then again, Arch Swing did, and we'll never know what Sander Camilio might have done.
