You can't have faith in sectional timings if you are not going to accept the evidence of them in certain races. We had a fairly unique situation this season, where the Oaks and Derby were run 75 minutes apart. That is probably as close as you are going to get to analyse sectional times for two races under the same course and distance and with identical going. If you map the sectionals for both races we can identify exactly where each runner was in the race at each sectional pinpoint compared to the average time at the same position historically. In effect you can draw a map of Epsom racecourse and place a marker for both Love and Serpentine and see where they were relative to an average winner from the past and to one another on the day. As I said earlier, Love was sitting 13 lengths behind Serpentine coming into the home straight but by the 2F pole she was only just behind him and in the final furlong she went past and won her race with a time quicker than Serpentine clocked. I think we will all agree that the horse who clocked the fastest time in ANY race would be the one that won the race. Obviously there are variables when you bring in races run on different days in different conditions but here we are dealing with like for like races 75 minutes apart. Both horses ran less than maximum efficiency but Serpentine was more inefficient based on average ideal sectional for the distance and his slower final furlong showed that he was feeling the earlier pace he went at. It makes no sense to say that Love could not have caught Serpentine because the sectional timings show exactly where both horses were at several checkpoints during the race. They show exactly where Love got motoring and they show exactly where she all but caught Serpentine up and where she would have finished her race off faster than the colt to "win". To say she could not have caught him had she actually been in the race makes no sense at all because the timings show that she would have done so unless Serpentine had somehow summoned an extra 3 lengths or so for the sole reason that he responded to being challenged. That seems unlikely to me and the sectionals Simon Rowlands produced showed that both the Oaks and Derby were run at a pace roughly 6 lengths faster than average early but that Love was sitting behind the pace while Serpentine was setting it. It makes no sense to say that the filly could not have sat the same distance off the early pace in the Derby and somehow failed to to make it up and go on to win in a faster time than the winner of the Derby, simply because there were different horses in the Derby race. I think most people would agree that Love is a far superior horse to the moderate rivals Serpentine put to the sword in the Derby and ,freakish or not, who would back any of those who finished behind Serpentine at Epsom in a match bet with Love in the future? Thought not.
No, it tells you nothing, apart from the fact that the trainer and jockey went into the Epsom Derby pointing out all the positive signs that Kameko might stay and then, after a race, where you yourself described it as being "Freakish" the horse has done best of the fancied runners but still only been 4th and they have then taken the obvious escape goat route and blamed the stamina angle, immediately panicking and ****ting themselves in case he can't get 10F either. It is a classic defence mechanism to revert to that that you know and are comfortable with, The horse won the Guineas, so therefore we should stay at a mile. Going into the Derby they were cocksure the horse would get 10F but the 12F was unknown. Why would they need to come away from the original certainty that the horse would get 10F then? If Pinatubo is the "Kiddie", as you had put forward as a bet for the Sussex Stakes, why would Balding want to run the risk of putting Kameko into competition with that horse, or his near rivals, over a mile? By the time that you tipped Pinatubo for the Sussex, you surely didn't fancy Kameko dropping back in trip by a half mile after his Epsom race. It makes no sense to claim that dropping back to a mile is conclusive proof. If the horse was a stone cold certainty not to stay 12F they should never have run him at the trip. Henry Cecil resisted the temptation to run Frankel at 12F because he knew the horse was a miler who might get 10F when he was more mature. I see a trainer who goes 8F, 12F, 8F as one who doesn't have much confidence in himself, just as much as he is unsure about the horse. The Derby is a bit of a monkey on Andrew Balding's back and Kameko may have been his best chance to get it off. As it was, the horse was in a position you yourself has described as hopeless, saying that nothing could ever have caught Serpentine from the position they were in behind the pacesetter. Kameko finished BEST of those who sat off the pace, but yet you claim it was patently obvious he didn't stay. That doesn't even make a modicum of sense. It's as if you think a jockey could ever come out and say, "I gave the horse a **** ride on the day, sorry about that" or a trainer would fess up and say "Oh, I had my head up may arse there, what WAS I thinking with the 12F thing" Usually the horse is burdened with the blame in this game. I think you need to analyse your input and stop contradicting yourself from post to post.
Dont really see any value in comparing where horses where in years gone by in different conditions, im not even interested in comparing where they where in the races on the same day. You have missed my point completely and you have a very weak understanding of sectionals. Im not saying it was physically impossible for Love to win, im saying there is no way that Moore would have made the move early enough to make it possible, he would have sat with the rest of the pack and passed the point where it was possible to catch the winner. In order for Love to win the Derby from being held up, Moore would have had to make the decision himself to break from the pack a long way out, he simply would never do this, it just does not happen in a race where a perceived pacemaker has been allowed to go clear. Can you imagine he makes the move against the judgement of every other jockey to chase a clear leader from halfway in a 12f race and then his horse empties with the pacemaker? As Murphy said, none of them would have even considered making a move like that. The chasing pack got going way earlier in the Oaks and the 2 pacemakers took each on the full way, they did not get breathers and steal easy lengths on the downhill sections like Serpentine.
You need to calm down a bit as you are all over the shop and not reading things properly. Why would Murphy need to make up an excuse? Hes one of the most honest jockeys about. When you have a horse that will be effective at 10f and you win the Guineas, you have to run in the Derby, it was the correct decision but deep down they knew he wasnt a 12f horse. To win the Guineas and the Derby you really need to be getting away with it at a mile like Camelot, New Approach almost got away with it. Kameko was not that type of horse, and the fact they have no issues dropping right back to a mile confirms that. And the comparison with Cecil and Frankel does not hold water either, Frankel was well known to be hard to handle, it would have been a suicide mission a la Dawn Approach. Kameko was the type of horse who would give himself every chance as he settles easily in his races. Kameko was better placed than his main rivals and despite finishing significantly slower than Russian Emperor, English King and Mogul, he was still in front of them, benefiting from the same circumstances that saw the 2nd and 3rd hold their positions. They were not stopping fast enough because it was a false race, Kameko was not able to use his superior speed to even overcome the maiden who finished 3rd, despite being well placed to do so. If he stayed he would have finished clear 2nd. Staying is ambiguous anyway, every horse technically stays every trip, Brigadiar Gerrard won a King George but imo he didnt "stay" 12f, he got away with it. He was an 8-10f horse, the same as Kameko, and you need to get over it, the champion jockey said he didnt stay and to claim hes making up excuses is a poor conspiracy theory that doesnt make any sense. As for my Pinatubo bet, I never said he was anything special, or a kiddie whatever that is. I said all along he was an extremely precocious type and that he was already the finished article at Goodwood in the Vintage Stakes as a 2yo. The others have well caught up with him as I expected but hes still at a high level judged on his Guineas and St James Palace runs, and by his recent comfortable win in France. 5/1 imo was a cracking bet considering Palace Pier was not turning up, given that Siskin was 5/4 favourite for winning what imo was a weaker race than the St James Palace. I didnt say he was a cert, I said it was a good bet. Mohaather and now Kameko have come into the picture but id still be very quick to take 5/1 if they were running him, because he wouldnt any bigger than 11/4 on the day.
When you compare the sectionals of the Oaks and Derby, its extremely clear that the significant section of the races for comparisons sake was between 4f and 8.5f. In this part of the race the main pack of fillies ran generally 2-3 seconds quicker than the main pack of colts, Love went from being behind every horse in the Derby to being bang level with Khalifa Sat, but she didnt do that herself, the whole chasing pack did it headed by Enistymon. In order for her to have achieved that in the Derby, Ryan Moore would have had to go from clear last to 2nd after a half mile, I know hes good, but hes not Nostradamus or suicidal, its utterly absurd to consider it even a slight possibility that he would have made this move. And this extremely slow part of the race for the main pack of colts is what led to the conveyor belt finish, everything had plenty of energy left as it was not a truly run race all the way, in other words it was a false race. There was half a second between 2nd and 7th in the Derby, compared to over 4 seconds between the same places in the Oaks. Its difficult to make half a length in that scenario never mind significant distances.
You are waffling on but it is clear that you are the one who cannot be consistent in their stance. In the Derby build up you laughed English King's chance out of the door and cribbed his form at every opportunity. Come Derby Day you had English King down as a shoo-in who should be 2/1. WTF? You can write all you wish. I think people reading this thread can decide for themselves who is being more logical and consistent. I note that you put Pinatubo up for the Sussex at 5/1 but cancelled the bet. If I had advised people to back a horse on a forum, I would have been damn sure I came back to inform them of my concerns had I deemed it necessary to cancel my bet. It would have been gentlemanly and decent towards other forum users to let them know why you felt Pinatubo should not be backed and advise them to also cancel their bets. As it turned out, I was the one who provided the information that Pinatubo was highly unlikely to run. I provided this with the best intentions of preventing people from backing a horse who was not likely to run. You are a very good tipster and have excellent racing knowledge but I feel you could do better still if you were to acknowledge that other people have good input and that sometimes they will be correct. The insecure need to blow your own trumpet is strange and comments about other posters being "Non entities" and "Two Bob Jonahs" is unnecessary. I have been on other forums where such behaviour would see you booted off quickly and I think this sort of carry on is intimidating for readers who could potentially become posters but decide it isn't worth the potential grief.
I've heard nothing since Hughes commented that the colt would be out for six weeks. That article was dated 8th June and it is now the 17th July so at 39 days passed the six weeks will be up on Monday 20th. I decided that it might be worth scouring for entries with the deadline approaching, lo and behold Sunday 19th July 12.45 York Novice Stakes race has Brentford Hope entered and Jamie Spencer booked to ride. No betting yet but the Racing Post has Brentford Hope 13/8 Fav in their Guide. I have to say that I will be with Matthew Flinders though and if the Racing Post are going to lay the 7/2 they have him at in their guide I will be tapping their door.
Sticking to a position you took weeks or months before a race despite your opinion evolving as more information becomes available isn't being consistent, it's being stubborn. All last season I fancied Kimari for the breeders cup, but as it got closer to the race, I realised Four Wheel Drive was the one to be on and backed it accordingly. With English King, I was against him antepost based on the price for what he had achieved, then after my strong fancy for the race dropped out and the price drifted in the days before with non runner no bet factored in, my opinion changed on his value and I had a decent bet on him. Don't think I advised anyone to back Pinatubo, I posted why I was backing him, and I'm unaware of anyone who backed him on my advise or that I was running a public service to keep them updated with widely available information. You posted multiple days after the information was pretty much headline news so it wouldn't have helped anyone who missed it in any case. And you might want to stop quitting the forum and coming back a few days later if you want to talk about consistency. It's becoming a habit.
No justification at all for the catty digs. English King did nothing at all to enhance his Derby hope after his Lingfield Derby Trial win. It was not as if he ran again after it and had looked a much better prospect. Military March dropped out of the Derby but it wasn't as if he was a red-hot favourite suddenly being pulled from the race and it hardly made any difference, if any, to the odds available on the others. That is a totally different scenario to seeing a strong candidate emerge that wasn't on the radar when you made an earlier bet and you feel that it is no longer as sound a bet as it looked at the time. I could not go from dismissing a horse as a no hoper and then into a stance where I was backing it, without the horse having run again and showing me something that made me feel the absolute U-turn had to be taken. That is not being stubborn, it is simply having faith in your original opinion that the horse was of insufficient quality to win, even an average, or slightly below average renewal of the race. People on forums have other more important things to be doing than scanning social media 24/7. Forum members miss bits of information all the time for various reasons and I think that making the information known for someone who might have missed it is just good forum manners. Thirteen firms are still quoting Pinatubo for the Sussex Stakes and I am assuming that means they will still take bets on him for the race. I also have to assume those firms all missed the "Headline news" I have to say I missed Sophie Raworth on the BBC leading off her broadcast with the "Pinatubo in Sussex Stakes Shocker" tagline, so perhaps all the betting companies are ITV viewers, or turned a deaf ear/blind eye in the name of profit. Anyway this is becoming tedious, so I will leave you to have the last word and insult as always.
Who are you calling a "Boof"? As they say in Scotland "Lick my Thud" Might need to watch Still Game if you live in England and/or don't understand low brow Scottish slang
So a 103 Rated filly wins the Irish Oaks then. Ennistymon was last and beaten further that when 2nd to Love at Epsom. Cayenne Pepper didn't seem to stay but she just showed no signs of coming forward as massively as jockey Shane Foley had intimated earlier in the week. Snow had a bash out in the lead but ran almost as if she was being sacrificed for one of her stablemates or perhaps in the hope of doing a Serpentine out in front. No doubt the assessors will be as creative as they can in awarding a rating for Even So that makes the race look better than it probably was in reality. My take on it would be that she has probably run 108 to 110 in a mediocre renewal.
Lope Y Fernandez does go for the Maurice De Gheest with Moore on and looks decent value at 7/1, a good bet imo. Earthlight a worthy fav with home advantage but 2/1 is short enough. Never really bought into Golden Horde and hes been beaten by Oxted in a July Cup, hardly champion sprinter material. Space Blues is a rock solid G2 horse at 7f and hes been well placed by Appleby but this looks a more difficult task for him.
I've always been keen on Earthlight so I will continue to follow blindly until he's beaten, unless it's discovered he's running at the wrong distance
Earthlight beat nothing of note last time out. He had the knack of just doing enough to win every race last year and he was a good money spinner for me. I never bought into him being a miler but connections initially said he would be aimed at the Guineas, before an injury ruled him out for what was supposed to be a short time but the type of injury he had is normally one that rules horses out for a more extended period. They found him a sensible place to start again but the media were gushing over what was a penalty kick return. This choice of race for a next move suggests that they are not going to pitch him in at a mile any time soon. I want to take Earthlight on, so what are the options? Space Blues was a failure when upped in trip as a stepping stone towards a supplement for the Epsom Derby but he flopped there and was reinvented at shorter trips. He landed a Group 2 last time but that was a weak looking contest I felt he had at his mercy coming in and the 2/1 Fav price tag suggested as much. Hard to see him as a true Group 1 horse and especially as he looks a pure 7F specialist who will be trying 6.5 Furlongs here. Charlie Appleby has reasoned that Space Blues has improved every time that he has been upped in grade Lope Y Fernandez looks inconsistent to me. He looked good on debut but Pinatubo bested him at Royal Ascot. He was then miles behind Pinatubo at Goodwood and in the process probably lost any Guineas dream he had. He ran well in the Irish Guineas but just didn't see out the mile and I felt he was worth a punt in the Commonwealth Cup but he ran a complete stinker that day with a performance rated 86 on RPR. Perhaps the Racing Post assessor should have done what he did with Japan in the King George QEII and awarded Lope Y Fernandez 111 on the basis that he would probably have run to that if he hadn't been **** that day. Behind Pinatubo in the Jean Prat last time, Lope Y Fernandez ran a lot better and was awarded 117 but is that reliable? He couldn't get near Pinatubo last season, so why did he get to run him close last time? Pinatubo has lost his unbeaten record and probably never was a 128 rated horse on official rankings but is he a 120 rated horse? The RPR suggest yes, but Lope Y Fernandez was 40/1 and the 3rd horse 68/1 and Alson, who was 2nd Fav ran a shocker along with stablemate Tropbeau and horses like Kinross and Arizona in the field were big priced flops who have been bitterly disappointing since being in the forefront of the 2000 Guineas betting earlier in the season. Lope Y Fernandez is friendless and out to 10/1, so it seems some others are dubious about the strength of the Prix Jean Prat. Wooded, who was 4th in the Jean Prat re-opposes here and his trainer admitted that the colt is a 6F horse and only ran over 7F because there was no suitable 6F race. Perhaps he should have run him in the Commonwealth Cup then. It also begs the question as to why Wooded runs over 6.5F today with the trainer bemoaning that he wished the race were half a furlong shorter. Here's a clue, enter him in 6F races, that usually works fine. I would be a bit surprised if Wooded were good enough against older horses. Earthlight is unbeaten and he could be the genuine Group 1 performer in the field but he is 11/8 now and too short in the circumstances. Could Golden Horde be the one then? Successful in the Commonwealth Cup where Lope Y Fernandez was no factor as favourite, the third and fourth from that race were beaten just as far in a Listed contest next time and Royal Crusade won a weak looking French Group 3. Millisle did win a Group 3 nicely but she seemed to take a few runs to find herself after an abortive attempt at the Guineas. Overall I don't think there were any excuses for Golden Horde in the July Cup when beaten favourite and he is 0/2 against Earthlight, admittedly only beaten a neck in one of those. I can't quite back him here. In the end I felt this race may not really be Group 1 quality. Earthlight may prove to be the one who is but I thought Space Blues ran a personal best last time and he came from off the pace to pounce that day. Slightly checked a couple of times when making his run due to wandering horses, he still managed to quicken up and was well clear before being eased slightly. Value for another length/length and a half, that turn of speed could be key at half a furlong shorter and I hope the jockey keeps him in touch so he can make his effort from a feasible position. He seems the one horse likely to run his race and 11/2 (Price when I started writing this an hour ago) seemed reasonable. 2.50 Deauville Space Blues 11/2
