Ryan Moore

Dessie-I've never had a go at any of the regulars on here for aftertiming-I believe the nature of punting is that sometimes tremendous value can appear at the last minute.
Whatever kind of ride Battalion got yesterday he wasn't going to win because he has a physical problem-in my opinion.I would imagine he will have one or two more runs on the flat before he is sent to the sales.
 
Fair enough, Luke. I suppose we'll have to see how his future pans out.

I don't suppose there's much chance of any news of a physical problem being made public if they plan to send him to the sales.

There's an unusual difference of opinion between the RP race comments and analysis. The race comments say CH led at a steady pace (didn't look that way to me) but the analysis says:

Battalion had proved a progressive type this season prior to disappointing on quick ground at Newbury. He travelled smoothly here but was a very tired horse when eased over a furlong out and has a bit to prove after this.

Cameron Highland lacked a recent run but was given a very positive ride and understandably faded some way out. He generally comes to hand in the second half of the year so this will have done him plenty of good.
Click to expand...
 
my view of the ride was that there was something wrong with the horse and looked to be virtually pulled up in the last furlong..even though the horse likes cut i do think he ran on the slowest part of the course as well...that far side looked a lot slower than what appeared to be a bit of a golden highway this side

so i think its a bit of both..wrong part of course and horse not right
 
Wouldn't a pro like Moore have walked the course first? You would then have to wonder why he opted for that part of the course.

You then have to wonder about the maths:

Going too fast + racing on the wrong part of the track = doomed to defeat.

Maybe yesterday wasn't part of the plan although you would imagine if they wanted to sell it they'd want to show it in a more positive light.

More questions than answers, all in all.

On a separate note, did anyone see the ride Mica Mika got behind Al Saham yesterday (Windsor)? I watched the race online so the picture wouldn't have been brilliant but it looked to me like the jockey didn't want to find a clear run for the horse.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Wouldn't a pro like Moore have walked the course first? You would then have to wonder why he opted for that part of the course.

You then have to wonder about the maths:

Going too fast + racing on the wrong part of the track = doomed to defeat.

Maybe yesterday wasn't part of the plan although you would imagine if they wanted to sell it they'd want to show it in a more positive light.

More questions than answers, all in all.

On a separate note, did anyone see the ride Mica Mika got behind Al Saham yesterday (Windsor)? I watched the race online so the picture wouldn't have been brilliant but it looked to me like the jockey didn't want to find a clear run for the horse.
Click to expand...

i don't think he went fast enough for the horse to completely fall in a hole like that though

many jockeys don't walk the course i would imagine
 
Desert Orchid said:
Wouldn't a pro like Moore have walked the course first? You would then have to wonder why he opted for that part of the course.

You then have to wonder about the maths:

Going too fast + racing on the wrong part of the track = doomed to defeat.

Maybe yesterday wasn't part of the plan although you would imagine if they wanted to sell it they'd want to show it in a more positive light.

More questions than answers, all in all.

On a separate note, did anyone see the ride Mica Mika got behind Al Saham yesterday (Windsor)? I watched the race online so the picture wouldn't have been brilliant but it looked to me like the jockey didn't want to find a clear run for the horse.
Click to expand...

It's was absolutely p!ssing down with rain, he would have had to walk the course between races, which clearly isn't going to happen.. My guess is he gambled and it didn't work.
 
Aragorn said:
It's was absolutely p!ssing down with rain, he would have had to walk the course between races, which clearly isn't going to happen.. My guess is he gambled and it didn't work.
Click to expand...

I didn't see much of the tv other than when the races had actually started so wasn't aware when the rain started or how long it came down. I suppose your guess is fair enough in the circumstances although I'd have thought experienced jockeys would know if there is a tendency for one part of the track to soften quicker than another. I must admit when I saw the next race I wondered whether Moore had been using Battalion as a ground-tester for Garswood having ridden up the stands rail in the first two races.
 
Dessie, the race before was delayed at the start due to thunderstorms and half of the cameras were taken off air! The battalion race was run in a torrential downpour; Moore quite possibly could have gone to the rail just to keep him straight! Visibility would have been poor and there's no way the Jocks would have known where the best ground was. It was raining so hard it would have been changing by the minute.

If you want to see a bad Ryan Moore ride see his effort on Fort Knox at Newbury. And yes, I did back him!!
 
Aragorn said:
Dessie, the race before was delayed at the start due to thunderstorms and half of the cameras were taken off air! The battalion race was run in a torrential downpour; Moore quite possibly could have gone to the rail just to keep him straight! Visibility would have been poor and there's no way the Jocks would have known where the best ground was. It was raining so hard it would have been changing by the minute.
Click to expand...

Fair dos.
 
As Moore gets older he's become far more flexible in the way he rides. A few years back more often than not he'd be back at the rear of the field and then launch a run from 3f, 2f out. What worried me was that he'd often yank a horse back after the start to get at the rear of the field, which I could see no sense in him doing.
Last year and even more this you've seen him far more ready to ride nearer the pace. Obviously different horses (and races) demand different tactics. I just think he's the more rounded article now.
 
Do you seriously think the world's leading jockey would compromise the chances of a 9/4 fav in a listed race to see where the best ground is for his 3rd fav in the subsequent Group 3?!
 
2.55, third race

Ryan Moore, the rider of BATTALION (IRE), placed fifth, reported that the colt hung badly left. The Stewards ordered BATTALION (IRE) to be routine tested.
 
I really can't answer your first point, GS. On the face of it your question is entirely logical. My suggestion doesn't make a lot of sense at face value.

As for the report of Battalion running badly, isn't it the case that such a report reduces the chances of a stewards' inquiry following a sudden return to form (which might happen next time out)?
 
Do you really believe on the evidence of last Saturday that Battalion would have won with a better ride?

I cant see it at all.
 
We were at Newmarket on Saturday and I've never been in such torrential rain anywhere. The racecard said that Battalion 'hadn't liked the going' in his previous race, but I didn't know what that going had been. It changed to 'soft' very quickly and I'd imagine some horses must have been seriously freaked out by the thunder and lightning [which was directly overhead for quite a while]. Must say I'm glad we took our waxes with us [although I was still soaked to the skin wearing mine because I was determined to venture forth from the stands assuming that the rain was going to continue for the whole afternoon].
 
HawkWing said:
Do you really believe on the evidence of last Saturday that Battalion would have won with a better ride?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's what I said - or even implied - Hawk Wing.

On the day I don't think he was given a hope of winning. He may have got a much better ride and still not won but he was entitled to win on his best form.

I'll be looking at the race again tomorrow so I'll be able to say if the winner beat Battalion's best rating, in which case he wouldn't have won anyway unless he improved as well (and assuming, of course, that the ratings are accurate).

I have no problem with a horse losing so long as it was given a chance of winning. For example, I did back Bold Sniper at Ascot and was disappointed that it didn't win as I had it ahead of Contributer but when I did my figures, I discovered Bold Sniper improved 6lbs on previous form, normally enough to win, but Contributer improved more. I have no problem with that kind of outcome. It's what racing and backing your judgment are about.
 
Last edited:
actual ratings can mean bugger all though DO..pace is the main player for me in races. You can have a horse 10lb better than another horse but if the superior horse is ridden unevenly it can be beaten by the lesser rated horse..just on that one factor alone

on top of pace you have lots of other factors that change race outcomes..the rating a horse has is just a % of its chance of winning...i cannot see how without knowing afterwards all of the factors that came into play you can just juggle the OHR that one has improved whilst another hasn't..it can just be race circumstances that do that
 
Last edited:
Yep, all fair points, EC1. However, handicap form especially at the top end tends to be very reliable. The pace tends to be closer to true and if four or five of the main finishers run to somewhere close to their previous marks vis-a-vis their collateral form then it is usually fair to conclude which have run better than before and which haven't.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I don't believe that's what I said - or even implied - Hawk Wing.

On the day I don't think he was given a hope of winning. He may have got a much better ride and still not won but he was entitled to win on his best form.

I'll be looking at the race again tomorrow so I'll be able to say if the winner beat Battalion's best rating, in which case he wouldn't have won anyway unless he improved as well (and assuming, of course, that the ratings are accurate).

I have no problem with a horse losing so long as it was given a chance of winning. For example, I did back Bold Sniper at Ascot and was disappointed that it didn't win as I had it ahead of Contributer but when I did my figures, I discovered Bold Sniper improved 6lbs on previous form, normally enough to win, but Contributer improved more. I have no problem with that kind of outcome. It's what racing and backing your judgment are about.
Click to expand...

Yes, rather than seeing that Battalion wasnt suited by the extraordinary conditions of the race (rare that Ive seen a race in such conditions) and that previous form was ultimately unreliable, the allegation was that Moore chose to sacrifice Battalion's chance by experimenting on a part of the track, and choosing not to race the horse on its merits. I can understand why that rankles with some.

Even if the winner doesnt get near the rating of Battalion's best, its hugely doubtful that he will ever need to race in those specific conditions again to see if a different ride would lead to a different result. I didnt see anything in the ride to suggest that he was the moral winner.
 
Yes. I can see that it might rankle with some, especially if they think Moore can do no wrong. I cannot think of a single jockey that I have not 'suspected' of deliberately giving a horse a poor tactical race. It seems to rankle that it's Moore in this case.

I don't think I said or implied that Battalion was the moral winner. I really couldn't give a sh1t what might or might not have won the race. I just was surprised at what I was seeing from both Dettori and Moore. For the first half I was wondering if they were getting a soft lead up front or overdoing it. It became apparent about half a mile out that it was the latter. Then I wondered why Moore had chosen to go so far over. It wasn't obvious to me that the horse was hanging so I presumed it was a deliberate manoeuvre. Was he looking for better ground and outwitting the other jockeys? That was my initial thought. I didn't start to suspect any motive until I saw the ride on Garswood - straight down the centre.

Maybe Battalion did hang. Maybe he has a problem. Maybe there was nothing Moore could do about it.

What really is the problem with my voicing that I thought it wasn't entirely 'straight'? I reckon I could watch almost any race at random and suspect at least one and in some cases all bar one of not being ridden on its merits.
 
I don't think that its because its Moore that it rankles, and you are right that there is probably some query that could be made about some ride in almost any race. On balance there are worse rides every day. I think the point is that highlighting this one is from the fact that you had a bet on it. Its far more likely that Battalion wasnt nearly good enough on the weekend conditions than the unlikely reasons for Moore's slightly (only very slighly) unorthodox ride.

Whether aftertiming or pocket talking (two sides of the same coin)
is as great a crime on forums as some would have you believe is another matter.
 
Battalion had won on soft ground before so the ground shouldn't have been an issue. Empress Adelaide was tailed off in another race as well [by Pivotal I was expecting her to run well]. Maybe there's a problem at the stable [although their results are pretty good at the moment].
 
Back
Top