Well done to her trainer for keeping faith in her & somehow getting her back to something close to her best on Arc Day, helluva training performance.
And to the "few" backers that kept faith with her (Treve) wd
Sadly as always we have to listen to some that were on her "after the race was won"
Nothing new their
Great effort from Tagrhooda from that draw & Kingston Hill

Well done all "who did" back her

Can't understand how anyone can be of the opinion that it was anything other than a great training feat. Sam Walker in the RP at least agrees.



Dual Arc winners are rare and they don't happen by accident. Horses who manage to win the toughest race in Europe - twice - need any number of attributes like class and resolve and, in this case, a very patient trainer who knows exactly how to win Arcs.

Head-Maarek was the first woman to train an Arc winner with Three Troikas in 1979. She hails from a French racing dynasty and now has three winners of the great race to her name, following on from her father Alec's four and her grandfather William's two.

Treve's win she considers the greatest of them all. Not only because of the historical relevance of a double winner, but because of all the setbacks the filly had to overcome in order to show her best.

The victory was also vindication for the trainer, who had to talk owner Sheikh Joaan al Thani into keeping Treve in the Arc after she finished just fourth in last month's Prix Vermeille.

There were valid excuses for all of Treve's defeats this year, but after winning a second Arc all the defeats and excuses become trivial footnotes to her career. Treve is now a dual Arc winner and that is how she will be remembered.

It was a great training performance.
What seems to have gone unnoticed is that Treve didn't have to be as good as last year, she had to better. She wasn't receiving her age allowance this year so she had to have improved. That is the reasoning behind the WFA scale, as older horses are supposed to be stronger and better with age.
I over looked her this year as I did not think she had improved enough to carry the weight. I definitely under rated her first run up against CDA but could not envisage a bet on her after her run in the Vermeilles.

A brilliant job done by CH and her team to have her in that form on the big day.

I accept CH did her job well in the Arc. She turned her filly out to run to somewhere near her best on the day. Isn't that what every top trainer does or tries to do? And it is three times this year something she has singularly failed to do. Even after expressing beforehand how well she is going. The excuses we hear are just that, excuses. They weren't mentioned beforehand and she was odds on every time she ran this year. As far as we know they were very minor or even may have been exacerbated by running her when she wasn't properly ready and are just excuses.
I expect the newspapers and pundits to be leaping for the superlatives that is their MO.

CH splits opinions on here but at least there is no  professional  self interest  at stake from anyone contributing , some see the French cuddly one  as an  ebullient , effusive,  enthusiastic , racing goddess , others as a stroppy  excuse making  COW, given to spasms of snobbery and petulance ,  I prefer the Fragrant Julia cecil  myself .

I think most trainers will tell you that to give a horse a hard race when it isn't properly fit can be the worst thing you can do. Some trainers like Fabre will tell you his horse is only 80% so you can expect the jockey to try but not murder the beast in preparation for another day. Treve was unbeaten so that record was obviously valuable to the owners nevertheless if she was only 80% or thereabouts and was given a hard race on deep ground that could have been why she pulled muscles etc. The trainer should have known this but if she didn't then running her next time on fast ground would have found her out big time.
Had Frankie been told she was ready for the Ganay then there was no reason not to ask her to race so that may not have been his fault. Even people are told not to do too much too early in case the hurt themselves.
To her credit CH took her away and took her time giving her an easy race to bring her to full fitness and bingo. The greatest training fete? Not for me.

I do agree with you Brig regarding the horse racing press. Always tip toeing around trainers so frightened to upset them.
Why has nobody quizzed AOB about not sending the greatest horse he has ever had, dual Derby winner to the Arc??
The worlds number one turf race and nobody asks him the question.
Why run Tapestry back over a mile?
Do you think it was a mistake running Magician on soft ground?

That's just this season!!

In fact to take it one step further. If my suspicions are correct, and they are well founded, and it's not inconceivable that Treve is better than Cirrus des Aigles, The Fugue and Baltic Baroness, then had she been handled correctly she should have retired unbeaten and a dual Arc winner. She would then have been potentially the highest rated female in history and may even have been right up there with STS and Dancing Brave.

Goodnight all. Don't let the crickets bite.

Honestly, I have never read such pocket talk on here re Treve and Criqutte-head. Hear is a tip for you Brigust, do not back horses at 1/2 on when you KNOW the conditions do not suit. Your fault, NOT the trainers.

That's rubbish Sin. I backed Treve for the Arc with Laddies on 13th May, after she was beaten by CDA in the Ganay, I then backed again with PP on the 2nd June before she ran in the POW. I then backed her again on here on 19th August and 20th August.

It may seem harsh Sage but I think there is every chance Treve has been denied her true place in history BECAUSE of the trainer. I think there is every chance Treve should have retired unbeaten as a dual Arc winner. Everyone heaps praise on jockeys or trainers when they are successful so they must accept criticism when they fail to win races they should not have failed in. In my opinion it was a mistake to run Treve on deep ground in the Ganay then compound the fracture when running her on fast ground in the POW. The trainer then seemed to turn those errors around by pointing the finger at Frankie and replacing him with Jarnet. If I remember rightly she had the same problem with Peslier but the Wertheimer brothers stood by their jockey and removed their horses.
It may not be your idea of what happened but I would bet good money neither Sir Henry or Sir Michael or even AOB would have run her in the Ganay on that ground against a race fit CDA as her first run of the season. That set the pattern for the POW.

running a race fit cirrus to a short head on debut over an inadequate trip, what more do folk want?

she should never have run in the pow imo, wrong distance wrong ground

Looking at all the times on Arc day the ground was almost as fast as at Ascot.

I think Flintshire ran about 4 lengths better in the Arc. He was ready and had the draw and his ground. He is pretty consistent with ROTW but has either not been ready or not had his required ground. In the Foy and the Coronation Cup Fabre said he was only 80% and I think that was about right. He only sent Flintshire over for the CC as a prep for the King George. In my opinion that would put Treve about 4 - 5 lengths in front of CDA. And when you compare the Arc with last seasons Champion Stakes through ROTW that works about right.
I hope ROTW runs in the Champion Stakes again to test that theory.

Flinty ran a great race the only one i would question is Taghrooda ,could she have done a Treve 2013 and got to the front round the false straight and grabbed pole ?  seemed to be a bit of indecision from the jock and  he decided to sit .
seemed everyone had the same idea not to try and come from a mile back and come wide which played into Treve hands ,not knocking her but halfway up the straight they had fanned out right accross track and the further off the rail you were the further back you were .2013 Treve made amazing run round the field keeping tight and got to the front and tucked in incredibly well ,the fact she was pulling as well made it even more brilliant ,but she did still keep very tight in and grabbed pole and was gone ,this year she waited longer but keeping tight was key .Seemed everyone just had the same idea ,not to try and come from a mile back ,if the Japanese jocks had tucked in ,Gold Ship and Harp Star  both went wide from a mile back! . Harp star  could/should  have been up the inside and would have been a bit closer ....easy after though aint it .
Better draw allowed Treve to sit longer and due to everything fanning wide off final turn her turn of pace was very effective but one or two jocks maybe look back and think they could have been up the inside ,you could have drove a bus up there

After a massive effort in the Arc last year, esp for a light filly like her, she should have been eased right back in .. not thrown to the sharks on the first day back.

I'd have started her back in Gp2 company.

Can't agree with that.
Top race horse from last year, why would you not take on the best at GR1 level.
It was a good run from her against a very good, consistent horse.
Do not agree with her running over the wrong trip too. She has a turn of foot to compete at 10f. Won the Diane easily last year if I recall.

Good morning S.
Of course that line is usually brought out and dusted off when a trainer or jockey is criticised and it has its place in the scheme of things but a trainer isn't devoid of making mistakes either. However making right decisions they have made. She is just a human being after all. CH may have thought Treve was ready for her first assignment and that CDA was on the downgrade. One thing I do suggest is that if she writes a book she will say running Treve in the Ganay was, in hindsight, a mistake. Which it clearly was because not only did she lose her unbeaten record but she had a hard race too boot. Hindsight it may be but it is also a fact. When you train a horse that is arguably better than the three horses that have beaten her this season someone has erred. And it is not the armchair pundits on this forum.

brigust1

I do not subscribe to the argument that you need to have done the job before being able to judge or criticise. Being a punter requires a considerable range of skills and abilities,in terms of analysis and  judgement of risk, so I have no problems with differing opinions being expressed which I may or may not agree with. In this instance I think CH is being damned by faint praise by many including yourself when in fact she has achieved something that few other trainers will manage in their lifetime. Mistakes there may have been but in the final analysis she has been proved to be right and her achievement should be what matters not minor failings along the way. The end justifies the means in my book. I wish I had listened more to her, in which case I wouldn't be out of pocket on the race this time.

If you have read any of my previous threads S you will know I get criticised for knocking some horses or trainers achievements. Horses often get showered with praise they haven't earned and trainers and jockeys likewise. My only ever MO was to find out why this era is so short on champions. Every other era since ratings began there have been dozens of horses rated above 135 yet in the last 14 years there have only been three. And those three all qualify for high rating but in my opinion are rated higher than they have earned. The reason for this, in my opinion, is an attempt to make the era look better than it is.
So where are these missing champions? I have previously covered where I think Coolmore's decisions have greatly affected the number and I now think another has slipped by the board in Treve. So this era should really look better than it does. That is why I care that Australia never ran in the Arc, that is why I care that Treve didn't remain unbeaten. The history books will show this is a poor era and a weak Arc but there are deeper underlying reasons that will be ignored.
It may not bother CH, but I bet it does, that Treve didn't remain unbeaten, after all that was Frankel's holy grail, because she knows the only reason she was beaten was because of her mistakes. We all know in our work when we make mistakes and CH will be no different.

I know that you are someone who cares deeply about racing but I think that you are mistaken if you believe that there is some conspiracy going on, in which there is an attempt to make the horses of modern times look better than they are.

There may have been just 3 horses rated above 135 in the past 14 years but I'm really not sure that is due to the breed getting worse or training operations/breeding operations having a malign influence. It could just as easily be a statistical anomaly.

I provided evidence in the past to you that where you draw the line can alter the conclusions. 135 is arbitrary and drawing the line in a different place alters the findings. I am sure that a professional statistician would be able to suggest various alternative parameters that come close to measuring the ability level of different eras but I'm sure that isn't it. As far as really top champions go, they are likely to be "outliers" or "freaks" and can come along at any time and intervals between them is not a good way of going about making comparisons.

I think that achievement should be recognised and praised where its due. Achieving some "ideal" of perfection eg remaining unbeaten, is not a prerequisite for "greatness" in my book.Maybe Eclipse remained unbeaten but there have been plenty of great horses that got beaten, as I'm sure you are aware.

If you are "criticised for knocking" it may be due to the fact that you see the glass as being "half-empty" most of the time so its a question of perspective to many.Praise where and when its due, more frequently, would not go amiss.