• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

The 2025 King George VI And Queen Elizabeth Stakes

Euronymous said:
Coolmore haven't got any proper top draw 12f colts. They either have boats like JB, LA and Lambourn or classy 10 and sub 10 animals like Delacroix, Henri Matisse and CP. If they truly wanted a King George they'd have run one of the fillies.
Click to expand...
For such a powerful outfit. They have a woeful record in the race.
 
I don’t think there’s much doubt in the rule - it’s just not enforced:

Rule 157 – Where, in the opinion of the Stewards or the Stewards of the Jockey Club, a Rider has failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given a full opportunity to win or of obtaining the best possible placing with the intention of concealing the true ability of the horse or affecting the result of the race the Rider shall be deemed in breach of this Rule and guilty of an offence.
 
AFAIK they didn't do anything to Dick Hern over his two (Highest and Kinglet) pacemakers for Bustino in 1975 and 50 years later nothing has changed.
 
Ian_Davies said:
I remember a former colleague of my father's called Paul Barrett (think he's a racecourse bookmaker and stands and sponsors at Market Rasen) asking the very same question about pacemakers generally in a published letter to the racing press way back in 1983 after a horse called IIRC Sailor's Dance was pacemaker for Sun Princess in the St Leger.

No one had a satisfactory answer for Paul
then and tbh I haven't really heard or read a satisfactory answer in the 42 years since!
Click to expand...
Yea it's a bit of a mystery.

I could kind of understand an argument that a genuine pacemaker could hit the front and hold the lead across the line but using another horse to shield another horse from challengers is.l bang out of order in my book. Should be looked at.
 
I don't like spoiling/blocking tactics and one of the reasons why I'd like to see trainers & owners limited on how many entries they can have in race.

In a 5 runner race I wouldn't allow more than one entry
 
Last edited:
There's two races at the York Ebor meeting which runners from the Ascot King George VI And Queen Elizabeth Stakes head to.

Since 2000, 34 runners have gone from the Ascot King George VI And Queen Elizabeth Stakes to the York Juddmonte International Flat Stakes 1m 2f 56y Group1, 6 have won (17.6%) and 16 have won or placed (47.1%), this includes 5 winners coming from the King George VI and 1 won (20%)
The last winner of the York Juddmonte International Flat Stakes coming from the recent renewal of the King George VI was in 2021.

Since 2000, 5 runners have gone from the Ascot King George VI And Queen Elizabeth Stakes to the
York Yorkshire Oaks Flat Stakes 1m 3f 188y Group1, 2 have won (40%) and 4 have won or placed (80%), this includes 3 winners coming from the King George VI and 2 won (66.7%)
The last winner of the York Yorkshire Oaks Flat Stakes coming from the recent renewal of the King George VI was in 2019.
 
pawras said:
I don't like spoiling/blocking tactics and one of the reasons why I'd like to see trainers & owners limited on how many entries they can have in race.

In a 5 runner race I wouldn't allow more than one entry
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree with you, I can’t see how you can resolve this. For instance you could limit Aidan O’Brien entries and then suddenly Joseph and Donnacha might rock up with a runner or two. As many of these horses are owned by “the lads” they could just amend the official owners to name just one individual, rather than all of them.

You might also end up barring syndicates, like Middleham Park, having more than one runner in races, when the horse may have dozens of different and additional owners.

I should also add that at least where the ownership is clear, you can decide whether or not to bet on a race. I suspect it is often the case that tactics are used by trainers working together in races (unlikely to be Group level admittedly) and you have little idea that it is happening.

Anyway, some of these races have so few entries, limiting numbers doesn’t seem to be such a good idea anyway.

In short: like a lot of other areas of modern life, people suggest law changes, changes are made, but the people who abuse the system just find another way and everyone’s wasted their time.
 
Desert Orchid said:
If Coolmore had wanted Calandagan to win they couldn't have done a better job of it ;) ;)
Click to expand...
I agree. They controlled the race to he benefit of one horse only and to the detriment of the other four. It was puzzling to say the least.

For balance, I did hear Seb Sanders on Sky Sports Racing saying the Coolmore plan was a great plan. He was a decent jockey and I couldn’t ride to save my life, so he’d be a better judge. Or maybe he’d backed Calandagan?

Incidentally, lovely horse that Calandagan is, Having listened to the arguments, I agree Geldings shouldn’t be allowed in Europe’s biggest race.
 
What Continuous did on Saturday was entirely legit.

He didn't blast off at 8f pace to set it up for his stablemate and in fact came off the bit after JB when challenging for the lead off the bend.

He also left enough room for RR to come through but it was JB that edged off the fence to block him.

It was, for the first time in a while, I reckon, that Continuous actually looked to be running on its own merits (which, now that I think about it, makes me wonder if there's something in my idea that they knew JB wasn't 100% going into it).
 
Desert Orchid said:
What Continuous did on Saturday was entirely legit.

He didn't blast off at 8f pace to set it up for his stablemate and in fact came off the bit after JB when challenging for the lead off the bend.

He also left enough room for RR to come through but it was JB that edged off the fence to block him.

It was, for the first time in a while, I reckon, that Continuous actually looked to be running on its own merits (which, now that I think about it, makes me wonder if there's something in my idea that they knew JB wasn't 100% going into it).
Click to expand...
It seemed pretty obvious to me that the plan was for JB to get infront on the rail and Continuous to sit on his shoulder and make the others take the long way around which is exactly what happened.

Continuous was clearly held up early for this purpose and was ran purely as an obstacle.
 
Rule 157 – Where, in the opinion of the Stewards or the Stewards of the Jockey Club, a Rider has failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given a full opportunity to win or of obtaining the best possible placing with the intention of concealing the true ability of the horse or affecting the result of the race the Rider shall be deemed in breach of this Rule and guilty of an offence.
 
Where is the evidence that there was intention to conceal its ability and how did it affect the result of the race, Bj?

Given the pace map, it arguably got a better ride than everything bar JB.

It didn't affect the result of the race. It didn't stop RR getting through - that was JB edging off the rail.
 
The intention was not to conceal its ability, but was to affect the result of the race. Obviously, you can’t “prove” an intention which is probably why no question is ever asked. Similarly, when questions are asked about why a well supported horse ran so badly it’s all to easy to say “I have no explanation” or “the ground didn’t really suit” and that’s where it ends. You could say the stewards have fired a warning shot by calling them in, but that’s about all.
 
This is a wee bit like the offside rule in football.

My contention is that if they're 'not interfering with play' they shouldn't be on the pitch. In nine out of any ten races jockeys do what they do - jockey for positions - and almost every move they make affects the outcome of the race in some way.

I still don't see that Lordan did anything other than hold his position, which he is perfectly entitled to do, through the race and even made a challenging move turning for home.

Amore obvious case was the Oaks, from which first two should have been disqualified because Moore edged in on the runner-up, affecting her chances of winning, and Lordan, in my opinion allowed Moore to pass him and win on Minnie Hauk.
 
For me, it's all about intent - I don't think Continuous was ever there with the intention of obtaining the best possible position for himself so, even if the ride, as it turned out, made it arguable he was ridden that way, you'd have to be pretty naive to think anything other than he was there to benefit a stablemate and/or hinder other runners.

The King George remains a big race and this renewal intrigued, but I've thought for a while it was a race in decline.

The Derby-Irish Derby-King George was once a routine path.

The Minstrel, Troy, Shergar all took it in my early years following the game.

Ditto Generous a few years later.

And Galileo did it for Coolmore in 2001.

It also seemed the natural path for Australia in 2014.

But they sent him to York instead.

Something had changed.

The imperative to get that circa 1m2f Group 1 win had intensified in commercial breeding terms.

The International Stakes at York had always been a big race - but I realised in Australia's year the big York race has become the bigGER race, bigger than the King George.

No matter how much prize money they pump into the Ascot race, you can't buck market forces.

Reducing the King George to 1m2f is the only way to revive its fortunes - I don't want that, but it's the only way the race will regain it's former glory.
 
When you don’t apply the rules as written in the top races, what chance do you have at the other end? The game is riddled with contemptuous cheaters for that very reason.
 
Ian_Davies said:
For me, it's all about intent - I don't think Continuous was ever there with the intention of obtaining the best possible position for himself so, even if the ride, as it turned out, made it arguable he was ridden that way, you'd have to be pretty naive to think anything other than he was there to benefit a stablemate and/or hinder other runners.

The King George remains a big race and this renewal intrigued, but I've thought for a while it was a race in decline.

The Derby-Irish Derby-King George was once a routine path.

The Minstrel, Troy, Shergar all took it in my early years following the game.

Ditto Generous a few years later.

And Galileo did it for Coolmore in 2001.

It also seemed the natural path for Australia in 2014.

But they sent him to York instead.

Something had changed.

The imperative to get that circa 1m2f Group 1 win had intensified in commercial breeding terms.

The International Stakes at York had always been a big race - but I realised in Australia's year the big York race has become the bigGER race, bigger than the King George.

No matter how much prize money they pump into the Ascot race, you can't buck market forces.

Reducing the King George to 1m2f is the only way to revive its fortunes - I don't want that, but it's the only way the race will regain it's former glory.
Click to expand...
It may well be that no subterfuge was intended,and Continuous was using the race as a stepping stone toward the Irish Leger.
 
Ian_Davies said:
For me, it's all about intent - I don't think Continuous was ever there with the intention of obtaining the best possible position for himself so, even if the ride, as it turned out, made it arguable he was ridden that way, you'd have to be pretty naive to think anything other than he was there to benefit a stablemate and/or hinder other runners.
Click to expand...

Having backed Continuous, I feared a scalded cat ride but it didn't happen. I even thought turning for home I was in with a shout. He was a 125/1 shot (the price I got) and one might argue that a 125/1 shouldn't be allowed to run in such a prestigious race as it is only going to get in others' way but I don't see that this one did.

I would also argue that in any nine out of ten races in any day 75% of the runners are never there with the intention of obtaining the best possible position. They're there to affect their rating or condition them for a future race.
 
Seen nothing to shake my personal view that I would treat all the O'Briens as one and stop what I see as them and others buying races by putting in blockers, by limiting the number of entries allowed according to field size.
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top