bar the odds quoted in the opening post,no one as mentioned dunboyne express? dam once raced half sister to oaks winner love divine and her dam as produced stayer solar sky as well as other siblings who won over 1m2f. racing post types tend to prefer beyond a mile at 3,he ran free in that and id like to think a 2yo who wins a 7f race in june are more middle distance types who will need at least 10f at 3.he was also in front of roderic o conner by miles when he battled master of the hounds on his debut i sippose if you win a 2000 guineas trial you should take your chance,but apperantly he hated the fast going in the irish 2000 and it may also explain his 5th in the rp trophy as it was miles faster then good that day and he as soft ground gp3 win by 8l. he as no mile speed and a step up in trip looks like what he needs.whether 1m4f is to big to maybe 1m2f,but i think this is a open race.aint convinced carlton house will be the real deal this season,he's a late foal and may be a better 4yo.native khan i think needs 1m2f more than this and o brien runners i dont think we have a superstar from what he as entered.bar the winner of the derby in which the way he did it,i dont think it was the greatest derby and the form is worth taking on at big odds
QMII you obviously know that the shoe didn't have an effect and you are certain Stoute wouldn't have run him if he wasn't 100%. Well sorry shoes rarely come off in the last furlong and I have no idea what a loose shoe would do in running, but you do. And I think Stoute would have run CH if he thought he was 95% fit because it was the big one, but you are certain he was 100%. Admittedly they are your opinions but I'm amazed you can be so certain. If you ran that race 10 times I'm certain CH would have won a few of them, so would have Treasure Beach and of course I'm happy to say Pour Moi would win the greatest proportion of the 10. But as Nigel says CH was off the pace, maybe because he dwelt. If he's nearer the pace does he have the measure of Treasure Beach? I rather think so. He was asked to make up too much ground on the leaders and the horse wasn't up to it. It's a fascinating race. Let's see what happens on Sunday.
Bustino75, you are right that there is only one Derby. People seem to think that because the horse is owned by The Queen that Sir Michael Stoute would have run it if he did not think that it had recovered sufficiently from the bruised fetlock. He has only been a racehorse trainer for a couple of weeks so he has no idea about horse welfare. The Queen would have sent him to The Tower and it would have been off with his head. I cannot think of a circumstance where a horse has lost a shoe in running and it has had any impact on the result. If Zola Budd could run and win without shoes, why is it inconceivable that a horse could run and win? I have seen farriers remove loose plates from horses at the start and then let them run. Carlton House was going nowhere when the plate came off so it made no difference. As I originally said, I do not think that the Derby proved conclusively that Carlton House stayed the trip. We will see on Sunday. If the race had been run ten times, Carlton House would not win any of them because his jockey managed to find traffic trouble that the winner avoided despite coming from behind him.
Bustino....If that race was ran 10 times Pour Moi would have won every time, and the actual running of the race would have been the closest the field got to him. Pour Moi had to come widest of all, and his run was the latest of all challengers, and he was going away at the finish, had he had a better passage through he would have won by alot further. I accept your point that SMS may have still run CH had he not been quite 100% afterall you only get one shot at the Derby, so perhaps we will see some improvement. The point I disagree with Is that if he was ridden closer to the pace, well that's nonsense as if he was ridden closer he would have used even more energy, I could understand the point if he was full of running, but he wasn't he was a tired horse at the finish, so had he been ridden closer he would have been even more tired. He came from last to challenge full of running, but the tank emptied before he could get by Treasure Beach, which tells me he's probably a non stayer. I warned everyone before the Derby that on breeding he was only 50/50 to stay, as Street Cry tends to produce milers
It's not the case of him losing a shoe (that often happens), it's the case of it coming off when it did. It probably had no effect on his running after it came off, but for a period of the race he was running with a loose shoe and you're a better man than I am to say that would have no effect. The Zola Budd analogy is ludicrous, as if it was relevant why shoe horses. Stoute must have wanted to run the horse, the Queen must have wanted to run the horse, to say they were certain it was 100% is again hopeful to say the least. They were hopeful he was back to his best. You must live a very certain life, obviously you're not surprised by much. And surely the nature of betting is saying that if a horse is a 5/2 shot it would win two out of 7 runnings of the race it is in. So if you ran the Derby 10 times you'd be happy to back Pour Moi at 9-1 on because he'd win all 10 times anyway. Because that in effect is what you are saying.
KS's point about his run is also flakey. A famous jockey once said you can only make one run in a race. And this last week all we've heard is if Frankel had been held on to for another 2 furlongs he'd have won his last race more easily. Yet here we have your comment saying the opposite. I think Moore asked for his effort too early from too far back, so his run had petered out by the distance (very similar to Frankel). I'm not saying I'm right but I question your certainty on these points. Only the horse knows if he was 100% fit, only the horse knows what the effect of that loose shoe was. My opinion is that Moore through how the race unfolded came from too far back and asked for too much too early in the straight. On Sunday we'll get a different race and different observations.
I think this point needs clarifying: A shoe does not gradually get looser and looser until it falls off. It is almost certainly the case that the shoe was on properly until he stood on it and it is then pulled off as the horse continues with their galloping action. Obviously the horse is standing on the shoe with another foot so the shoe is left behind when they pick up their foot. Hence the phrase "pulled a shoe" - the horse literally pulls the shoe off. It must be remembered that horse shoes are held on with 6 or 7 nails. They do not just fall off, they do not just get loose and fall off. It requires a huge amount of force to pull them off. I hope that makes sense. It's slightly tricky to explain!
Zenyatta Are you sure? So it was a catastrophic failure. Did they say he pulled a shoe, which I agree is the normal way of things. Maybe you are right but I've not seen that said. Also most fall of when the horse changes direction or twists slightly in its action. But this was in the straight and it fell off about 200yds out. He pulled it then did he? No doubt you are right
So Zenyatta what you're saying in essence is that it could well have had quite an effect on the running of the horse? I appreciate your opinion on the matter as you seem to know a bit more than most of us armchair jocks do, though the way some go on here you'd swear they've never been wrong in their life about anything ever
Zenyatta Here's a quote I got off that fount of all knowledge the internet: nothing catastrophic about this. On a beautiful Sunday afternoon, a woman walks out to the field to get her horse. She has plans for a wonderful long ride through the country. As she approaches her steed, he gives her a baleful look and hobbles awkwardly towards her. With her heart in her mouth she begins to examine him, and finds, much to her relief that the problem is not a lameness. What she has found is one shoe rather mangled and twisted off to the side. The nails are sticking out all over the place, and the shoe is in a position to severely cut the horses opposite leg. Written by a vet
Shergar - Seville was 3/4 of a length off Carlton House in the Dante and trailed home miles behind in the Derby. For a 3yo I'm more prepared to suggest he didn't handle the Epsom course, for now, than accept any talent he may have deserted him completely by that far for no reason during the space of three weeks. After this weekend then yeah maybe we can all come back and say he's not good enough but lets see how he goes? If you need a pointer Roderic O'Connor was how many lengths adrift of Dubawi Gold at Newmarket? The result in the Irish Guineas again please? Sometimes you really need to look beyond wins & losses which for a 'pro' is very strange! He isn't and never has been a hype horse and never has been - where was all the hype leading up to the Derby? Where is it now? All people are saying is we'd give him another chance following Epsom!
Bustino75, you obviously missed the point of the Zola Budd analogy so I will spell it out: if you can run faster than everybody else, wearing shoes is not absolutely necessary. Would you care to point out where I stated that the horse was “100%”? Amongst all the excuses proffered after the race, I do not recall the injury being cited as a factor during the running of the race. Obviously the horse had an interrupted preparation the week before the event, which is not ideal but this was common knowledge before the stalls opened. The horse was worked on the Thursday before the race and the trainer decided he was okay to run. If the horse had not pulled up sound, he would have been scratched. It would not have mattered if the horse were owned by The Queen, Pope Benedict or Roman Abramovich. The nature of betting is nothing to do with probability. It is everything to do with the amount of money being wagered. If nobody was backing Carlton House, the price would have lengthened. That has no impact on the horse’s chances of winning or the probability of it being successful.
I think I understand all that QM, but do you really believe that if you run a race again it will turn out the same. That is all I'm saying, nothing more nothing less. It is interesting that you think betting has nothing to do with probability. If so how you define the meaning of 'the horse A is good value?' And your Zola Budd analogy is poor. So Pour Moi caould have won without shoes? You would be willing to bet on it would you? I do not know if CH was at his best after his injury. You do. Look I am not saying CH was unlucky, should have won etc. but I do believe there are sound reasons to believe he could be better. I don't know.
Bustino75, I did once give an explanation of how I determined what good odds are and it has nothing to do with ‘value’. The folks that persist in waffling on about ‘value’ keep the bookies in business. There is no ‘value’ in a loser whatever the odds. For me a racing ‘certainty’ has to be even money. If I think there is one danger to my selection, then I want 2/1. Two dangers make 3/1 and so on. If my selection is only 6/4 and I want 2/1 then I do not bet. It is quite possible that Pour Moi could have won without shoes. Since trainers choose to preserve their horses’ feet by fitting them, we are unlikely to find out. Horseshoes are no aid to making a horse run faster so there is no reason to believe that the result would differ. Racing plates are not the subject of extensive advertising by a small group of manufacturers telling you that theirs are the best like human athletics shoes. Whether Carlton House was at his best was not the point I made. He was well enough to participate. Personally I do not think he stays and we may well get that contention proven on Sunday. If the Epsom Derby were run again, I would assume that the winner would be brought with a well-timed late run to pick off whoever was leading in the shadow of the post. The fact that The Queen’s horse found traffic trouble did not deny it victory on 4th June. It lost to a better horse on the day as did the runner-up.
It is possible for a horse to twist a shoe as the above description would suggest. The above case would most likely be caused by a horse playing in the field - rearing, turning sharply etc. However in the case of Carlton House it is far more likely that the shoe was just pulled clean off. It is unlikely that it interfered with his running in any great way except for the stride in which he pulled the shoe may have been affected. In any case i very much doubt that it was the difference between winning and losing. I've ridden event horses who have lost a shoe and not noticed throughout the round. And in the case of event horses it can be more important because they have studs to assist with grip and therefore a lost shoe can have a fairly dramatic effect on performance in slippery conditions. I think it is important to remember that wild horses do not have shoes on. Horses are perfectly capable of galloping without shoes on and doing no damage. It is only because of the intensity of the work required by domesticated horses and the roadwork that makes shoes necessary.
Carlton House may not get the trip- his sire has only sired four horses that have won beyond 11 furlongs, and he did give the impression he was emptying out at Epsom. So he'll need every bit of stamina his damsire, Bustino, can transmit. Native Khan needs fast ground- like his sire Azamour. For my money, Galileo will sire the winner - O'Brien has three by him in the race.
One I horse I havent seen mention but I think may not win, but imo will go very close and get a least a place is Native Khan, ran ok in the derby. And I think is in good shape alround, will get the trip and if hes up there in the final furlon, i would fancy him. He is currently 10/1 at the mo a nice E/W price
Bustino....Without wanting to be rude, you make no sense. Had CHs run been timed to early he would have hit the front and been pegged back, the run wad made at the correct time CH just didn't get the trip, hence why he couldn't maintain his finishing kick unt he hit the front. Never at amy stage did CH lead the race! Flyingbolt....Do your homework my friend, the Dante time was stupidly slow, it was a faulsely run race. Henry Cecil commented about how slow the pace was in Middays race on the same day, and that was 3 seconds faster than the Dante time, and were talking about fillies here. So do you realy expect a manof my expertise to accept formlines from the Dante, get real! Tamerlo.....Well hate to say I told you so, but I did long before the Derby, Street Cry produces milers, and occasionally 10f horses, so there was no chance a late foal like Ch was going to get 12f, get CH over a mile or 10f and he will be a pretty useful horse. No poit trying to turn a speed horse into a staye
Thanks lads for making me realise I'd lost the capacity for rational thought. I'll retire to the nostalgia threads a sadder but wiser (and rapidly becoming senile obviously) Bustino......." his stealing steps, hath clawed me in his clutch".
Shergar, the trouble with breeding is that you don't always get quite what was intended, or maybe don't plan it at all- I'm testimony to that!
