Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1554 comments are related to the topic:
ARC 2014
ARC 2014
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,554
|
By:
brigust,sandown, it is quite simply that the best rated horses do not meet with the frequency they did before the 80s,too much choice for them .
|
|
By:
In this year the English and French Derby winners did not contest the Arc? the big 133-134 Treve rating was for the taking?(well maybe not?) but they both avoided the race.
|
|
By:
Hi MJ.
Firstly S I do not think a conspiracy is going on. I do think some horses are being over rated for financial reasons but I would probably think about doing the same were I in that position. Doesn't make it right though. The unbeaten bit I think is paramount. There have been other unbeaten horses in the past I agree but the hype today would have relished that opportunity and, who knows Treve may have earned it. After all if she had been placed differently and remained unbeaten had I then claimed she wouldn't have won the Ganay or the Prince of Wales Stakes I would have been laughed off the forum. Similarly had Australia run in the Juddmonte then won the Arc had I said TGG would have beaten him in Ireland well, you know the rest. I have been around horses and horseracing long enough to know CH will be kicking herself because although she has trained other Arc winners this could have been the special one. So no, I don't think I am half empty or half full (both are the same) I just try to put forward what I think realistically. I wanted Australia to run in the Guineas, and the Derby and the Arc. I wanted him to win them. That's not half empty. |
|
By:
It could be that Treve is just not the 10f horse we would have loved too witness, form-lines with flintshire over 12f confusing to say the least? CDA will not be the same horse has yesteryear,but still a mountain to get past if your fella gotta a little bit of temperament over 10f? Australia could retire before that event?
|
|
By:
You can't have it both ways Brig.
You are always slating group 1's as there are never "group 1" horses in the race. Now you are saying Treve should have dodged the Ganay and ran in an easier race. She was a triple group 1 winner from last season and should/did contest top races this term. |
|
By:
Following the argument between Brig and Sandown and have to say in my opinion only one of them is speaking sense. Brig is speaking with the benefit of huge amounts of hindsight and, as we all know, that is a wonderful thing. It always makes me scratch my head when I read people who would prefer to ask why questions like "why is Treve not unbeaten?" rather than focus on the fact that she won the world premier middle distance race for a second time and is the first to do since 1978. That is some achievement in my book.
So what races would you have run her in Treve? How would you have ensured she stay unbeaten? A couple of conditions races and then be brave and try a listed event? CH did nothing wrong and only followed the programme laid out long before the season started. It was always their intention to go for the POW and she needed a prep run before that. The Ganay was the obvious first target and she got her favoured soft ground. She came up against CDA but would you honestly withdraw Treve on account of one horse? She started 3-10 to beat a horse who had just had a tough race in Meydan. We all know what a champion CDA is but it was still a surprise he beat her however she lost nothing in defeat. I was at Royal Ascot for the POW and she looked magnificent in the paddock but terrible on the way down to the start. She was clearly not happy on that ground but again only hindsight tells us this. Her previous form on fast ground was impeccable; witness her win in Chantilly where the winning time was 4 seconds quicker than standard. They had every right to run her and it was the perfect race for a champion. She was then due to go for the KG but obviously her injury prevented that and CH slowly nursed her back. Her run in the Vermeilles shows a filly quickening and then tiring and CH told us herself that she would come on a lot for the run. How much she would come on was what very people, myself included, could believe. I wouldn't have picked her if I had had 10 bets but I still stood and applauded an amazing filly and an amazing feat of training. Only professionals really know how hard it is to bring a horse to peak fitness for the one big race, especially one with injury problems. So once again we learn that, with the exception of Frankel, horses are not machines. Treve could not have remained unbeaten this year. No matter what races they aimed at her she would still have needed her first run, she would still have needed her prep, she would still have run on fast ground at some point. Well done Treve and well done CH for doing something that hasn't been done for 36 years and may not be done for at least another 36. She is a true great if not the greatest. |
|
By:
Brig ALWAYS speaks with hindsight. And a big dollop of pocket talk.
Interesting he says Criqutte Heads achievement with Treve is not a great training performance and yet he says Henry Cecil would not have run Treve in the Ganay. How many Arc winners did Henry train? |
|
By:
Sin: Perhaps I could ask how many Derby's CH has won but I won't because it isn't the point. I could also say I backed Flintshire to win the King George, Australia for the Guineas, Derby and Arc but because I only told you last year that would be hindsight. Or Treve for the POW but that would be hindsight as well. So I won't waste my time.
Joni you may be right. CH may be sitting at home reassuring herself that running Treve in the Ganay was the right thing to do and so was running her in the POW but I bet you any money she isn't. I bet you any money she regrets it immensely because she is driven. She will hate it because she knows Treve could have been unbeaten and as her trainer she has missed that target. Anyone whomthinks otherwise does not understand how driven people are. You cannot help it if you meet a better horse but when you are beaten by a supposedly lesser horse younwill always consider you made a mistake. And although these gutless hacks fawn all over she is not stupid enough to believe what they are saying. You obviously think less of Treve than I do Joni because I think she should have retired unbeaten but you could be right perhaps she isn't as good as I think she is. And CH did well only getting her beaten three times this year. Never mind eh! |
|
By:
Of course I may be completely wrong in assuming Treve should have been able to beat CDA in the Ganay and The Fugue in the POW but I would think the ratings guys had her down as not running to form. Which means they also thought she should have done better. Had she not won the Arc they would have said she wasn't the same filly this season but she did win the Arc so she is. The question is therefore why was she beaten? I think it was trainer error while others may have a different view but with CH coming out pointing the finger at Frankie that disturbed me because if the problem was with the filly why change the jockey? It was as if she wanted to deflect something. I may be wrong of course, that's nothing new.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Even Alec Head said it was a mistake to race at R. Ascot - the only reason she was there was to please the owners, and the only reason she raced in the Ganay was to prep for that ... if it was the trainer's goal to retain the Arc then she made a pig's ear of it and just about redeemed herself .. it's actually pretty obvious.
|
|
By:
Obviously she was helped by getting a very favourable draw when the two horses who could have beaten her (Taghrooda and Kingston Hill) were killed ... she also had a phenomenally talented filly, but nearly grasped defeat from the jaws of victory .. but for turning it around just in time she did ok,
How great is it to win with the best horse, given the draw ?? ... not really. |
|
By:
Good job, well done C H-M .. etc, etc..
"Greatest training performance ever"  Get the best horse in the race to go and win ?  |
|
By:
Last year's training performance
that was a great performance .. this year was a mess |
|
By:
Brig - I would still like to know what races you would have run her in. How you might have handled her campaign.
Of course any "driven" person wants to win and I am sure she was very upset but when Treve was beaten. But she is also a veteran of the sport and knows that horses DO sometimes get beat. As she said at the time, losing to CDA was no disgrace and we have actually seen the Arc form work out almost to the pound with the Coronation form. There is clearly not very much between Treve and CDA. The POW was a mistake IN HINDSIGHT. She didn't handle the ground and it almost certainly caused the injury. If she could have the season again she wouldn't run her but her form on quick ground had been perfect up until then. She learnt the lesson the hard way. BEFORE the race there was little suggestion that they were doing the wrong thing. In contrast many thought it was the perfect race to showcase last years Champion. Similarly I was thinking last night how people used to say how Sir Henry kept it safe with Frankel and that was the reason he stayed unbeaten. Actually I vividly remember before the Dewhurst thinking why on earth is he running him in that race and not the Racing Post. The Dewhurst as you remember was billed the 2 year old race of the century. He was taking on Dream Ahead and Saamid, both unbeaten, over 7f rather than a mile. Why not go for the easier option? It was the same when he took on a race fit Strong Suit over 7f in the Greenham. Why not go for the Craven I thought. If any one of those decisions had backfired we would be saying the same about Sir H as some are saying now about CH. HINDSIGHT tells us he was never going to get beat no matter what race he ran in but we didn't know at the time. The difference here is that Treve was fallible, Frankel wasn't. They both did what they thought was right by the horse and that is all you can really do. FFS - sorry your ramblings made less and less sense the later it got last night. I wonder why? I think you are saying that because she was the best horse it was not a particularly good training performance. I wouldn't know where to start with that to be honest. If it was that simple we could all do it. Racing history is littered with horses who had huge talent but for one reason or other were unable to fulfil it. CH got her to the party not once but twice - the first horse to win back to back Arcs since 1978. That's pretty good in my book. |
|
By:
Whatever the reasons for the loss of form in her first three races, the achievement of her trainer in getting her right on the big day was remarkable imo. Most of the other trainers were also very hopeful but failed. Where were Ectot, Ruler of the World, Tapestry etc when the chips were down?
|
|
By:
Treve was 6th favourite at 11/1 for the Arc on the day, so any argument that Treve was clearly the best horse BEFORE the race just doesn't hold water. With HINDSIGHT,as jonibake states, she was the best horse but that only became clear after the race.
She was also given the best ride, (along with KH.) which contributed significantly to the outcome.She certainly benefited from a favourable draw and she was certainly sensibly ridden by being kept near the pace in a relatively slowly run race, and was kept near the rail finding a gap on the inside meaning she lost no ground coming round the turn. She then had the acceleration to take 2/3 lengths out of the field which won her the race. Clearly she returned to something close to her best form, something which most judges, apart from her trainer, considered unlikely. Racing is not an inexact science, and neither animals nor humans are entirely predictable.Whilst Treve's performance was unexpected, so was the performance of Ectot, which carried my money. The horse won his trial in taking fashion, he was a G1 winner and and form in the book beating the French 2000 Gns winner. His trainer compared him with Helissio, his previous Arc winner, and stated that he was a better horse. His jockey preferred him to another G1 winner in Avenir Certain. He was strong in the market, going off second fav.. Yet he ran way below expectations, and whilst the ride given can be criticised because he made nothing of a favourable draw, was dropped out and came wide, giving him no chance to win, the fact remains that he made no ground up in the straight and was never in with a shout. To my mind the "bounce" factor is a plausible excuse, although I have to say that the horse looked the part in the preliminaries. True, he ran freely, but he was beaten by the trip because at no point did he look like an Arc winner. He ran well below previous form. Two trainers, both with proven Arc winning form, both close to their horses, both knowing what it takes to win an Arc, but only one succeeding. Training racehorses, predicting outcomes remains a " glorious uncertainty." |
|
By:
but he was not beaten by the trip
|
|
By:
Good morning J. Sadly many criticisms are with hindsight. Although I did criticise AOB for not running Australia before the race but after his decision.
I don't know if my theory is correct but it does add up and just because others disagree their view is only conjecture as well. More importantly, as I think Figgis brought up, is how many of us as punters missed her. She had the best piece of form to her name, was possibly the highest rated over distance, had the best draw, loved the ground and her trainer said she was back to her best. Yet many of us just ignore all of these clues. And look at the price ffs? Sandown once said a race isn't like a crossword and I disagreed and in the Arc all of the clues were there. Clue 1. Who has the best form over the distance? Clue 2. Who has the best course form? Clue 3. Who of the main protagonists has the best draw? Clue 4. Who of the main protagonist's trainers has the best course form? Clue 5. Who of the main protagonist's jockeys has the best course form. If you added in the facts that none of the Japanese jockeys had any course experience, that the main 3 year old French challengers form could be questionable and could 'bounce'. That the best 3 year old from the UK had just been beaten and the horse who beat her had since finished last. Of course it's only hindsight but as punters we really should have noticed it. Isn't that what were spend our time doing? |
|
By:
Racing is not an exact science,
|
|
By:
Oh dear brigust1. You have been following racing and betting for all these years and you still believe that there is one correct answer with all the clues there to be found?
|
|
By:
Ah but her form from last year was surely rendered irrelevant by everything she had done (or not done) this year. Yes she had the best form over the distance but not in 2014. Yes she had the best course form but not in 2014. Ok so her trainer said she was close to her best but don't all trainers say things like that ("he's never looked so good", "he did a great piece of work last week", "she has put on 20 kilos since her last run" etc etc)
There are often races where, AFTER the result, you can say ah yes that was obvious, but it is not quite so easy before. Like Sandown I was all over Ectot and backed him long before Tom Segal had his say. He looked imperious to me in the Niel and if he had won in the Arc I would have delighted in telling you all how obvious it was that he would win. As it was I ended up with egg all over my face (on another forum I was "bullish" shall we say). Nothing has come to light that I have read and I assume he either bounced or perhaps just wasn't good enough. The point is we didn't know before the race how it would pan out. Add to the mix the fact there were 3 Japanese horses and a German with very little collateral form and it was impossible to tell BEFORE the race who was the best. |
|
By:
Donald Rumsfeld was laughed at with his "known unknowns" etc argument which was a great mistake because he was setting out a format for understanding risk and making judgements which is entirely correct.
First we have "known knowns" which in racing comes down to every bit of information ever published about a horse, trainer, jockey and race, so you would think that is makes it a level playing field to start with. It isn't because fact morphs into opinion very quickly. We cannot agree on what rating to give to a horse after the event for goodness sake.We cannot agree on how to judge the quality of the subsequent form. We cannot agree on how fit the horse might have been on how pace and tactics affected the outocme.Above all, we all have different "algorithms" in our head and on our computers for ranking every factor that we know about. " Secondly, we have "known unknowns" which not all of us can possibly have be of the same opinion of. How did the horse travel? How has it eaten up? How does its weight compare?The trainer may know this but we don't.Our only source of information is the market which reflects those things which we are not privy too. As for "unknown knowns" well here we and nobody else either has any idea. These are the chance events that occur daily in any race. It's impossible to know whether they will occur although we can predict that they will occur and influence the outcome. Left in the stalls. Saddle slip. Fall at a fence. Tap heels. Interference by a loose horse. Thousands if not millions of possibilities. The random, the chance factors. Finally, "unknown unknowns." The unknowable, the mysteries of the universe, the factors that we cannot even begin to define, so we can only ignore them. A crossword puzzle it is not. |
|
By:
Good morning S. Good old Donald the puppet whatever happened to him.
No of course there are blanks to be filled in but generally the clues are there. When unknowns become speculative then a price to cover that speculation can be include. That is what gambling is. Nothing is cast in stone. And thank goodness for that because gambling wouldn't exist. The art is to whittle down the knowns then weigh up the speculation against the odds. And in the Arc I believe the clues, speculation and odds available were balanced heavily toward having a sizeable bet. Yet many of us overlooked it. |
|
By:
Your argument brigust1 is neatly expressed in this sentence from an earlier post of yours.
Of course it's [i]only hindsight but as punters we really should have noticed it[/i] Basically, what you are arguing is that if we possessed the FORESIGHT to see what with HINDSIGHT we know to be, then we would have picked Treve. I cannot in all honesty disagree.  |
|
By:
As someone who has nearly reached his three score years and ten,I well understand now the meaning of "hindsight." "If I knew then, what I know now, then I might have done things differently." How true.
|
|
By:
Two Derby winners decided to give the race a miss,what could they see? A race at 10f? ffs
|
|
By:
Good old Donald the puppet whatever happened to him.
A bit of a tangent, but you could say that the "boy did good." Maybe he didn't fully understand his own quote,(borrowed from the Black Swan author, I believe) for which he has become famous/infamous, but he was technically incorrect to go about "unknown unknowns" with regard to Iraq. He should have used "unknown knowns" with regard to WMD's and the case for invading Iraq. Which, like many others, I believed to have been a gross mistake BEFORE the event. And how did Blair persuade the Commons that Iraq was a threat to the UK with his 45 minutes warning? By the way, I don't think that Rumsfeld was anyone's puppet. More the other way around, I should think. |
|
By:
It isn't simply a hindsight thing though S. I backed four times during the year but for some reason I ignored points I would normally relish. With Flintshire for example he has been beaten many times and the form of his single Group 1 win is pretty moderate but I backed him at 18s for the King George and at 33s for the Arc simply because I thought his odds were far better than his chance. Yet for some reason I never looked at T reve in the same way. After all that is something we are all looking for. A horse whose odds are much better than their chance. I think Treve was one of those that got away.
When we have a bet it is with foresight then when we look back at our bets our conclusionas to whether or we were right or wrong is hindsight. And I am sure like most punters we think we should have had less on the losers and more on the winners. Funny you bring up the three score years and ten well I have one year and ten days to go. Beat that.  |
|
By:
I couldn't agree more about the Iraq war, my wife and I both marched against it. The puppet reference was more the fact his face was ideal for Spitting Images not his link to George UU (dubbleya).
|
|
By:
Funny you bring up the three score years and ten well I have one year and ten days to go. Beat that.
Wink 18 days? |
|
By:
My wife's birthday is 26th so that is as near as I can get though she still has 10 years to go. I cerainly don't feel that old and will be building a completely new roof at the end of the month before a couple of weeks felling trees. It's the best time of year for tree felling. May just manage to see the Breeders Cup before I go. I had planned to go to California this year but you cannot turn work away especially when it gets you out and keeps you fit. We will go to the BC in 2016.
|
|
By:
It was interesting to hear Harry Herbert on ATR saying about trying to keep Treve's unbeaten record. I wonder how long it is before they mention the 'error of the ganay'?
|
|
By:
The "Error of the Ganay"???! Still waiting to hear how you would have campaigned her Brig. See if I can help - maybe the Grand Prix De Saint Cloud? Or the Prix Romanet? Not exactly races for Champions though are they? Perhaps do a Quevega and turn up just for the Arc every year? Not massively sporting though is it and would she have won without a prep?
In theory their plan was a good one. In reality it didn't quite pan out until the one that mattered. That's racing. |
|
By:
Joni I could suggest anything but it wouldn't be based on what were the requirements other than keeping her unbeaten record. As Harry Herbert has since confirmed. That was obviously their aim and they failed. The question is therefore who made the decision to run and on what information was that based? My guess is, and it is an informed guess, that CH thought Treve was fit enough for the task in hand. If that is the case then what I have said previously still stands.
The only difference is that where others on here have said her unbeaten record wasn't important HH has said it was. |
|
By:
Ok not wanting to go back and forth but not sure how they could have kept her unbeaten when she couldn't finish in the first 3 in the Vermeilles. She had to start somewhere. The Ganay was as good a place as any and they didn't want to not run just because of one horse.
If the objective was purely and simply to keep her unbeaten they would not have been aiming her at races she might lose. They would have taken the route I suggested above. Of course they wanted her to win every race but not at the expense of missing out on running in the top middle-distance races. They always wanted to run her in the POW and they also mentioned the KG until the injury. Her unbeaten record was always more likely to come under threat in those races than in easier pickings at home. The truth is she ran pretty much to form in the Ganay (as evidenced by Flintshire in the Arc at least) but then only rediscovered that form last weekend. |
|
By:
So Joni you are basically agreeing with me in that they thought they would win the Ganay but didn't. Sadly you then go on to say Treve ran to form in the Ganay which I disagree with. I think Treve is better than CDA so we will have agree to disagree on that one. As you said there is no point going round and around.
|
|
By:
Brig won't give straight answers. He always has to have the last say in an attempt to be clever. It has the opposite affect!
|
|
By:
Ok, here's a retrospective campaign for Treve, which would have made more sense to me IF THE IDEA WAS TO PRESERVE HER REPUTATION, given she was clearly best at 12f and was likely to be more vulnerable at 10:
1. Jockey Club Stakes early May - 5lb penalties have been carried to victory by lesser horses, and in the event she would have beaten Gospel Choir et al with some ease 2. Grand Prix de Saint Cloud late June. To me this was a no brainer given the King George is not the race for a horse aiming at an arc prep. 3. Vermeille 4. arc. She would have won all four races with some facility and we wouldn't have had all this nonsense about her being 'below par' early on. The best performance of her career was in the Ganay. Horses prove much more about themselves under pressure than in a canter, and what she proved that day was she had tremendous courage and speed. The first arc win was exaggerated by the poverty of most of her rivals that day and the weight allowance on soft ground. Having said all that, I am actually quite glad she was campaigned as she was, as it showed some ambition on the part of connections, and it gave us the best race of the season in that unforgettable ganay. |
|
By:
Ooooh Howellsy. The Jockey Club? On good to firm ground? Handling that dip? Not so sure myself......
|