The Epsom Derby

Robicheaux said:
What's this Travers nonsense ?
I've hardly heard of this race.
This obsession with a dirt Sire, cost George Washington his life.
Click to expand...
George Washington was all washed up as a sire by the time he lost his life.
Indeed he ran quite respectfully the previous year at 3 to warrant another try but a sloppy track did it's worst.
Coolmore have heard of the race, that is all we need to know.
The timing is such that it may be the best time to catch the Triple Crown participants after a long Spring campaign for them.
SP Only said:
You can see the commercial considerations in play there from both angles. A Justify that wins the derby and then wins a Group 1 on dirt at 3.
Has that been done before?
Click to expand...

No.
There was a famous match in 1923 between Derby winner Papyrus and Kentucky Derby Zev.
Papyrus had been struck into in St Leger so had quite an injury when shipped to USA.
The match was arranged for October but the going was sloppy.
Zev wore mud caulks in his shoes for grip while Papyrus wore regular racing plates.
Zev won easily.
The big problem with Saratoga, imo is that with Belmont Park closed the Saratoga season starts this week instead of early July.
Will the racetrack take that much extra racing , or will there be a greater injury risk ?
 
barjon said:
What I do know is that I quite often think Moore is out of position, but he is too good a jockey for that and I prefer to believe that there is good reason why he should be there.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I'm critical of him at times. For me, a good jockey should not be in those positions. The likes of Steve Cauthen was rarely, if ever, in the wrong position.

I would happily believe there is a good reason for it but maybe he's just getting the best horses who can overcome unhelpful tactical positions. Coolmore obviously trust him immensely but could that be down to his reading of a horse's ability with future races in mind?
 
Kevin Blake told everybody exactly how the race would be run due to cot being drawn 1. Euphoric would go a good clip,Los Angeles near him then stretch the field and cot would need luck in running but as long as he avoided retreating horses his stride would take him into the race. Ryan surely didn't want to rush cot after the guineas debacle and said he felt he had it won before they swung into the straight.So yes he was on the best horse but he rode the race due to his draw. Have to disagree as I think he is way the best jockey out there. His ride on capulet at chester and Luxembourg on Friday just sublime. All about opinions but coolmore trust him implicitly so that tells you everything.
 
Desert Orchid said:
In theory yes, but you're bending the theory a wee bit. The equivalent of what you're saying would have been for Havlin to ask AF to sprint for the first four furlongs and obviously would then have stopped to a walk. If he put the foot to the floor for the middle third he'd have been slowing down dramatically from the four pole. Watch the race again, Tanlic - I did a few times this morning - and watch where COT was when Moore started his move (*more on that shortly) when he was four or five lengths behind AF. Watch Havlin ask AF for his effort AFTER COT has taken two lengths out of him.

Theoretically, you are absolutely right. Havlin did kick at a time when you'd have wanted him to, relative to the distance of the race, but he wasn't riding against the clock. Take COT out of the equation and we'd have been hailing the ride as an excellent one. I have no issue with that.

I had no financial interest on AF but watching the race live I was thinking, "Havlin, can you not see COT flying through on the inside?" and assumed he didn't because of the other horses inside him that he knew he had stone cold.

As I said after the race, if he'd made his move half a furlong earlier and kicked for everything he'd have gone pretty much with COT for about two furlongs before the effort started to peter out. COT would have won regardless; I've never argued otherwise. But that earlier kick would have gained him ground and momentum on the downhill part of the track and would have offset to an extent the idea of 'running out of petrol'. I reckon he'd have run COT to about a length* but would have been further clear of the third than he was. That's what I've been getting at, maybe not expressing it clearly, perhaps.

The comment in red above about RH being caught napping was copied and pasted from the RP analysis in today's website article.


*
Now for the controversial bit...

I've made myself quite unpopular on here for periodically being critical of Ryan Moore and I probably don't balance it out enough by praising him when he's brilliant, as he was on Luxembourg when I was counting my money at the top of the hill seeing the 15s furlongs he was dictating.

But, for me, COT's brilliance dug him out of a self-made hole yesterday.

For as long as I can remember, I've wanted whoever rides something I've backed in the Derby or Oaks to be in the kind of position that Piggott, and then Dettori, habitually took, ie just off the pace and just off the fence, allowing for a par pace. Moore seldom gets this right but has been riding superstars so their superiority has allowed them to win regardless.

Yesterday, maybe COT couldn't go the early pace. The stablemate's fractions saw him run a final section of 100% so he didn't overdo things. Maybe Moore felt obliged to drop him back early on account of his draw. But, for me, he was a lot further back than I was happy with, and for the first six furlongs I wondered if COT was going to flop again. COT actually lost ground - Moore's fault, imo - at the top of the hill and ended up with loads to do. Then Moore switched him inside again, asked the question and the horse started to fly. He started his run a good five lengths adrift of AF and had gone two lengths in front before Havlin reacted but he had the horse todo that.

Maybe he knew all along that his race position wouldn't have mattered because the horse is so good. That's why I said earlier I reckon the next time we see COT he'll run 10lbs better. He'll probably need to get closer to that to beat his elders should he go for the King George or Arc, assuming something among the older horses has something close to 130 in its locker. Timeform has Auguste Rodin on 129 but they tend to be about 5lbs higher than ORs. If RPRs are going 125 for COT there's a chance TF will go 130 so maybe he won't need to improve any after all.

All just one person's opinion, though.
Click to expand...
I am far from being Ryan Moore's biggest fan although a lot of that is down to pocket talk tbh. You are a bit off the mark Dessie. Moorerode a brilliant race. He was exactly where he wanted to be at all time. You have to look closely at his hand position compared to others around him, h was constantly taking gentle pulls on the horse for most of the race to stop him from taking off too early. If he hadn't the horse would have easily got to the front but that is not where Ryan wanted to be. When the time was right he changed hands and got him into top gear when it mattered.......it was a near perfect ride. IMO
 
Tying your and Coach Miguel's comments together, Tanlic, would you still feel the same if COT had found the gaps closing on him from the turn and he'd ended up an unlucky loser?

I saw the Kevin Blake stuff and liked it all because that kind of stuff fascinates me even if I think there have to be flaws and exceptions to these data-driven approaches. But it did surprise me when he said Moore would ride COT for luck. For luck? In the Derby? Piggott, Cauthen, Dettori... I don't they ever rode 'for luck' in any Derby.

KB did say the stablemates would 'decompress' the field with the pace tactics and it obviously worked (and didn't put me off backing it) but I can't say I liked hearing the term 'ride him for luck'. Is it possible 'the lads' wouldn't have minded if he'd been an unlucky loser with later season targets in mind?

Then again, maybe they knew it wouldn't have mattered since, COT apart, it really was the worst Derby in my memory. (I'd have AF better than Oath but they were more closely grouped behind Oath than they were behind AF on Saturday.)
 
Brilliant ride,imo - not only did he make the most of a poor draw,
but had the nous to challenge on the rail, which is often a no-no on this track.
 
Going into the Derby I thought it was a poor renewal but the proof is in the pudding,

We have to weight and see what others that ran end up as.......I did suggest AF was and improved animal before the race and I am even more convinced now......time will tell
 
Yes, AF is probably worthy of a place in most Derbys and LA, according to SR, will be better under a more efficiently-paced ride but the rest are not G1 horses.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Tying your and Coach Miguel's comments together, Tanlic, would you still feel the same if COT had found the gaps closing on him from the turn and he'd ended up an unlucky loser?

I saw the Kevin Blake stuff and liked it all because that kind of stuff fascinates me even if I think there have to be flaws and exceptions to these data-driven approaches. But it did surprise me when he said Moore would ride COT for luck. For luck? In the Derby? Piggott, Cauthen, Dettori... I don't they ever rode 'for luck' in any Derby.
Click to expand...
Depending on the draw/pace, you often see jocks ride for a bit of luck. You are often relying on being carried in to the race from a bad draw. You are basically a hostage to what is happening in front of you.

Wasn't Frankie drawn one a few years back when Serpentine won? Jocks got slated but classic example of being carried in to the race!
 
Yes, Chester, Epsom and Goodwood are pretty notorious for luck in running being required and often even the best of jockeys can do little about it.
 
I think this was an ordinary looking race going in, but most derby's do, but thought the winner was a special horse with that burst from 3 out, the side view on ITV, to 1 furlong out out looked special. Went from being nothing to the winner in a furlong. Goodness knows what happened in the Guineas, but this looked special, even without the stop watch.:) Simon Rowlands says the pace collapsed a bit but even with that the winner didn't look like a plodder running through horses who were burned by an early pace. I think this is a special horse as we all thought from last year
 
A wee footnote to the above...

While we're all raving about COT's sections, it shouldn't be forgotten that the day before, on slower ground, Luxembourg covered every one of the final five furlongs faster than City Of Troy.
 
Totally irrelevant mate. If they had gone any slower for the first mile Tommy's Oscar could have passed them

Based on the overall times Luxembourg would have finished about 7th or 8th
 
Last edited:
Exactly why form is more important than time, something I've argued for years and even had an article to that effect printed in the Update (forerunner to the Weekender, for the young 'uns on here).

I think it reinforces the value of sectional timing, though, in the sense that they highlight horses' maximum speeds in given scenarios.

COT appeared to show a blistering turn of foot but Luxembourg, because he had run slower for longer beforehand, ran faster over the same final five furlongs of the same mile and a half.

I can't remember the guy's name at the moment but the trainer of Top Cees who also trained (I think) the Cambridgeshire winner, said if he had a horse that could run two furlongs in 22 seconds or less he knew he could win certain races with it. (Or words to that effect.) And he was referring to handicappers.
 
Luxembourg is very hard to catch given an easy lead. He did it in the tattersalls to bay bridge. Also you can decide when to kick on and that can pinch that vital length. An even paced king George he will close in.
 
EC21 said:
I think this was an ordinary looking race going in, but most derby's do, but thought the winner was a special horse with that burst from 3 out, the side view on ITV, to 1 furlong out out looked special. Went from being nothing to the winner in a furlong. Goodness knows what happened in the Guineas, but this looked special, even without the stop watch.:) Simon Rowlands says the pace collapsed a bit but even with that the winner didn't look like a plodder running through horses who were burned by an early pace. I think this is a special horse as we all thought from last year
Click to expand...
Tbh,I think pace and sectionals are irrelevant in judging this race; imo Ryan clearly had enough horse under him to win as he liked,exactly as he did in an adverse ground Dewhurst.
My take is the colt is classy enough to do whatever they ask of him,and he'll prove it by the end of his 3yo career.
 
reet hard said:
Tbh,I think pace and sectionals are irrelevant in judging this race; imo Ryan clearly had enough horse under him to win as he liked,exactly as he did in an adverse ground Dewhurst.
My take is the colt is classy enough to do whatever they ask of him,and he'll prove it by the end of his 3yo career.
Click to expand...
Not sure, think Simon over egged it being a sort of pace collapse which made winner looked slightly favoured. I thought it was an impressive burst from 3 out, side on, visually impressive. I think this is a really good horse, could be special. I don't usually get that excited by Derby winners as it so so early in their careers when they run in the Derby. I'd put this one up as an above average, by some way, Derby winner. I am now using your eye judgement view, you usually say, go by what you see, whereas I would say go by the maths. I don't do the maths now so much, I try to go by what I see too. As a 2 year old this one so reminded me of El Gran Senor.
 
Simon didn't seem to take cots draw into account. Had cot got a middle draw he would have won by 5 lengths eased down. I'd love to see him in the juddmonte with the long straight suiting him so much.
 
Back
Top