What price are you hoping to back him at Roger, 4/1 perhaps ? ...the RSA isn't a race to go on visual impression at the best of times. Maybe a more pertinent question is what price did you back him at ?

I say Roger, what's that happening to your nose, is it bloody growing old chap ?

I'm not bickering. I was having a bit of banter with the butler. There is a difference between 'can't win' and 'won't win'. I don't think statistics dictate a horses chances. I couldn't say Bobs Worth wouldn't have won it if he had won the Feltham, or that Weapons Amnesty only won an RSA because he didn't go to Kempton. It makes no sense to me. There could be many reasons a horse didn't win or run the best of his ability, but i don't think historic participation is one of them. The odds are against him winning anyway.

Grand Crus ran his race. He was just beaten by better horses.

His efforts this season have hardly set the world alight have they?

Three miles at Kempton is not as dissimilar to three miles at Cheltenham as some would have you believe. There are obvious differences but you need to stay well and jump well to win top-class races at either.

The King George has been a rich source of Gold Cup winners so no logical reason why the Feltham should be won by horses that can't win RSAs.

Yeah, the three miles at Kempton is tougher than some would have you believe. Cheltenham may have an uphill finish, but horses get a breather going down hill before it. At Kempton the non stayers usually get found out, especially during the conditions we witnessed during the Feltham. That race may not have had alot of quality, but the ground was really heavy, and at the third last the horse would still find instant acceleration when nudged. He won't have any problem getting the RSA trip. I suppose if you're looking for some concerns, then it could be not having raced for over 2 and a half months if it proves to be the case. The price is akward.

I think the point is that at Kempton they go quicker,so horses have to see it out well,therefore exposing non stayers,as happens in the KG every year.
It also will happen in the GC but thats cos its 2f more with a hill to climb a couple of times.

I was just quoting Walsh or Geraghty on the breather. One of them has obviously got it wrong. What would they know ?

3m round kempton and 3m at chelt are the same as if you stay 3m at kemp,you should stay 3m at chelt.
at kemp you are at it all the time  and you need to stay properly

^^^^
I've never heard the opposite.

I'm giving up

Pipe in today's post: Looking ahead to next weekend, Dynaste will probably not run at Newbury. He could go straight to Cheltenham as he has the experience, or we may look at running him later this month.

No doubt in the next 2 weeks he'll say that it's now to close too Cheltenham and he doesn't want to give it a hard race and anyway he's got the experience.

Very likely the horse has all 3 big stats to overcome. Lovely.

All going according to prediction at the moment. Has won his races, shortened right up, won the Feltham (as predicted later in thread) and looks like going off at around 2 or 3 to 1 on the day if he runs.

No irony, nor a bad bet as I didn't lay him. Just picked out for anyone interested in reading it that he should be opposed for the race no matter what happens through the season - that still stands and I wouldn't change my stance on it at all. Was intending using my stance to get a nice price on something else to take him on with in the race but only one really of interest to me was Boston Bob and his lack of runs is starting to concern me.

However, the negative of lack of obvious challengers to Dynaste is outweighed by the possibility that he might go straight to Cheltenham. The final nail in his coffin as the last 49 winners have all prepped in the same calendar year.

With the 2nd season hurdling stat, Feltham stat and (possibly) not having a prep run stat to overcome, he will not be winning the RSA, and I am more confident about that now than at the start of the season. I'm sure they will find a problem with him after the race though which will explain the performance, or say he didn't give his true running, etc, so those who want to can make an excuse and discount the stats for another year.

I personally think he's much better suited going for the Jewson. That said he has shown by far the best staying chasing form and has proven this at Cheltenham. You have alluded to the lack of depth in the RSA and he could end up being a real stat buster if he takes his chance.

The posters should underline the part where Roger Crook says he hasn't layed Dynaste. He was negative in my Black Beauty comment, creates a fiver pager that may have swayed people to lay this horse, yet Roger Crook hasn't layed it himself. Here are some of his comments, so bare in mind he said Dynaste can't win.


"Absolutely, unequivocably cannot win the RSA Chase"

"Back Dynaste at your peril"

"Another very good performance today. I expect this to win the Feltham impressively on Boxing Day which will mean his RSA failure in March will be at a nice low price."

I take nothing back. This thread has the substance of an empty box. If you're going to say say a horse can't win a race, and repeat this claim and create a strong thread, then the O.P should have layed it. Anyone can make a thread about odds against shots who won't win a race. Statistics are nonsense. Equally, if someone has a premeditated thought as to why a horse won't win a race, and the horse doesn't win a race, it does not mean the person original thought was correct.

Perhaps because it makes the market?

And anyway you started a thread questioning Mullins abilities with chasers and yet you've backed his for Gold Cup? Hypocrisy no?

"But that's the point of the thread as the flops who have fitted the Dynaste criteria over the last few years have all looked on paper superior to their opponents on paper prior to their 'suprise' defeats on the day."

What's surprising about all odds against horses getting turned over on the day? A 2/1 shot in Cheltenham is the same as a 2/1 shot in Ludlow. Although if anything you should be less surprised given that these are championship races and every horse is out to win on the day.

"Just picked out for anyone interested in reading it that he should be opposed for the race no matter what happens through the season - that still stands and I wouldn't change my stance on it at all."

Put your comments into prepective. When you first said he should be opposed he was a 7/1 chance, now he is a 5/2 chance. That's a price contraction of around 65%. His nearest rival Boston Bob has had a price contraction of 25%. Your OP was about 3 months too soon. imo.

Proof is in the pudding here. The are sounds logical reasons to lay Dynaste, But then there are also sound form reasons to back him

Fwiw, re the comparison with Grad Crus, it is worth pointing out Dynaste won the Fixed Brush Hurdle off a 7lb higher mark, so maybe he is just a better horse, we'll see.

And Graeme, you can't go calling people crooks. Roger started this thread as a point of debate and has posted numerous trends and statistical reasons why he can be opposed. Why would he lay him early season at 7/1 when he's predicted the route this horse would take and could therefore lay him at shorter closer to the race. You have no right to go calling people crooks.