The Oaks

It's all pretty irrelevant what the consequences are. He dropped his hands in a classic and lost third place.

He should know better as the "face of racing".
 
to be fair..Hills has just lost 3rd place on Fityan in a careless way too..this comment on betfair made me laugh

horse reported that the jockey didn't handle the track

;)
 
Ha! Weirdly enough, was discussing Dettori at Lingfield yesterday, and said I didn't like the way he'd give up trying for the best possible outcome once he knew he wouldn't get first place. Our lately-departed Songsheet would've given an immediate example of his ride on ANGEL SPRINTS at Goodwood, when the trainer foolishly ditched the previously-successful Alan Daly in favourite of FD. Wasn't going to win, so just let lose one place she could've been kept up to get, anyway. But in the Oaks??

Very pleased for BEATRICE AURORE's place - 6th, I think, without looking it up. Couldn't see any hard luck stories in the race, either, which is refreshing, before they come back in with a list of excuses as long as a Chinese takeaway menu.
 
Was the ban just for dropping his hands? Did he not get anything for dangerous riding when he barged Havant out of the way when he was trapped behind horses?
 
You just think he'd not do it in the Classics, though, Imagine! Still, he did kneel down and pose with two little kiddies at Lingfield yesterday for a photo, and autographed race cards. And, just before we think Ryan doesn't do 'sweet' - he stopped on his way into the ring to also kneel beside a very old lady's wheelchair while her son took a shot of them - she was £35 up on his rides when I last chatted with her! And Ryan did smile, too!
 
krizon said:
You just think he'd not do it in the Classics, though, Imagine!
Click to expand...

Well no you're right you think he'd pay more intention in such a big race but he shouldn't do it in any race. The difference between getting a place or not is just as important to connections of horses running in the lesser races as it is to those running in the big ones, maybe not money wise or for stud value but he should be giving every horse he rides the best chance possible to finish in the best possible placing within the rules of racing.
 
Euronymous said:
Pin sticker.
Click to expand...

i think thats way off the mark tbh..he made a better case than anyone did on any forum i've read anyway

from Nick Mordin site:

The clock says that the Swettenham Stud Fillies Trial at Newbury was that rarest of races; a Classic trial with two genuinely top class horses.

Nowadays there are so many Classic trials that most don't attract any proper Group 1 horses, and when they do it's just the one. But this race was an exception.

I concede I reached this conclusion with some difficulty due to the huge rail movements made at Newbury. They reportedly added 32 metres to the distance of races run around the turn.
Unfortunately this does not seem to be correct as it suggests the Fillies Trial was a significantly slower race than the mile and a half handicap won by Peintre D'Argent.

In fact the first ten furlongs of the handicap was run two seconds slower than the ten furlongs of the Fillies Trial and the last ten furlongs 3.4 seconds slower despite the slow early pace of the Listed race.
There are two ways I can see to fairly adjust for the slow early pace in the Fillies Trial to figure out the true merit of the race. The first is to use my sectional timing formula to factor in the speed they went over the last three furlongs. The second is to take those times from the ten furlong starter's stand at face value, taking off 1.7 seconds from the time of the handicap in both cases to adjust for the longer distance. The second approach makes the assumption that the effects of tiring over the last two furlongs in the handicap cancels out the effects of the slow early pace in the Fillies Trial. Experience tells me that my sectional timing formula produces a more reliable answer. But in this instance they both give the same big rating of 39.

The sectional times demonstrate the remarkable phenomena I've noted before of how top class horses can recover from a slow early pace to clock a decent final time. They covered the first half of the race 1.5 seconds slower than they did in the handicap but proceeded to go 4.8 seconds faster over the final five furlongs.

DANCING RAIN (39) wasted some energy by pulling hard against the slow early pace but looked sure to win when taking the lead approaching the two furlong marker. But she was somewhat marooned out in the centre of the course and understandably drifted right towards the stands side running rail. This allowed IZZI TOP (39) to go on after she'd quickened up to challenge. Dancing Rain picked up and closed the gap when she straightened up in the last hundred yards but was still a head shy of success at the line.

Both fillies were traveling really strongly crossing the line, and it was impressive how they rapidly opened up a three length gap on their rivals as they dueled through the final furlong

I suggested after her last run that Dancing Rain was the one to beat in the Oaks. And until this race no Oaks candidate had bettered the rating of 38 I awarded her that day. Now she's gone and run a bit faster.

Dancing Rain runs like she'll adapt to Epsom and stay the mile and a half of the Oaks, so she's an obvious candidate for Epsom.

Izzi Top is a little more problematic as trainer John Gosden says she didn't handle the dip at Newmarket on her previous start which raises clear doubts about the steep gradients at Epsom. In addition she looks a pacier sort than Dancing Rain. The fact that she's still in the Coronation Stakes over a mile suggests her connections have doubts about her going longer.

My feeling is that ten furlongs is Izzi Top's best distance. And her owner agrees. He said after the race "we're not sure she'll stay one mile four furlongs so it's doubtful she'll go for the Oaks."

This leaves Dancing Rain as the Oaks candidate to take from the race. She's now earned the two top speed ratings I've given all the Oaks entrants. So I think the general 25-1 you can get about her for the Oaks is plain crazy. As I see it she should be favourite.

looks like a strongly made case to me..not pinsticking
 
Last edited:
Euronymous said:
Fair enough. Not being a time buff tjhat would have passed me by.
Click to expand...

some of his stuff i find pure guff tbh..but his gems are gems

his sectional stuff i find interesting because i do look at that stuff myself..its sectional clues thats put him on to this for a start...i believe he is correct with Carlton H at York..its obvious to me that a horse should run faster later than a handicapper..particularly when the classier horse uses less petrol early

I didn't see anyone make a case for the Oaks winner..bar NM...and i haven't seen anyone make a case against CH for the sectional reasons..which to me ..puts him against the crowd..a good place to be in this game.

When you go against the crowd you are going to be wrong more times than you are right..but when right the odds will be larger

its very easy to highlight when he gets it wrong..which with his approach is going to be a lot..i've done it myself..but only when i don't think what he says is really logical

what i will alwys like about him is he looks at stuff that other punters and pundits are too lazy to look at...anyone can go with the flow and wheel out all the flimsy generic racing jargon..buts its boring to me..people who use the word "classy" a lot..are just showing they can't be arsed to really look at angles..classy means fook all in reality.

I think NM is probably one of the most interesting people to read at times..then at other times i think he is the opposite...but anyone who dismisses all his ideas is missing a lot of good analysis
 
Spot on EC1, I always read what he has to say - he is also very very keen on Planteur this season based on his sectionals of his runs so far this year - he is talking close to 44 ish for him which is a monster rating
 
Last edited:
Back
Top