Harry Herbert's comments on RP site hint slightly at putting him away for next year but also acknowledge that what happens next will be Stoute's call.

excellent news rease, good to see they say he's come out of race well. York will hopefully tell us more about the horse.

Is Telescope the new Killer Instinct?

4yo harbinger kg   stoute had the fav 1/1  workforce (derby winner) ....harbinger goes 2/1 for arc straight after KG but never ran again.....and low and behold workforce wins arc at a tasty price ....stoute never seems to get any stick but is a hard stable to get a handle on ....seems to get an easy ride imo

When will the Newmarket Nine be revealed ....is that on a 50 year rule ?

Reckon Tele will run in the Volitgeur next week?

A disappointing field for the Great Voltigeur and possibly a tactical affair as well unless Ryan goes out and tries to make all on Telescope.

yes 6/4 does not tempt me even though my Leicester speed figure puts him 12lb clear of this field. I now have a big ? against that figure and if he doesn't win easily and there's no excuses then I'm going to have to go back and look into why my figure was wrong.

Pulio,
First of all you need to have a standard time for each distance, you could use ones already out there but I prefer to use my own.
Now my standards are for a what a 120 horse on my ratings could achieve on good ground carrying 9st.
Next I would be looking at a horses best previous speed figure and converting this to 9st, so if a horses best previous figure was 90 and he was carrying 10st today then that would be 76 and therefore 44 behind my standard horse. So if this was a 10 furlong race i would then divide this 44 by around 13 pounds per second which would be 3.38 secs and if the horse had run the race 1 sec quicker than standard then that would be 4.38s. So your going allowance in seconds per furlong would be -0.438 or if you prefer to multiply by a percentage then you might want to multiply your standard by 0.946.

Or you could use a weight correction, so in above example being 1 sec quicker than standard you'd multiply that by 13 add on to 120 and add on 14 which would give you 147 so the weight correction would be 57 to take him back to 90.

Whichever method you use you can do that for  race on the card and then I would start off with the minimum allowance needed to push each horse back to his best previous rating and then work from there. Or pick the race you think was most likely to have run to previous figure.

Of course you might need a different allowance for the straight course and the round course.
For example at Thirsk yesterday' there was a 15mph wind behind runners up the straight so the allowance was faster on the straight than the round course and the ground was drying out so I also changed allowance for last race on card to the next allowance down. So I went from 0.988 on earlier sprint races down to 0.984 for last race. in secs per furlongs that would be -0.15 down to -0.20 or a 7lb weight correction.

You might want to also check some sectionals first to give you a good idea which races on the card were steadily run and which were truly run
as it could be there were no truly run races on the card although there is normally 1 or 2 at least.

Anyway that's the way I do them but there are other ways I'm sure. Probably you are best off reading some books on it pulio.

I think Figgis might be the men to ask Pulio as I think he has read most of the books but I would think books like Beyer on Speed and Mordin on Time perhaps. If you are interested in pounds per second and pounds per length calculations then I thought the Bioenergetics and race horse ratings book was a good one.

I've backed Telscope today at 7/4. He was too short to back last time out, but today with the extra distance in his favour I will bet him. Recent winner for Stoute in the race was Sea Moon, fwiw.

I've left it alone as well. He'd win easy if his Leicester run was as good as it seemed but based on the Haydock run I have him 1lb behind Cap O'Rushes, with a few other potential improvers not far behind him.

If the O'Brien horse was any good, he'd be sub 6/4 here imo

well better than haydock but I don't think he's anything special yet

agreed looks more a leger horse, can't see him having the speed for an arc

Well done sint.

Cheers.

Only Soft ground would see him win an Arc. They need to supplement him for the Leger imo.

Thought he ran v well today & I was v taken by Foundry's run. Along with Kingsbarns he could turn out to be one of AOB's better middle distance horses next season. Telescope was very keen today I'm not sure the Leger will suit on that evidence?

"He is no world-beater but is decent."

Ryan Moore's assessment

Ignoring the Leicester win, he's looked much the same horse on his last two starts, so the question is has he run below the Leicester form since or did I get it wrong about the win. I've read elsewhere the theory he may have 'bounced' after Leicester but in this instance I think I just got it wrong. I've often argued that one race time (sometimes more) can be out of step with the rest of the card for no obvious reason and this was probably the case here. Also races with few runners are easier to get wrong, it only takes one or two runners to underperform and the winner looks far better than it really is, probably a bigger field that day would've showed it wasn't quite as good as I thought.

This is all with the benefit of hindsight, but watching the video I didn't get that sense of power I normally associate when witnessing a 130+ performance against inferior opposition. It was there when Harbinger won the Hardwicke and was there when Farhh won the Lockinge. I really should've taken more notice of that instead of getting carried away with the seemingly good time. Fortunately on this occasion I didn't lose any cash over the error. The original poster, differentdrum, was right, I was wrong. I see Telescope is still being considered for the Arc but think it's highly unlikely he could improve enough at this stage, maybe as a 4yo? Cue Telescope to go and romp the Arc

It's possible, Stevie, but I don't think so, as the vast majority of results fit, I've never noticed a problem before and looking back I still can't see any reason to change them. I have a few distances at different courses with question marks over the standards but Leicester isn't one of them. Actually it's a course where I've noticed the 5f2y and 5f218y times in particular can get skewed by wind interference. I think there's a danger of altering standards just so they fit the bigger performances. Which is one of the reasons I don't think it's possible to only concentrate on the bigger meetings when analysing times, the standards won't be accurate unless you use all classes of racing when compiling them. I think it was probably just one of those races I've talked about before, that appears better than it is by using strict direct comparisons. The fact that there were only 3 runners, one of which almost certainly ran below par, just made it less obvious at the time.