the official going stick read "Overall 7.9, Stands' side 7.9, Centre 8.0, Far Side 7.7"

They reckoned the far side was slower as per Gosden's comments.

In theory, the going stick read fastest down the centre where the stalls were placed. And the jocks / trainers all ignored it.

As Harry says, heaven knows what it all means.

Can you not see Night Of Thunder staying further than a mile at all?

No, not with his finishing split unless he is something else

Also, I had the ground Good at best, probably a shade softer than that (assuming there was no wind in their faces). I think you mentioned earlier that you agreed with the official description of Good to Firm, good in places, that's definitely how you see it?

Absolutely yes, no-way g/soft

I should've said a top class 3yo 12f horse in early June.

Sandown, on times what did you make of the ground on Dewhurst day last year compared to the guineas meeting on Saturday?

if wasn't for the fast run Guineas, would have had Guineas day slower than Dewhurst day - when the official going description was Good to Soft which agreed with, though the wind was "light against" last Oct

the thing i'm trying to think is have i completely underestimated the race because of finishing position when there could/probably was a bias... if i have and am not ignorant to it, if gosden was right then the spanish horse is a very good for sprinting and maybe kingman ran his race although his antics in the paddock lead me away from that and we are as sandown says dealing with a very good horse

analysis never easy when you delve deeper...makes you sick

pedro, I have it just slightly on the slow side of good, but not quite as slow as the racing post topspeed make it as they have a 0.2 spf slow. Topspeed standards are for what a 100 rated  4yo+ horse carrying 9st can achieve on good ground but to me the RP standards are too fast.

the wind did change to a slight following wind at around 3.00 on the met office website that day and changed again at 4 I think

Tbh, regarding the winner, I know it could be said that all horses will have a hard race in a Guineas, which is probably true, I thought that could've been a particularly taxing effort, added to that I don't rate him especially highly, then even though he might go into a race like the SJP with the best form he's not one I'd want to take a short price about.

I don't think he will be a short price though Figgis, I think the majority will think he is just an ordinary guineas winner and many will say Kingman was some way below form or didn't quite stay. We'll have to wait and see though.

Fallon still making a big difference to a horses wining chance for sure. If Mick Kinane and Piggot were doing it at 50+ then Fallon certainly can in his late 40's.

Anybody else think that the TS ratings given for the Guineas meeting were very much on the low side for all the races? My final time rating for NOT is 116, TS is  109  and for Miss France I have 107 but  TS is 94. I've ended up with higher ratings for every race in fact. I'm somewhat confused as TS rate the ground as Good for both days (I have fast side of good) in which case I would have expected them to have higher ratings than me, not lower. Any thoughts anyone?

Well I can see they have possibly anchored sunday's ratings through the 6f race with Goldream's 95 but I can't understand saturday's low ratings at all and this is also the same for the Greenham meeting and makes no sense to me.

As for their going allowance, their ratings are based on what a 100 horse can achieve carrying 9st on good ground and good ground being no allowance.

So for Goldream, they have used an allowance of 0.16 slow per furlong, so they've done (0.16 * 6) minus seconds outside standard and then multiplied that by 20 and then that is added to 100 giving 95.

Anything between -0.2 and +0.2 they consider as good. Now the problem is their standards are saying a 100 horse could do 70.1 over 6f on good ground but that's not far off the course record so does not seem right to me and I wonder if some of those days were there was a wind behind them on good ground haven been used when compiling their standards?

Their standards for Newmarket have certainly been that fast for the last few years, however their going allowances at Ascot where they have around 99s for a mile do seem more in line with going stick readings and official reports.

I got around 110 with their standards for Night Of Thunder (old method)

I agree with you to some extent figgis, I feel the 1000 was a more steady pace early on and based on the latter sectionals most of the horses in the race could have run faster given a better pace. In the 2000 most of the horses ran to the best time possible with the exception of the first 2 who I think can be rated better. My final timefigure is good for the 2000 and the first 2 are better than their figures as well, in fact I think they are both very good.

The 1000 I have Miss France on just 104 with maybe some 5-6lb extra to be added on for sectionals. But she'd still way behind my 123 for Night Of Thunder who after sectionals I'd go 129.

I'm sure that looks way overrated to some but that's what I have based on the ground being around 6lb faster on the sunday and the overall time being 13lb slower based on around 17lb per second which gives me the 19lb diff in timefigures.

I've not really looked into it Figgis, I just presumed the turftrax figures will be correct. Which ones are questionable?

yes she looks a length down at the furlong pole so last furlong should be quicker and yet all the sectionals add up to the correct time.
I'll have to have a think about it Figgis.

It appears to be an exceptional year,a lot of very high class horses,I was surprised by the possible under-rating of True Story,I feel sure he is deserving of a bigger figure than is now present,which in some way, may hold back the ratings? my other silly thought was is it  possible that with  the quantity of high class horses around, could they also hold back the ratings?,so perhaps they are not able to put big distances between their rivals?(I think too much)

Hi guys. Had a wet two weeks but the end result was very satisfactory. I never watched the race until this morning. There was a Mc Donalds several miles away with Wi Fi but I couldn't get racing and only managed to read about the result about an hour later. Strange result for me with 4 of the first 6 home clearly sprinter bred. When a race splits in two you never really know who is racing on the best ground and I wonder why JOB hacked over to the stands side when is main danger raced on the far side. He was close enough to go to the far side but he made a conscious decision to come this side.
With the Spanish horse so close to Kingman and Shifting Power so close to Australia I will have to assume the race was a bit of a mess. Cannot fault the winner and maybe AOB should have run Australia in a prep. With the only other two fancied horses without a prep run finishing well down the field it must have been a disadvantage.   

On a positive note:
As thought Australia DID run in the 2000 Gns.
Australia easily beat War Command who clearly wasn't good enough to win an average 2000 Gns.
With the possibility Australia suffered from not having a prep run then the future looks good.
Epsom here we come.

On the negative side:
JOB still fails to win races where decisions have to be made. He may not have made the WRONG decision in this race we do not know but top jockeys sometimes win races they shouldn't have won and don't often lose races they should have won. At Epsom there will be no split but he is clearly no Fallon or Moore.