I honestly don't understand Ron's view about not going to the race again, the race hasn't changed, and is still the pinnacle of flat racing in Europe. If I had chance to go next year I would jump at it, just the same as when Treve won back in the day! I know the result yesterday hurt some people with Enable showing little spark, but how often is that the case with great horses on their last racecourse run? I was there when Kauto Star and Big Bucks both disappointed, but that doesn't mean that I want to boycott the race because it didn't go the way I wanted it to. As for the way the race was run, on heavy ground only one jockey rode the race agressively, and that was the jockey on the horse who was a probably non stayer, so of course they went a crawl. I don't really understand flat racing on heavy ground, it seems to be that trainers ask jockeys to be more passive in races and hope that their horses can pick up on the ground. I have no idea why the jockeys on Stradivarius and Enable didn't go forward early in the race, knowing that the pace was slow. Similarly I don't understand why John Gosden (he who can do no wrong in the eyes of most) decided to come out the day before the race and suggest that the ground wasn't right for Enable and that he thought she would get beat. Surely if he felt that, then they should have pulled her for her safety? Especially given they could have gone to the US for the Breeders Cup or to "Champions" day on the hurdles course at Ascot. As for the race result, the best horse in the conditions won, not an inferior horse as Ron suggests, it was placed well by the jockey and given its best chance to win. That is what racing should be about.
Nass, you make some very good points there. I must admit I don't really understand this "heavy ground" scenario. When I started watching Flat and National Hunt Racing in the fifties and sixties, I can't remember trainers, owners, and pundits even mentioning it, let alone being concerned. They just ran their horses, whatever the going, and the top horses ran far more races than they do today. They didn't keep them in 'cotton wool.' Racing was about "going to the well." Likewise handicaps. Prestige handicaps were targeted by the class horses, irrespective of the huge weights they carried. Races like The Cambridgeshire, Victoria Cup, Cesarewitch, etc, attracted the cream of Flat Racing; likewise the Hennessy Gold Cup, Whitbread Gold Cup, Mackeson Gold Cup, Schweppes Gold Trophy, over the jumps. Nowadays, many previously top handicaps have become a joke, quality wise. Most Flat trainers don't want to know and neither do their National Hunt counterparts in the main. There is too much racing and it's become too much of a business. Nass, your point is very well made.... "I don't really understand flat racing on heavy ground, it seems to be that trainers ask jockeys to be more passive in races and hope that their horses can pick up on the ground. I have no idea why the jockeys on Stradivarius and Enable didn't go forward early in the race," Maybe, Nass, trainers and jockeys have become so concerned about protecting their horses and worrying about what might happen - that positive tactics and enterprise have gone out of the window. Racing should be about ambition- and fun! But not the joke that in some ways it has become.
Thank Tam, I can almost understand it if they have an end of season target that they don't want to bottom the horses for, but this is that end of season race. I think racing like many sports has a grip of over analysing and paralysis by this. I hated the interview with Gosden the day before the race, he was stating that she was more likely to lose than win, which was such a negative thing to state. People quite rightly commend him for his frankness and honesty, but you have to ask questions on why he would run her if he thought she was likely to be beaten. The issue with racing is the handicaps are devalued in terms of prestige, how many people on this forum could name you the Hennessy/Ladbroke winner of last season? Trainers don't target them with the best horses unless they've got history with the race, Paul Nicholls with Topofthegame this year being an example, who would better Denman in terms of handicap mark defied if he was to win. As such you get weaker races and horses wrapped in cottonwool for the big end of season races at the festival. On the flat it seems to be worse, it is all about breeding and who looks at the page of a stallion and looks for the word "handicap"? It is all about the Group races, and unless you've got a backward type who can rise through handicap ranks, you wouldn't target them.
A follow-up to my last post- which occurred to me and typifies current trainers' obsession with the going. In 1961, Harry Wragg had two entries in the Epsom Derby- Sovrango and Psidium. Sovrango was a top class horse who didn't like fast ground but relished soft and heavy conditions ( I can't remember his losing when soft). Psidium had finished down the field in the 2000 Guineas but competed in France prior to Epsom- and ran a stinker, so much so that his rider, Lester Piggott told Harry Wragg he was useless and not to run him in the Derby. Most top trainers today would have withdrawn both horses- one because of the going and the other as being not good enough. Although Sovrango's owner, Gerry Oldham, prayed for rain prior to Epsom, the going stayed fast. Yet he ran him in the race, simply because that's what you did with a top class entrant. Psidium, too, ran because his owner, Mme Plesch, was ambitious and wanted a runner in the prestige showpiece. The result was that Sovrango ran a creditable fourth, and Psidium came with a wet sail to win the race. Isn't that how Flat Racing should be? You make your own mind up.
Nass, exactly!! Good points. Gosden making excuses for her possible loss by stating that she might lose. Ridiculous! And Denman. I mentioned him in my post but crossed it out as over-labouring my point. His Hennessy win gave me more pleasure than any other National Hunt Race this century- echoes of Arkle, even.
Should Enable have been protected just because there was a decent chance she'd be beaten in the most prestigious open race in the world? Going into the race, she still had a decent chance to win according to pundits, including her trainer. All Gosden did was paint a more balanced opinion of the mare's prospects in the Arc. That she ran so poorly wasn't expected. I firmly believe that the Enable we saw a couple of years ago, would have done much better in this year's conditions than the Enable we just saw in Paris. She looked as though he'd had enough of racing.
John Gosden likely had no say, he would have relayed his point of view to Teddy Grimthorpe, who in turn told his boss Mr. Abdullah. He was stating what the public knew already, they were running her for the sake of it. Knowing the great career Enable has had, perhaps they felt obliged to let her take her chance once more and who can blame them, it was an average looking renewal. But I doubt in any way it was John Gosden's decision, perhaps his words were more of a tip to the punting public, which he acknowledged were backing Enable as if defeat was out of the question, to keep their powder dry. Also, all you guys say about the big names not running in certain races, handicaps etc. and I agree with all of it, but such are the times, there's always a shift and change in direction in all walks of life as we progress and sometimes it's hard for us to accept what is now, is not what was before, as we liked. Also, Psidium is a rank of tree type found over in South America and warmer climes Tamerlo, guava and eucalyptus in the family, among others. That horse was well before my time but the name made me smile
Yes, Cyc. I think she’ll be retired soon. She’s been a wonderful, great mare, and I compare that other great mare which won top races up to six years old- Dahlia. A real credit to racing.
Interesting Cyc, my view would be that if they knew that she wouldn't go on the ground and was likely to run poorly on it, why didn't they keep her for one of the other big races (Champions day, Breeders Cup) as her finale (ok she might run again)? As for Gosden, I don't think he painted a balance opinion the day before, he was giving his excuses, and even when the O'Brien horses were taken out of the race, he used that as an excuse for the result and the pace (Racing Post have quotes about this). If he knew (as we all did) that the pace was likely to change after the withdrawals, why didn't he get his jockeys to ride proactively and at least try and win the race? They were never put in it. As for the enough of racing thought, I don't agree, as I don't think she was ever given the opportunity to show her sparkle. I hope they go to the Breeders Cup with her, because she deserves a chance to show her best under better conditions and under a more positive tactical ride.
Yes, STH, Mme Plesch, Psidium’s owner, named all her horses after plants/flowers - even weeds! Reference her Derby winner, Henbit.
I've got a photo of Henbit's Derby on a wall here, taken by my better halfs grandfather who was a respected South African racing photographer.
I wouldn't have known that at all, I like when owners have a line of reasoning or pattern to naming their horses.
Like Lady Beaverbrook named most of her horses with 7 letters because at that time 7 lettered horses had won most Derbys .
A bit ironic that she never won the Derby but her seven lettered Terimon came closest- beaten by another seven lettered horse, Nashwan.
Timeform's final paragraph on the Arc: "As for Enable, connections didn't immediately commit to retirement but rightly pointed out that she doesn't owe them anything. If this is the last we see of her, her extraordinary achievements are sure to live long in the memory, notably her first Arc win as a three-year-old in 2017, where she achieved a Timeform rating of 134 to identify herself as the best filly or mare trained in Britain for over 30 years." Love her to bits. What a shame it wasn't to be. Happy retirement Enable Can't wait to see her foals
