Horse Antepost
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Last year I wrote to the Racing Post posing questions for the BHA Handicapper and suggesting that British racing, since the turn of the new century, appeared to be going through a low era with German, Australian, Hong Kong and even South African horses chasing our big prizes pretty successfully. Failing to get any sensible response at all leave alone a satisfactory one other than the fact that as the number of higher rated horses was larger just before the turn of the century they, the BHA, had assumed that the previous champions must have been over rated and proceeded to downgrade them so I thought it would be a good idea to do a little more research myself to try and find if there could be a possible reason for this apparent decline in higher rated horses when compared with other era’s. Naturally I had to look for something unique to this era alone and not to any of the other era’s.
My research was fairly comprehensive but not being a member of the ‘establishment’ I had to rely on news clippings, television interviews and the form book. The conclusion I have reached, though it is not cast in stone, is that the Coolmore team model at Balldoyle appears, on the surface, to have had and is continuing to have a significantly negative effect on both the shortage of champions on show and the strength of the UK’s standing as a whole, across the board. By this I mean across the UK training network.
It has often been my belief that as many champions fail to achieve their goals as those that do actually achieve them and Coolmore certainly have had, and still do have, much more than their fair share of the likely ammunition but my research was to find out if they have they managed to match their stable of potential champions with results on the board? And do the results show that Coolmore have found their stable of potential champions much to much for one stable to handle effectively?
Needless to say there are far, far too many individual examples to deal with here, certainly enough to sway the BHA’s figures, so I have whittled them down to a select few, high profile individuals everyone will be familiar with and the reasons why I believe they have failed to achieve a higher ranking.
Hawk Wing. Was his career adversely affected by having Rock of Gibraltar as a stable companion? Beaten in the 2000 Guineas he was then diverted to the Derby, struggled to beat his pacemaker in the Eclipse and was demolished in the Breeders Cup Classic. Did they have to run Hawk Wing in the Derby because they already had High Chaparral in it? Does that set of races sound like the profile of the best three year old miler in the Europe or was he forced to miss all of the top mile races because of Rock of Gibraltar? After proving he was in fact a top class miler in the Lockinge as a four year old he then showed signs of being asked the questions he was unable to answer the previous season. Had he been trained elsewhere I believe it is more likely he would swerved the Derby and sought revenge on Rock of Gibraltar in the St James Palace Stakes. Almost certain success there would have left a clear trail for all of the top mile races in Europe and the US both at three and at four years of age.
Was Hawk Wing let down by a poor decision making process or a financial breeding model?
Rip Van Winkle. Another top class miler having to share the one mile races with stable companion Mastercraftsman. His defeat in the 2000 Guineas where he was reported to be unfit was followed by the Derby, Eclipse and the Breeder’s Cup Classic, just like Hawk Wing. Also, just like Hawk Wing, they didn’t have to run Rip Van Winkle in the Derby because they already had Fame and Glory in it. They couldn’t run him in the St James Palace Stakes or Irish 2000 Guineas because they ran Mastercraftsman in those races. Then in his later races he too showed signs of being asked questions he was unable to answer. Are these decisions that would that have been made were he trained elsewhere? I suggest not. Rip Van Winkle could easily have been kept to one mile races where it is far more likely he would not have been beaten again as a 3 year old. Then as a 4 year old why didn’t he run in the Eclipse? He had only been narrowly beaten by Sea the Stars in the Eclipse the year before and on form with the eventual winner Twice Over he would have won it, he did win the Juddmonte as a four year old beating Twice Over and, had he run in the Champion Stakes, won by Twice Over he would almost certainly have won it. Who knows how good he could have been or how highly he could have been rated had his career been planned completely differently or trained elsewhere?
Fame and Glory. A top class 10/12 furlong horse who finished 2nd in the Derby and the Irish Champion Stakes behind Sea the Stars, he won the Irish Derby and Coronation Cup (in a faster time than any of St Nicholas Abbey’s three wins) among many successes. Arguably he was unfortunate not to win the Arc behind Workforce and, on his preferred ground he would surely have given Danedream something to think about the following year. But was his opportunity to run in these top class races sacrificed in favour of See You Then who was arriving from Australia and St Nicholas Abbey. Fame and Glory was diverted down the **** route? Initially successful because of his class he eventually, like Hawk Wing and Rip Van Winkle, showed signs of being asked questions beyond his remit and his form tailed off.
Camelot. This easy winner of the Epsom Derby was then aimed at the Irish equivalent where the heavy going must have been a huge negative and he struggled to win. Surely a better target would have been the King George but with St Nicholas Abbey an intended fancied runner did that sway the Ballydoyle decision? Then to compound the fracture Camelot ran in the Arc, again on heavy ground even when it was known how he had been effected by the same conditions at the Curragh. Camelot has since been unable to find his form. Does that sound familiar?
St Nicholas Abbey. Only very recently his connections have confessed to using the wrong riding tactics. Add to that he clearly didn’t act on soft ground yet ran in the Arc on heavy ground just prior to a repeat bid for the Breeder’s Cup that resulted in defeat. He ran four times at 10 furlongs never winning once. Clearly a top class 12 furlong horse on top of the ground was he placed and ridden to his full potential?
Ruler of the World. The unbeaten winner of the Epsom Derby was, like Camelot, aimed at the Irish Derby instead of the King George even knowing what effect the same tactics had on Camelot the year before. Was this because St Nicholas Abbey had the King George as a target before his injury? Did they learn nothing from Camelot the previous year?
The same questions could be asked of So You Think, Cape Blanco, Henrythenavigator the list would go on.
My question is and the basis of my research was ‘Would these horses and many others have achieved more had they been trained by other trainers without the constraints of similar stable companions vying for the same targets?’
I do believe they would have and I also believe that had these and many other horses from this stable been trained by any number of the top class trainers available in the UK and Ireland the whole pattern of our Group 1 races would be very different. Training horses with ‘horse racing’ in mind must surely be a different mindset than training racehorses with ‘breeding potential’ in mind.
As another example of how overwhelmingly powerful this stable has become and what I believe is a totally negative imbalance to the UK racing scene can be seen all of the time. At the 5 day entry stage for the Juddmonte International this season Ballydoyle had four of the nine entries and for the Irish Champion Stakes Ballydoyle had twelve entrants at the initial entry stage, all of whom would have been stable stars had they been trained elsewhere and who, more than likely, would be contributing on a regular basis to our racing’s rich heritage.
Had these horses been shared around any number of top class trainers, and we have a bountiful number available, who knows what effect it would be and it would also bring other jockeys into the equation and their additional input would invaluable. Maybe in this regard horses wouldn’t be continually asked to run on unsuitable ground and over unsuitable distances, in the wrong races with the wrong riding tactics and so many of them have raced unfit and unprepared. Is this the result of just too much to deal with in one stable?
I do understand when a huge breeding outfit makes decisions about what horses run where and over which distance and I do understand the end game is breeding and it isn’t necessarily for the benefit of racing as a whole but I don’t have to like it.
Looking ahead we have the Dewhurst Stakes Ballydoyle have 20 entries, the Racing Post Trophy 22 entries, the Champion Stakes they have 8 entries and the Queen Elizabeth 11 Stakes where they have 11 entries. This has been the pattern throughout the season. Many, many more entries than other champion trainers have put together. How can that be good for racing?
I have to admit that it is heart warming watching Aidan O’Brien and his son Joseph enjoying their success and even to accept Aidan’s regular apologies for his actions or where his horses aren’t fit, too numerous to list here, but can this be beneficial to British racing even if it is a sound financial model for the owners involved?
What would be my idea of a solution? Well it would be to disperse the majority of the horses at Ballydoyle to a number of select and top class trainers, and there are many top class trainers around , with the remit that they train and place the horses for the benefit of the horse and horse racing and not only for the benefit of the financial model. A lot to ask I know. But what do you do when you think a group of wealthy people are making important decisions that may be having a negative effect on the sport you love?
In closing can I say that this is quite simply my over view of flat racing in the 21st Century. I think I have produced it fairly and honestly as a racing enthusiast and it may not meet with everyone’s approval or point of view but I felt I had to put pen to paper because the position appears to be getting worse as the Coolmore battalions grow, literally, by the day. You only have to look at the number of Group 1 race entries coming up compared to every other trainer to see just how one-sided and unbalanced things are.
Needles to say the RP never printed the letter.
My research was fairly comprehensive but not being a member of the ‘establishment’ I had to rely on news clippings, television interviews and the form book. The conclusion I have reached, though it is not cast in stone, is that the Coolmore team model at Balldoyle appears, on the surface, to have had and is continuing to have a significantly negative effect on both the shortage of champions on show and the strength of the UK’s standing as a whole, across the board. By this I mean across the UK training network.
It has often been my belief that as many champions fail to achieve their goals as those that do actually achieve them and Coolmore certainly have had, and still do have, much more than their fair share of the likely ammunition but my research was to find out if they have they managed to match their stable of potential champions with results on the board? And do the results show that Coolmore have found their stable of potential champions much to much for one stable to handle effectively?
Needless to say there are far, far too many individual examples to deal with here, certainly enough to sway the BHA’s figures, so I have whittled them down to a select few, high profile individuals everyone will be familiar with and the reasons why I believe they have failed to achieve a higher ranking.
Hawk Wing. Was his career adversely affected by having Rock of Gibraltar as a stable companion? Beaten in the 2000 Guineas he was then diverted to the Derby, struggled to beat his pacemaker in the Eclipse and was demolished in the Breeders Cup Classic. Did they have to run Hawk Wing in the Derby because they already had High Chaparral in it? Does that set of races sound like the profile of the best three year old miler in the Europe or was he forced to miss all of the top mile races because of Rock of Gibraltar? After proving he was in fact a top class miler in the Lockinge as a four year old he then showed signs of being asked the questions he was unable to answer the previous season. Had he been trained elsewhere I believe it is more likely he would swerved the Derby and sought revenge on Rock of Gibraltar in the St James Palace Stakes. Almost certain success there would have left a clear trail for all of the top mile races in Europe and the US both at three and at four years of age.
Was Hawk Wing let down by a poor decision making process or a financial breeding model?
Rip Van Winkle. Another top class miler having to share the one mile races with stable companion Mastercraftsman. His defeat in the 2000 Guineas where he was reported to be unfit was followed by the Derby, Eclipse and the Breeder’s Cup Classic, just like Hawk Wing. Also, just like Hawk Wing, they didn’t have to run Rip Van Winkle in the Derby because they already had Fame and Glory in it. They couldn’t run him in the St James Palace Stakes or Irish 2000 Guineas because they ran Mastercraftsman in those races. Then in his later races he too showed signs of being asked questions he was unable to answer. Are these decisions that would that have been made were he trained elsewhere? I suggest not. Rip Van Winkle could easily have been kept to one mile races where it is far more likely he would not have been beaten again as a 3 year old. Then as a 4 year old why didn’t he run in the Eclipse? He had only been narrowly beaten by Sea the Stars in the Eclipse the year before and on form with the eventual winner Twice Over he would have won it, he did win the Juddmonte as a four year old beating Twice Over and, had he run in the Champion Stakes, won by Twice Over he would almost certainly have won it. Who knows how good he could have been or how highly he could have been rated had his career been planned completely differently or trained elsewhere?
Fame and Glory. A top class 10/12 furlong horse who finished 2nd in the Derby and the Irish Champion Stakes behind Sea the Stars, he won the Irish Derby and Coronation Cup (in a faster time than any of St Nicholas Abbey’s three wins) among many successes. Arguably he was unfortunate not to win the Arc behind Workforce and, on his preferred ground he would surely have given Danedream something to think about the following year. But was his opportunity to run in these top class races sacrificed in favour of See You Then who was arriving from Australia and St Nicholas Abbey. Fame and Glory was diverted down the **** route? Initially successful because of his class he eventually, like Hawk Wing and Rip Van Winkle, showed signs of being asked questions beyond his remit and his form tailed off.
Camelot. This easy winner of the Epsom Derby was then aimed at the Irish equivalent where the heavy going must have been a huge negative and he struggled to win. Surely a better target would have been the King George but with St Nicholas Abbey an intended fancied runner did that sway the Ballydoyle decision? Then to compound the fracture Camelot ran in the Arc, again on heavy ground even when it was known how he had been effected by the same conditions at the Curragh. Camelot has since been unable to find his form. Does that sound familiar?
St Nicholas Abbey. Only very recently his connections have confessed to using the wrong riding tactics. Add to that he clearly didn’t act on soft ground yet ran in the Arc on heavy ground just prior to a repeat bid for the Breeder’s Cup that resulted in defeat. He ran four times at 10 furlongs never winning once. Clearly a top class 12 furlong horse on top of the ground was he placed and ridden to his full potential?
Ruler of the World. The unbeaten winner of the Epsom Derby was, like Camelot, aimed at the Irish Derby instead of the King George even knowing what effect the same tactics had on Camelot the year before. Was this because St Nicholas Abbey had the King George as a target before his injury? Did they learn nothing from Camelot the previous year?
The same questions could be asked of So You Think, Cape Blanco, Henrythenavigator the list would go on.
My question is and the basis of my research was ‘Would these horses and many others have achieved more had they been trained by other trainers without the constraints of similar stable companions vying for the same targets?’
I do believe they would have and I also believe that had these and many other horses from this stable been trained by any number of the top class trainers available in the UK and Ireland the whole pattern of our Group 1 races would be very different. Training horses with ‘horse racing’ in mind must surely be a different mindset than training racehorses with ‘breeding potential’ in mind.
As another example of how overwhelmingly powerful this stable has become and what I believe is a totally negative imbalance to the UK racing scene can be seen all of the time. At the 5 day entry stage for the Juddmonte International this season Ballydoyle had four of the nine entries and for the Irish Champion Stakes Ballydoyle had twelve entrants at the initial entry stage, all of whom would have been stable stars had they been trained elsewhere and who, more than likely, would be contributing on a regular basis to our racing’s rich heritage.
Had these horses been shared around any number of top class trainers, and we have a bountiful number available, who knows what effect it would be and it would also bring other jockeys into the equation and their additional input would invaluable. Maybe in this regard horses wouldn’t be continually asked to run on unsuitable ground and over unsuitable distances, in the wrong races with the wrong riding tactics and so many of them have raced unfit and unprepared. Is this the result of just too much to deal with in one stable?
I do understand when a huge breeding outfit makes decisions about what horses run where and over which distance and I do understand the end game is breeding and it isn’t necessarily for the benefit of racing as a whole but I don’t have to like it.
Looking ahead we have the Dewhurst Stakes Ballydoyle have 20 entries, the Racing Post Trophy 22 entries, the Champion Stakes they have 8 entries and the Queen Elizabeth 11 Stakes where they have 11 entries. This has been the pattern throughout the season. Many, many more entries than other champion trainers have put together. How can that be good for racing?
I have to admit that it is heart warming watching Aidan O’Brien and his son Joseph enjoying their success and even to accept Aidan’s regular apologies for his actions or where his horses aren’t fit, too numerous to list here, but can this be beneficial to British racing even if it is a sound financial model for the owners involved?
What would be my idea of a solution? Well it would be to disperse the majority of the horses at Ballydoyle to a number of select and top class trainers, and there are many top class trainers around , with the remit that they train and place the horses for the benefit of the horse and horse racing and not only for the benefit of the financial model. A lot to ask I know. But what do you do when you think a group of wealthy people are making important decisions that may be having a negative effect on the sport you love?
In closing can I say that this is quite simply my over view of flat racing in the 21st Century. I think I have produced it fairly and honestly as a racing enthusiast and it may not meet with everyone’s approval or point of view but I felt I had to put pen to paper because the position appears to be getting worse as the Coolmore battalions grow, literally, by the day. You only have to look at the number of Group 1 race entries coming up compared to every other trainer to see just how one-sided and unbalanced things are.
Needles to say the RP never printed the letter.
Show More
Also with a bigger population(if that is true),does the standard of rating reach an artificial high?with more handicappers having the chance to overate many, with race standardization being the dictate?
No, because a 70 rated horse, for example, will still be rated a 70 against that population of horses, even if the population's average speed has increased, say, half a length.
No, because a 70 rated horse, for example, will still be rated a 70 against that population of horses, even if the population's average speed has increased, say, half a length.
What I should of said is that if more races exist,at a 2yrld level,the starting point for all handicaps,and based almost solely on race standardization,is there more chance,than normal to get those initial figures wrong(like throwing paint on a wall and hoping for a Picasso)
MJ, I'm not a 'form' handicapper, so I can't speak for those that are. I don't use race standardisation, although I do consider that certain races are more likely to produce a certain level of form. My point is that ratings are just based on opinions and the skills and experience of those who are compiling them. Whoever is in charge of the task there will be differences of opinions and methods, it's just a fact, ratings can be debated and disagreed on but I don't see why it's anything for people to get their knickers in a twist about.
Just trying to discuss some of the pitfalls of handicapping(not getting my nickers in a twist)
MJ, I wasn't referring to you with that, like you say you are only debating, which is good. I was referring to others who think it's one big conspiracy.
Some food for thought,and a most interesting subject,you may have seen California Chrome win a Kentucky Derby in a very slow time,is the generation getting better?
MJ, I only have a casual interest in USA racing so can't say. There is a piece here that shows there are others around that believe the racehorse population has got quicker, or at least a section of that population.
http://espn.go.com/horse/columns/misc/1923297.html
MJ, I only have a casual interest in USA racing so can't say. There is a piece here that shows there are others around that believe the racehorse population has got quicker, or at least a section of that population.
http://espn.go.com/horse/columns/misc/1923297.html
figgis,Yes but i think you maybe underestimate the feeling of one generation of racing fans against another,even more so when that stable had stars like Nashwan to compare like to like,racing is a passion and brings out passions in people!
Cheers figgis will have a read latter,will post again in the morning,have a good day!
racing is a passion and brings out passions in people!
Nothing at all wrong with that, MJ. My argument is when modern races are painted as mediocre, because such a horse only beat a sprinter in second, the third never won a Group race, the winner was only beating the same horses, etc. This when exactly the same circumstances are glossed over in past races, or when they're finally reluctantly acknowledged an excuse is made, while excuses are dismissed for today's runners. It is the inconsistency and hypocrisy that's wrong.
Nothing at all wrong with that, MJ. My argument is when modern races are painted as mediocre, because such a horse only beat a sprinter in second, the third never won a Group race, the winner was only beating the same horses, etc. This when exactly the same circumstances are glossed over in past races, or when they're finally reluctantly acknowledged an excuse is made, while excuses are dismissed for today's runners. It is the inconsistency and hypocrisy that's wrong.
Still peddling your bigoted rubbish Figgis?
Brown is wrong and his figures were based on the wrong information.
He wrote : "The overall point is that horses are just getting better," he says. "One of the reasons people don't recognize that is that racetracks are getting slower. When the horses of the seventies were running, the cushion at Belmont was three inches. The cushion there is now four inches. To give you an idea of what that means, there was only one day in 2003 at Belmont when the cushion was 3 ½ inches and that was the day when (the moderately talented) Najran ran the 1:32 1/5 mile (when winning the Westchester Handicap) mile. The other difference is that in order to get tracks to dry out faster they've gone to a higher sand content. When sand is dry, it creates a slower track."
At least one well informed source begs to differ. Butch Lehr, the track superintendent at Churchill Downs, who has been employed there for 38 years, says that the Churchill strip is no different than it was when he started.
"As far as making tracks deeper now as compared to 20 years ago, I don't necessarily believe that," Lehr said. "If anything, it's the opposite. I've been here a long time and, at Churchill, we haven't done anything to change the track."
It's also notable that the popular Beyer figures published in the Daily Racing Form don't seem to reflect any significant changes in the speed of the modern race horse as compared to their contemporaries from 15 or 20 years ago.
Still another opinion comes from Richard Sowers, who researched the subject while writing his recently released book "The Abstract Primer of Thoroughbred Racing." Sowers has found that sprinters are getting faster, while routers are not. He notes that the five fastest winning times since 1946 in stakes races run at six furlongs have all been recorded since 1999. By contrast, there have been 11 1 1/4-mile stakes races won in 1:58 3/5 or faster since 1946. Only one has been within the last 14 years, the 1991 Suburban won by In Excess.
http://www.popsci.com/article/are-racehorses-getting-faster
Lastly, racehorses are bred from only six percent of the total stock, so the small gene pool, developed over the course of many generations, doesn't lend itself to significant further change. As Stanford biologist Mark Denny writes in his superb 2008 study on the subject, "Despite intensive programs to breed faster thoroughbreds ... despite increasing populations from which to choose exceptional individuals, and despite the use of any undetected performance-enhancing drugs, race speeds in these animals have not increased in the last 40–60 years. Thus, for horses and dogs, a limit appears to have been reached."
Yet this masks a big question for horse racing. While almost every record in athletics has been broken repeatedly over the past 50 years, horses' race times are stagnating. Why?
Research conducted by Mark Denny, a leading biologist at Stanford University in California, suggests horses have not run the Triple Crown races in the United States much quicker since the late 1940s, a trend largely reflected in the major races in the UK.
Are horses more evolved than humans? Is it the human desire to set new standards? Is it because the human diet has improved considerably compared to horses?
BBC Sport spoke to a variety of experts and came up with eight possible reasons.
Horses are already close to perfection
Humans have been selectively breeding horses for several thousand years, and thoroughbreds for racing for about three centuries.
"Compared with humans, racehorses are incredibly advanced athletes. Any significant gains in physiology have already been achieved," says Andrew Byers, a senior lecturer in equine sports science at Nottingham Trent University.
In 1988, Professor Patrick Cunningham, a former chief scientific adviser to the Irish government and expert in animal genetics, noted that selective breeding had not yielded faster times in the previous 50 years.
He suggested the physiological limit of racehorses might have been reached, for example, in dealing with lactic acid build-up in muscles during performance.
The stud market remains big business worldwide and it is almost impossible to win races without horses from quality stock.
However, Mark Denny believes that to become faster still, horses would also become more fragile. "Stronger muscles and better lung capacity doesn't get you much if tendons and bones can't withstand the extra stress," he notes.
Brown is wrong and his figures were based on the wrong information.
He wrote : "The overall point is that horses are just getting better," he says. "One of the reasons people don't recognize that is that racetracks are getting slower. When the horses of the seventies were running, the cushion at Belmont was three inches. The cushion there is now four inches. To give you an idea of what that means, there was only one day in 2003 at Belmont when the cushion was 3 ½ inches and that was the day when (the moderately talented) Najran ran the 1:32 1/5 mile (when winning the Westchester Handicap) mile. The other difference is that in order to get tracks to dry out faster they've gone to a higher sand content. When sand is dry, it creates a slower track."
At least one well informed source begs to differ. Butch Lehr, the track superintendent at Churchill Downs, who has been employed there for 38 years, says that the Churchill strip is no different than it was when he started.
"As far as making tracks deeper now as compared to 20 years ago, I don't necessarily believe that," Lehr said. "If anything, it's the opposite. I've been here a long time and, at Churchill, we haven't done anything to change the track."
It's also notable that the popular Beyer figures published in the Daily Racing Form don't seem to reflect any significant changes in the speed of the modern race horse as compared to their contemporaries from 15 or 20 years ago.
Still another opinion comes from Richard Sowers, who researched the subject while writing his recently released book "The Abstract Primer of Thoroughbred Racing." Sowers has found that sprinters are getting faster, while routers are not. He notes that the five fastest winning times since 1946 in stakes races run at six furlongs have all been recorded since 1999. By contrast, there have been 11 1 1/4-mile stakes races won in 1:58 3/5 or faster since 1946. Only one has been within the last 14 years, the 1991 Suburban won by In Excess.
http://www.popsci.com/article/are-racehorses-getting-faster
Lastly, racehorses are bred from only six percent of the total stock, so the small gene pool, developed over the course of many generations, doesn't lend itself to significant further change. As Stanford biologist Mark Denny writes in his superb 2008 study on the subject, "Despite intensive programs to breed faster thoroughbreds ... despite increasing populations from which to choose exceptional individuals, and despite the use of any undetected performance-enhancing drugs, race speeds in these animals have not increased in the last 40–60 years. Thus, for horses and dogs, a limit appears to have been reached."
Yet this masks a big question for horse racing. While almost every record in athletics has been broken repeatedly over the past 50 years, horses' race times are stagnating. Why?
Research conducted by Mark Denny, a leading biologist at Stanford University in California, suggests horses have not run the Triple Crown races in the United States much quicker since the late 1940s, a trend largely reflected in the major races in the UK.
Are horses more evolved than humans? Is it the human desire to set new standards? Is it because the human diet has improved considerably compared to horses?
BBC Sport spoke to a variety of experts and came up with eight possible reasons.
Horses are already close to perfection
Humans have been selectively breeding horses for several thousand years, and thoroughbreds for racing for about three centuries.
"Compared with humans, racehorses are incredibly advanced athletes. Any significant gains in physiology have already been achieved," says Andrew Byers, a senior lecturer in equine sports science at Nottingham Trent University.
In 1988, Professor Patrick Cunningham, a former chief scientific adviser to the Irish government and expert in animal genetics, noted that selective breeding had not yielded faster times in the previous 50 years.
He suggested the physiological limit of racehorses might have been reached, for example, in dealing with lactic acid build-up in muscles during performance.
The stud market remains big business worldwide and it is almost impossible to win races without horses from quality stock.
However, Mark Denny believes that to become faster still, horses would also become more fragile. "Stronger muscles and better lung capacity doesn't get you much if tendons and bones can't withstand the extra stress," he notes.
Au revoir
This time it really is goodbye.
About as consistent as the rest of your posts, brig
This time it really is goodbye.
About as consistent as the rest of your posts, brig
Brown is wrong and his figures were based on the wrong information.
There you go again, you just can't accept an alternative opinion, it has to be wrong. I said there are others that believe this to be the case, it is an opinion. Incidentally, your information that he is wrong is based on no supporting evidence, as this may come as news to you, brigust, but Belmont and Churchill Downs are two entirely different tracks
There you go again, you just can't accept an alternative opinion, it has to be wrong. I said there are others that believe this to be the case, it is an opinion. Incidentally, your information that he is wrong is based on no supporting evidence, as this may come as news to you, brigust, but Belmont and Churchill Downs are two entirely different tracks
You just cannot help yourself peddling your bigoted cr ap you tw at. I'm not wasting any more time on you. I just hope others see you for the twisted tw at you are.
Of the above : It was an example:
But one expert on the subject has challenged conventional wisdom. Jerry Brown, who owns Thoro-Graph, a service that compiles high-tech speed figures for all the major tracks in the country, says that horses are not just faster than they used to be, but much faster.
Another example of your work.
Of the above : It was an example:
But one expert on the subject has challenged conventional wisdom. Jerry Brown, who owns Thoro-Graph, a service that compiles high-tech speed figures for all the major tracks in the country, says that horses are not just faster than they used to be, but much faster.
Another example of your work.
https://www.thorograph.com/archive/getting%20faster%20pt%20I.htm
Just to prove that some people can actually support what they say, despite others who can't calling them wrong
Just to prove that some people can actually support what they say, despite others who can't calling them wrong
That's Brown's own company website. You ignore everyone else and only pointed him out. You cannot help being a snake Figgis. It is in your DNA. Now I am definitely off. I am late already. Wasting my time on a jerk like you, I must be frigging mad.
I was speaking to MJ, I said there are other people who believe racehorses in the USA have got faster in contrast to the people that point to slower raw final times as their only evidence. I know you only want to see opinions that agree with your own but you'll just have to get over it
Good morning,figgis,brigust, http://www.popsci.com/article/are-racehorses-getting-faster
I believe track conditions may have reverted to the normal,and then slowed a little,It's possible that the track was lightning fast in the secretariat years,that would explain the front running performance witnessed,over the years the track returning to a more balanced standard and slowing.
I believe track conditions may have reverted to the normal,and then slowed a little,It's possible that the track was lightning fast in the secretariat years,that would explain the front running performance witnessed,over the years the track returning to a more balanced standard and slowing.
Good morning MJ. I'm off to croissant land this morning. Your point about lightning fast track just isn't backed up by the other horses of the time. He was just a special horse and that happens. In the US they have tried to make horses go faster using every means available and now the attrition rate is awful that is why they have turned to the surface for help. It is the same over here. To prevent injuries occurring as a result of asking horses to carry more muscle than they are physiologically able to they are having to water the tracks.
I'm off. Take care.
I'm off. Take care.
MJ, I'm not saying it was the only reason for Secretariat's fast time, he was obviously a cut above. Although even with him some people have speculated that he might've had some artificial assistance, pointing to his physique, enlarged heart and apparently huge appetite as tell-tale signs, not that I'm saying I agree.
It just goes to show that rarely will everybody agree on sporting matters. Everybody's entitled to have their view on which horse or which era was the best, without dogmatically trying to prove it as some kind of truth that everybody else must accept. My own findings are that the UK racehorse population has on average got quicker since the 80s and 90s but more markedly over distances up to a mile. I'm happy to believe that and give it as my opinion but I don't expect everybody else to agree, nor do I have any wish to convert everyone to my way of thinking, that is entirely up to them.
I'd add that even though I believe horses, and most athletes, have become quicker it in no way detracts from horses from the past or past eras. It is simply a matter of being born in a more advanced era.
It just goes to show that rarely will everybody agree on sporting matters. Everybody's entitled to have their view on which horse or which era was the best, without dogmatically trying to prove it as some kind of truth that everybody else must accept. My own findings are that the UK racehorse population has on average got quicker since the 80s and 90s but more markedly over distances up to a mile. I'm happy to believe that and give it as my opinion but I don't expect everybody else to agree, nor do I have any wish to convert everyone to my way of thinking, that is entirely up to them.
I'd add that even though I believe horses, and most athletes, have become quicker it in no way detracts from horses from the past or past eras. It is simply a matter of being born in a more advanced era.
Just to add my two penneth on this issue of faster or not?
Tracks, whether artificial or turf, can be "tuned" for speed. Track management has advanced a lot and what is clear is that the amount of "spring" that can be built in to aid speed has a sweet spot, easier to find perhaps on artificial than with turf.On turf, length of grass, soil composition, drainage,water table etc all play a part. In short, its very difficult to compare between eras. Bannister broke the 4 minute mile on cinder track with spikes!
If you can get over this problem, there is still the issue of training methods having improved, feeding, conditioning, veterinary
knowledge all better, before you can get down to the physiological issues concerning the horse.
Then, what metric do you use? Raw times or adjusted times using allowances?
Maybe the only answer possible is to be found in science, in the labs, rather than on performances. In short, as with all data, interpretation is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is with statistical analysis.
My guess is that improvement has happened and will continue to do so, albeit marginally,as it has with nearly all athletic endeavour. It's just that its difficult to prove.
Tracks, whether artificial or turf, can be "tuned" for speed. Track management has advanced a lot and what is clear is that the amount of "spring" that can be built in to aid speed has a sweet spot, easier to find perhaps on artificial than with turf.On turf, length of grass, soil composition, drainage,water table etc all play a part. In short, its very difficult to compare between eras. Bannister broke the 4 minute mile on cinder track with spikes!
If you can get over this problem, there is still the issue of training methods having improved, feeding, conditioning, veterinary
knowledge all better, before you can get down to the physiological issues concerning the horse.
Then, what metric do you use? Raw times or adjusted times using allowances?
Maybe the only answer possible is to be found in science, in the labs, rather than on performances. In short, as with all data, interpretation is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is with statistical analysis.
My guess is that improvement has happened and will continue to do so, albeit marginally,as it has with nearly all athletic endeavour. It's just that its difficult to prove.
Forgot to add one very important point. Horses have different actions, a product of genetics and behavioural conditioning. The fastest times asre produced by horses with a low, efficient action suited in Europe to fast surfaces on turf. This type of action is hindered considerable by a change in going and it is my opinion that there is a much greater fall in performence when these horses than there there is with horses which have rounded actions suited to softer ground. These horses to my eyes can't run so fast on fast ground as the former but when confronted with turf there times drop but not by as much as the top of the ground horses. Who is to say that they are inferior horses?
Re actions just think of the difference in times between F1 cars using wet or dry tyres.
I can agree with most of that Sandown but where do you add the improvement? The scientists are unable to provide an unequivocal position and they would certainly if they could. On the other hand would horses of the 70's benefit from the advances in training and nutrional methods available today. As they are only very marginal then I guess they would.
I know athletic endeavour and your Gr1 analysis is fair one but the number of years they have tried is very limited indeed. Only decades. Unlike horses who have always been athletic and fleet of foot for centuries.
Add to that in the 70's handicaps were at 10st with the bottom weight 6st 7lbs. Watering courses was restricted but they allowed the grass to grow longer for cover. Even at Warwick the other day the jockeys complained about the grass being cut too short. At at 3 day meetings in the summer the grass is often cut during the meeting.
I don't know who is the faster so I have always been prepared to accept the status quo.
I know athletic endeavour and your Gr1 analysis is fair one but the number of years they have tried is very limited indeed. Only decades. Unlike horses who have always been athletic and fleet of foot for centuries.
Add to that in the 70's handicaps were at 10st with the bottom weight 6st 7lbs. Watering courses was restricted but they allowed the grass to grow longer for cover. Even at Warwick the other day the jockeys complained about the grass being cut too short. At at 3 day meetings in the summer the grass is often cut during the meeting.
I don't know who is the faster so I have always been prepared to accept the status quo.
brigust1
I know its not proof, but logically, given the advancements made in training methods, science etc it would seem to be more reasonable to support the hypothesis that improvement in overall performance has occurred rather than to believe that it hasn't let alone that it has regressed, don't you think?
I know its not proof, but logically, given the advancements made in training methods, science etc it would seem to be more reasonable to support the hypothesis that improvement in overall performance has occurred rather than to believe that it hasn't let alone that it has regressed, don't you think?
Human improvement in athletics in truth ,is down to track tampering,and drugs,this information is well founded.So perhaps the drug squads and lack of investment in surfaces(well they are very big areas of land without cover from the elements) do make it a reality that it is perhaps a much more honest game,than the human equivalent.
Sandown, well the scientists by numbers don't necessarily agree. My point is that if there is an improvement in times then it is only very marginal otherwise there wouldn't be disagreement or at least it would be a big swing the other way. The improvements in training methods, nutrition etc if you applied them to the 70's racehorse would surely improve them as well. I don't believe Roger Bannister could be turned into Usain Bolt that leap is far too huge. But a '70s racehorse into a 2000's racehorse? That is certainly possible imo.
For example had there been trachea washes and blood tests in the 70's Brigadier Gerard wouldn't have been beaten. Instead he had to achieve what he did without all weather gallops, a solarium, swimming pool and any improvements in medicine and the same was true for every racehorse of that time.
Do I think racehorses have improved in the last 40 years as a result of improvements made? I don't know but if so it would be very marginal.
Do I think a racehorse of the '70s would also benefit from those improvements? Yes I do.
You cannot really make a true assessment by depriving one group of any gains made by the other group. Your Roger Bannister spikes point was well made. But so rapid has been the improvement in human athletes swapping his shoes would improve him to that extent.
That is why I am happy with the status quo.
For example had there been trachea washes and blood tests in the 70's Brigadier Gerard wouldn't have been beaten. Instead he had to achieve what he did without all weather gallops, a solarium, swimming pool and any improvements in medicine and the same was true for every racehorse of that time.
Do I think racehorses have improved in the last 40 years as a result of improvements made? I don't know but if so it would be very marginal.
Do I think a racehorse of the '70s would also benefit from those improvements? Yes I do.
You cannot really make a true assessment by depriving one group of any gains made by the other group. Your Roger Bannister spikes point was well made. But so rapid has been the improvement in human athletes swapping his shoes would improve him to that extent.
That is why I am happy with the status quo.
And the point about the 'gene' pool is a good one. Where every human can procreate only about 6% of racehorse do so although there are more horses the gene pool is far too small for any major improvements.
And now getting back to this thread that point is another reason why a limited centralised breeding operation like Coolmore could be bad for racing. A wider and more expressive gene pool is more likely to produce champions I believe. After all Brigadier Gerard was out of a maiden mare and by a cheap stallion. And I think California Chrome also has a very cheap pedigree. I am sure there are many more but I really must go.
And now getting back to this thread that point is another reason why a limited centralised breeding operation like Coolmore could be bad for racing. A wider and more expressive gene pool is more likely to produce champions I believe. After all Brigadier Gerard was out of a maiden mare and by a cheap stallion. And I think California Chrome also has a very cheap pedigree. I am sure there are many more but I really must go.
brigust,yes,we humans like to believe we have improved in all things,but that is simply not the case,our vanity is our ignorance.
We even see G1 winners reduced to this role if they are not deemed in "the best I ever had" category. That's a great shame for me........
Jan Vermeer comes to mind being used as a pace maker for So you think in the Prince of Wales, bit disappointing end for a horse that went off favourite for the derby a year before
Jan Vermeer comes to mind being used as a pace maker for So you think in the Prince of Wales, bit disappointing end for a horse that went off favourite for the derby a year before
brigust1
And the point about the 'gene' pool is a good one. Where every human can procreate only about 6% of racehorse do so although there are more horses the gene pool is far too small for any major improvements.
The 6% you quote must be wrong. My guess is
And the point about the 'gene' pool is a good one. Where every human can procreate only about 6% of racehorse do so although there are more horses the gene pool is far too small for any major improvements.
The 6% you quote must be wrong. My guess is
My guess is under 1% of males and about 60% of females produce.
The big difference is the racehorse population is choicely bred, eugenics with athletes has never really taken off.
I don't believe either camp has been proven Kingscem. Vincent O'Brien warned about the future of racehorses in the 70's but, as I have said, nothing is proven. My only point is that if there is a small improvement due to technology and facilities that it isn't inconceivable that horses from previous eras would benefit as much from those advances as today's horses have. In fact I think the horses I knew well were tougher than today's horses when I read about the number of injuries there are.
And the 'choicely bred' point is well made. But are the choices the correct choices for the breed?
"Compared with humans, racehorses are incredibly advanced athletes. Any significant gains in physiology have already been achieved," says Andrew Byers, a senior lecturer in equine sports science at Nottingham Trent University.
In 1988, Professor Patrick Cunningham, a former chief scientific adviser to the Irish government and expert in animal genetics, noted that selective breeding had not yielded faster times in the previous 50 years.
He suggested the physiological limit of racehorses might have been reached, for example, in dealing with lactic acid build-up in muscles during performance.
And the 'choicely bred' point is well made. But are the choices the correct choices for the breed?
"Compared with humans, racehorses are incredibly advanced athletes. Any significant gains in physiology have already been achieved," says Andrew Byers, a senior lecturer in equine sports science at Nottingham Trent University.
In 1988, Professor Patrick Cunningham, a former chief scientific adviser to the Irish government and expert in animal genetics, noted that selective breeding had not yielded faster times in the previous 50 years.
He suggested the physiological limit of racehorses might have been reached, for example, in dealing with lactic acid build-up in muscles during performance.
I'm sure plenty of horses from the past would benefit from today's advances, as I said before, it is the luck of being born in a more advanced era. How much of the advancements are due to breeding and how much are due to outside influences can only be guessed at, nevertheless I'm quite sure advancements have been made and that has been show on the racecourse. As for Cunningham's findings, I'd file them with a lot of academic theories I've read on horseracing, where the theory often sounds plausible but doesn't quite match the reality.
It is possible that the breed has become less robust due to selective breeding but it's also very possible that more injuries are due to more rigorous training methods. As the same thing has happened with human athletes in various sports. There is a tendency to dismiss today's sportsmen and women as namby pamby compared to those of the past but the fact is harder training plays a huge part.
Returning to the thread title would the approach to the Derby be very different if Australia, Geoffrey Chaucer, Orchestra and Adelaide were all trained at separate centres. Perhaps be AOB, John Gosden, Sir M Stoute and Andrew Balding.
The Australia 'best I have trained' would be meaningless for a start. Would the betting market look different?
The Australia 'best I have trained' would be meaningless for a start. Would the betting market look different?
The 'namby pamby' point I think is more directed at the 'play actors' and 'divers' in football. Plus I know Messi is a class act but he is far more protected by the rules than George Best was for example. I'm not saying the rules aren't a good thing but they are not comparing like with like.
Coolmore are good for themselves and noone else. Flooding big races with entries and not campaigning their fillies competitively are just two gripes I have. The annual hype of the new "wonder horse" is another - which the racing media just seems to buy into without question.
Contrast them with Juddmonte and the Aga Khan who seem to have a genuine interest in the good of racing - although to be fair to Coolmore they are purely commercial and do not have independent billionaire backing.
Contrast them with Juddmonte and the Aga Khan who seem to have a genuine interest in the good of racing - although to be fair to Coolmore they are purely commercial and do not have independent billionaire backing.
Coolmore is backed by 4 billionaires.
I think the 2000 Guineas would have been a different race if Australia and War Command were not trained in Ireland by AOB.
And I don't think it is unreasonable to think Australia, Geoffrey Chaucer and Adelaide could easily be running in the Derby unbeaten had they been trained elsewhere.
That means it would be exactly the same race but the attraction and promotion would be hugely different. It works for Godolphin and other top owners yet all we have is the Australia race.
I think the 2000 Guineas would have been a different race if Australia and War Command were not trained in Ireland by AOB.
And I don't think it is unreasonable to think Australia, Geoffrey Chaucer and Adelaide could easily be running in the Derby unbeaten had they been trained elsewhere.
That means it would be exactly the same race but the attraction and promotion would be hugely different. It works for Godolphin and other top owners yet all we have is the Australia race.
They were not Billionaires when they set out were they. You have to go back many years to see the rise of Coolmore and all the risks they took back in the day of Sangster and co. Anybody with a degree of wealth could have tried what they have done. Hats off to the Irish lads they have achieved an unbelievable feat in my book and are no doubt good for racing. Of all the stables out there everybody is interested in the next superstar to come out of Ballydoyle. Why? because they seem to have a conveyor belt of champions something that Godolphin can only dream about. Best judges of horseflesh, best facilities, best advisers, best stallions best work riders and the most professional organisation out there by a million miles. This will go on and on and on and can honestly see the Sheikh conceeding defeat and becoming less of an influential figure in racing as the years go by. The difference - one organisation treated it as business the other a hobby.
Actually TMB you have just detailed exactly why they are bad for racing. No single huge organisation has ever been good for anything. The important thing is not 'are they good for themselves' but 'are they good for racing'? What you say is scary.
For Coolmore though a lot depends on the continued well-being of Galileo - without him things look a lot less rosy. A lot of eggs are in one basket.
I don't think they're good for racing - it's all take and nothing is given back to the game. Magnier is a clever fellow but I remember when Danedream won the Arc one of the others said he's never heard of the sire Lomitas. Whether he was being truthful I don't know but it seemed to sum a lot up.
I don't think they're good for racing - it's all take and nothing is given back to the game. Magnier is a clever fellow but I remember when Danedream won the Arc one of the others said he's never heard of the sire Lomitas. Whether he was being truthful I don't know but it seemed to sum a lot up.
The current Coolmore breeding operation associated Derby entries:
Adelaide
Arod
Australia
Gypsy King
Hydrogen
Impulsive Moment
Fascinating Rock
Kingfisher
Observational
Orchestra
Red Galileo
Sudden Wonder
Ayrad
Ebanoran
Geoffrey Chaucer
Toast of New York
Western Hymn
Kingston Hill
Snow Sky
I wonder how many will stand their ground at the next declaration stage?
Only one horse at the higher end of the betting market, True Story, is running for the others. Is that good?
Adelaide
Arod
Australia
Gypsy King
Hydrogen
Impulsive Moment
Fascinating Rock
Kingfisher
Observational
Orchestra
Red Galileo
Sudden Wonder
Ayrad
Ebanoran
Geoffrey Chaucer
Toast of New York
Western Hymn
Kingston Hill
Snow Sky
I wonder how many will stand their ground at the next declaration stage?
Only one horse at the higher end of the betting market, True Story, is running for the others. Is that good?
Alternatively, how good would the race look without Coolmore horses?
Too silly to suggest horses don't exist. Simply pointing out the overwhelming domination.
Everyone can see the domination, it's like pointing out today is Saturday, but there is no enforceable alternative that would improve the quality of the races.
I think most people know it is Saturday, another silly remark. I wonder how many, even on this forum, know how large the domination is in actual fact?
Just for example what if there are better stallions out there for the enhancement of the breed? But they are not given the opportunities because if you had a top quality mare would you send it to a Coolmore stallion knowing the foal's value would be much higher or would you use another, lower profile, stallion?
The first 10 home in the 1986 Dancing Brave Derby were bred as follows:
Nijinsky
Lyphard
Irish River
Far North
Tap on Wood
Kris
Kris
Caro
Northfields
Tom Rolfe.
Just for example what if there are better stallions out there for the enhancement of the breed? But they are not given the opportunities because if you had a top quality mare would you send it to a Coolmore stallion knowing the foal's value would be much higher or would you use another, lower profile, stallion?
The first 10 home in the 1986 Dancing Brave Derby were bred as follows:
Nijinsky
Lyphard
Irish River
Far North
Tap on Wood
Kris
Kris
Caro
Northfields
Tom Rolfe.
Any you answer to all this? Or is it just moaning for moaning's sake?
You are so obtuse. I am not moaning. I can do very little about it but just accepting that the sport I love is, in my opinion, being ruined by a small group of billionaires is something I feel should be talked about and the profile raised. It is too easy too bury your head in the sand and accept it but even Sheikh Mohammed changed his tactics after some pressure. Who knows in the not too distant future things may change. I am not at all convinced such domination is good for racing or good for the breed. If you don't care go onto another thread.
I've already said I don't like domination in any industry, but all I've seen is griping with no answers.
Supporting what you believe in facts is not griping in fact it is exactly the opposite. The comments you have just made that are the gripes.
Why? What is it to do with you? Do I have to explain myself before posting a thread on this forum?
I believe, and have done for some time, that Coolmore is not good for racing and I wanted to know if others felt the same and if things that happened through the year altered or enhanced that view. I thought raising the point on a horse racing forum would generate a wide range of views. Some for and some against. That is what a forum is for.
Simply picking on the posters themselves for some banal reason is completely pointless. If you have no opinion about the points raised go onto another thread where you may be able to contribute constructively. Being destructive for no reason whatsoever does not lead to sensible debate.
I believe, and have done for some time, that Coolmore is not good for racing and I wanted to know if others felt the same and if things that happened through the year altered or enhanced that view. I thought raising the point on a horse racing forum would generate a wide range of views. Some for and some against. That is what a forum is for.
Simply picking on the posters themselves for some banal reason is completely pointless. If you have no opinion about the points raised go onto another thread where you may be able to contribute constructively. Being destructive for no reason whatsoever does not lead to sensible debate.
Simply picking on the posters themselves for some banal reason is completely pointless.
It's interesting that when you take every opportunity to criticise O'Brien and his son you regard it as constructive, but when the weakness in your own complaints are pointed out you regard it as "picking on".
It's interesting that when you take every opportunity to criticise O'Brien and his son you regard it as constructive, but when the weakness in your own complaints are pointed out you regard it as "picking on".
May 31, 2014 -- 7:36AM, Figgis wrote:
Alternatively, how good would the race look without Coolmore horses?
Point out the weakness by all means:
'it's like pointing out today is Saturday'
'Or is it just moaning for moaning's sake?'
'but all I've seen is griping with no answers.'
but I suggest the 'constructive' comments you have made today are typical of your usual responses. If you have something constructive to say about the topic then say it. The process is very simple I'm sure even you understand it.
If you have something constructive to say about the topic then say it
And your constructive points are?
And your constructive points are?
When I am not responding to your banal comments I think they are.
Constructive suggests giving pointers for potential improvement, I don't see any in your posts.
No it doesn't. I put forward my points of view and other add their comments with particular regard to the particular subject. From that a constructive thread is built. It may be built towards the status quo or the fact that Coolmore are good or not so good for racing. From such 'constructive' comments a thread is built. Of course there is nothing to stop those who just want to make silly and banal comments from doing so. Such is life.
You may see the criticism that you have no workable solutions to your complaints as banal, but it's a fact.
Why does anyone have to have workable solutions to anything before they are permitted to put forward a point of view? If I had a workable solution I would have suggested it but that doesn't mean someone else may come up with a workable solution. Lots of people have views about the government, motor racing, horse racing, football the list is endless but just because they haven't a workable solution their view is nullified. What kind of crazy thinking is that?
I didn't agree with the Iraq war and made my views clear. I didn't have a workable solution but I hoped others would have come up with one before lives were lost. It doesn't mean because I didn't have a workable solution that the Iraq war was right ffs.
I didn't agree with the Iraq war and made my views clear. I didn't have a workable solution but I hoped others would have come up with one before lives were lost. It doesn't mean because I didn't have a workable solution that the Iraq war was right ffs.
If you are going to continually criticise, and let's face it your criticisms of all things O'Brien and Coolmore are very regular, then you ought to have thought of possible remedies, otherwise it is just pointless whinging. If it's come to the stage where you feel so strongly about the Coolmore situation that it's "ruined" your enjoyment of the sport then nobody is forcing you to keep following it. I'd say most racing fans don't like to see any domination of the game, it's not ideal but as there is no alternative it has to be accepted either until they begin to lose their grip or somebody else comes along to challenge their domination. The question should be, in the current climate for horse racing is British racing better off with Coolmore's input or worse off? I'd say faced with the prospect of British racing with no Coolmore the positives far outweigh the negatives. And for all the talk of Coolmore's domination the first 2 classics in this country went elsewhere.
You are such a coward. Why run away from something you love simply because there are things you don't agree with? And then it took you HOW long before making a 'nearly' constructive comment? Well done for not just chucking in the towel. Maybe it was because you were unable to say what you said. That doesn't matter it was actually to do with the thread at least. Well done. One small step for a man.
On that note I'm off out for a meal. I have been promised jugged hare on the menu at my local. Bon appetite.
On that note I'm off out for a meal. I have been promised jugged hare on the menu at my local. Bon appetite.
Galileo is currently 16 years old and is the modern day Northern Dancer.
Bottom line he`s probably got another 10 years in him so the model will be sustained like it or not.
Bottom line he`s probably got another 10 years in him so the model will be sustained like it or not.
OP makes a well reasoned case
The problem for me is that the uk program for flat horses is set up for sprinter milers
It appears for me that magnier and his pals are one of the few interested in supporting the historic middle distance races
Got to remember that back in 09 cool more took a right pasting, time and again, at the hands of oxx and sea the stars.
They kept coming back for more, hell without them putting up 3 in the juddmonte at York sts would have walked over in a G1!
As I understand it, magnier and sangster founded their empire on Northern dancer a Canadian horse who won the Kentucky derby. A sire who held speed and stamina and was comfortable on any surface be it soft or otherwise.
The arrival of the Arabs and their preference for speed put cool more in the shade for quite a while
Only in the last decade have coolmore emerged as the dominant force.
I think the stamina lines in their breeding, which held them back in the 80s and 90s are the reason for their success
At the moment
History shows us that empires do crumble
If Galileo went infertile tomorrow it could be curtains.
The problem for me is that the uk program for flat horses is set up for sprinter milers
It appears for me that magnier and his pals are one of the few interested in supporting the historic middle distance races
Got to remember that back in 09 cool more took a right pasting, time and again, at the hands of oxx and sea the stars.
They kept coming back for more, hell without them putting up 3 in the juddmonte at York sts would have walked over in a G1!
As I understand it, magnier and sangster founded their empire on Northern dancer a Canadian horse who won the Kentucky derby. A sire who held speed and stamina and was comfortable on any surface be it soft or otherwise.
The arrival of the Arabs and their preference for speed put cool more in the shade for quite a while
Only in the last decade have coolmore emerged as the dominant force.
I think the stamina lines in their breeding, which held them back in the 80s and 90s are the reason for their success
At the moment
History shows us that empires do crumble
If Galileo went infertile tomorrow it could be curtains.
IMO their eminent position comes from Dubai boycotting their stallions allowing them to have their pick of the Galileos and Montjeus at the sales. Of their 6 left in the Derby 5 are sired by Galileo - the other by Montjeu. Magnier, Smith and Tabor must pray every night that Galileo remains healthy.
First and foremost Coolmore is a breeding operation and top that department worldwide. To become the top breeding operation they require to have our obtain the most successful racehorses. To find out which is the best, their own horses clash in either the route to Group 1's or actual Group 1 races. They sometimes buy racehorse that they see future stud value. Does the original author not realise that if the aforementioned horses were spread out with different trainers that they would still have clashed. What would have changed?. One should admire the horses that Coolmore are producing, they are the envy of the world. With Coolmore racing is important but not as important as the breeding operation. Aidan O Brien works for Coolmore, to date very successfully. Should the success start diminishing Aidan will be despensed of his services. In time all the best horses of the world will be traced back to Coolmore through bloodlines.
I don't want to sound offensive but the above research is alot about nothing and didn't need much time and effort.
I don't want to sound offensive but the above research is alot about nothing and didn't need much time and effort.
Ouch! BaN. No offence taken but read the OP please.
My WHOLE point was that training ALL of these horses under one umbrella appears to be an opportunity to make endless mistakes. Certainly these horses would meet on the racecourse but being trained by other trainers I think would add to the set up not detract from it. I am not necessarily against the breeding operation as long as it doesn't effect the racing operation. And I think if the horses were spread between other trainers that would eliminate the errors and create a better betting market. After all Prince KA has his horses with several trainers in fact all the major owners do, except Coolmore. And I think that leads to the mistakes, and many we never see I'm sure, as I have listed above.
My main interest, if you read the original post is the paucity of champions in the era when compared with other era's. If the horses I listed had achieved the potential I believe they had then that gap would have been greatly reduced so the lack of champions may not be because the breed is weakening it may be because too many potential champions are in the one place with assignments based upon breeding and not racing. Plus I don't think using the one trainer and the one jockey is a good modus operandi. History could certainly look very different and I don't mean for the worse.
I get accused of living in the past but I am only thinking about the future.
My WHOLE point was that training ALL of these horses under one umbrella appears to be an opportunity to make endless mistakes. Certainly these horses would meet on the racecourse but being trained by other trainers I think would add to the set up not detract from it. I am not necessarily against the breeding operation as long as it doesn't effect the racing operation. And I think if the horses were spread between other trainers that would eliminate the errors and create a better betting market. After all Prince KA has his horses with several trainers in fact all the major owners do, except Coolmore. And I think that leads to the mistakes, and many we never see I'm sure, as I have listed above.
My main interest, if you read the original post is the paucity of champions in the era when compared with other era's. If the horses I listed had achieved the potential I believe they had then that gap would have been greatly reduced so the lack of champions may not be because the breed is weakening it may be because too many potential champions are in the one place with assignments based upon breeding and not racing. Plus I don't think using the one trainer and the one jockey is a good modus operandi. History could certainly look very different and I don't mean for the worse.
I get accused of living in the past but I am only thinking about the future.
I did wonder why they did not take Excelebration to the Poule d'Essai des Poulains in may?
Well you would have had to have been living in a cave to miss all and sundry making daily excuses for the damage Coolmore is doing to the 12 furlong scene and British racing in general. Several high profile racing folk clearly pointing the finger while others rush to excuse them. They are obviously following what has been written here and not before time.
Aidan O'Brien did not train Excelebration as a 3 year old so it is not his fault that the colt did not run in the Poulains in May.
Great piece in the RP today where Julian Muscat highlights Coolmore's policy threat to GB's top middle distance race, the King George, and in doing so he is pointing the finger at the damage Coolmore is doing.
I rarely read the paper, and when I've seen the bloke on tv it's been even rarer that I've heard him say anything worth hearing, so you'll have to elaborate. Coolmore have consistently aimed their best older middle distance horses at the race, winning the race with two 4yos trained by O'Brien and two trained in France, they successfully aimed one of their Derby winners at the race and had to skip the race with three other Derby winners due to injury/illness. They were determined to create the first male triple crown winner in over 40 years with another so decided to leave the race out of their plans, not a decision everyone would've taken but an understandable one.
This year they are again running their best older middle distance colt but avoiding the race with their Derby winner. Personally I would've aimed him at the race but they're entitled to do what they want and I fail to see how avoiding the race with one horse can be seen as a 'policy threat'.
This year they are again running their best older middle distance colt but avoiding the race with their Derby winner. Personally I would've aimed him at the race but they're entitled to do what they want and I fail to see how avoiding the race with one horse can be seen as a 'policy threat'.
Figgis you have just made a pretty good case for my original point. The fact of the matter is that several times recently the Coolmore operation has been called into question from the very people who would never be seen to criticise them openly so imagine what they would be saying if we had an open racing press?
Figgis you have just made a pretty good case for my original point??
Don't follow. Is this because Australia is being routed for 10f races? Surely that makes sense, show that the horse can win a G1 at 10f to demonstrate his speed which on the back of his 2Gns placing would be perfect for breeding purposes. Any big breeder would consider that sensible, wouldn't they?
Surely Figgis made a pretty good case for defending Coolmore? Odd conclusion you've drawn brigust1.
imagine what they would be saying if we had an open racing press?
Wonder what the papers in Dubai have to say about Sheik Mo's operation. Pound to a penny they are one notch up from fawning. The media may be circumspect on occasion but can't see how they are being held back personally.
Don't follow. Is this because Australia is being routed for 10f races? Surely that makes sense, show that the horse can win a G1 at 10f to demonstrate his speed which on the back of his 2Gns placing would be perfect for breeding purposes. Any big breeder would consider that sensible, wouldn't they?
Surely Figgis made a pretty good case for defending Coolmore? Odd conclusion you've drawn brigust1.
imagine what they would be saying if we had an open racing press?
Wonder what the papers in Dubai have to say about Sheik Mo's operation. Pound to a penny they are one notch up from fawning. The media may be circumspect on occasion but can't see how they are being held back personally.
I'm still not sure what his point is, as there have been a few Derby winners in recent years unconnected to Coolmore that also skipped the King George by design, Sea The Stars, New Approach, Motivator, Authorized, Sinndar. I still see it as a very strong race in most years, not always in strength of numbers (although this year's looks a decent size field) but certainly in quality and level of performance of the winners. In most years more runners would simply mean more also rans anyway. It would seem that connections of some Derby winners also still view it as a difficult to win or surely they'd be more keen to run.
This point comes up in almost every top race. What will Coolmore run. How many will Coolmore run etc etc. It certainly doesn't happen with any other stable. Why? Because Coolmore have a tight hold on this section of the market. There have now been a few times this season where reporters have questioned Coolmore's position. That will not improve it will only increase because if I can see what they are doing is damaging for racing then others can as well. The handful of people on this forum may be a cross section of the racing public and if only two out of ten think they are damaging racing then I see that getting more rather than less.
Take Australia for example. Many people think that to make him a champion they should be taking a different course. He is supposedly a top of the ground horse so using the Arc as a main target is extremely risky and using the Juddmonte and Irish Champion as targets may get wins but will he be able to show how good he is? I suggest the Eclipse and King George would have been better options. Time will tell but AOB said he is the best he has trained so what rating do you think he should achieve before going to stud? And if he fails to achieve that rating through bad placing, if he isn't good enough that doesn't count, does that mean Coolmore has let racing down again?
Take Australia for example. Many people think that to make him a champion they should be taking a different course. He is supposedly a top of the ground horse so using the Arc as a main target is extremely risky and using the Juddmonte and Irish Champion as targets may get wins but will he be able to show how good he is? I suggest the Eclipse and King George would have been better options. Time will tell but AOB said he is the best he has trained so what rating do you think he should achieve before going to stud? And if he fails to achieve that rating through bad placing, if he isn't good enough that doesn't count, does that mean Coolmore has let racing down again?
It's Brigust Figgis, not 'he'.
Muscat's point was that since Galileo won and was then subsequently beaten by Fantastic Light in Ireland their policy has been to almost completely avoid the race. And he lists the runners they have had etc. He thinks that they don't see it fitting into their plans. My point is that if you have a top 3 year old Derby winner who wants top of the ground it isn't rocket science from then on.
Muscat's point was that since Galileo won and was then subsequently beaten by Fantastic Light in Ireland their policy has been to almost completely avoid the race. And he lists the runners they have had etc. He thinks that they don't see it fitting into their plans. My point is that if you have a top 3 year old Derby winner who wants top of the ground it isn't rocket science from then on.
I was referring to he, the author of the piece in question.
I guess I just can't see the evidence against Coolmore outweighing the evidence for them, and certainly not on their support (or lack of) for the big G1 10/12f races.The only argument that holds water is the general point about market dominance not being the best situation to have in any market but the fact that they have been rather successful rather supports their business model, I would have thought.
Anyway, history is full of exmples of wheels turning, empires dedlining, new contenders taking over. Give it time and someone else will come along. In ay event, you can't really say that Coolmore dominate when operations like Abdullah's, the Aga Khan and the new blood from quatar etc coming along.
Anyway, history is full of exmples of wheels turning, empires dedlining, new contenders taking over. Give it time and someone else will come along. In ay event, you can't really say that Coolmore dominate when operations like Abdullah's, the Aga Khan and the new blood from quatar etc coming along.
I think we'd all like to see more competition but to blame the situation entirely on Coolmore and say that they are damaging racing, which implies the situation would be better without them, is ridiculous. It was before my time but Vincent O'Brien also appeared to have a decent grip during that era, some of his Derby winners also skipped the KG, I've never read anywhere that he was damaging the race.
Muscat's point was that since Galileo won and was then subsequently beaten by Fantastic Light in Ireland their policy has been to almost completely avoid the race.
That has also been my guess as to why they've skipped the race with Australia, if that's right then I don't agree with their conclusions but they're perfectly entitled to take that view. Just like punters or anybody else, when something doesn't go to plan explanations are looked for and efforts are taken to avoid previous errors or to improve upon previous decisions, if Coolmore think it's best to avoid the race with Australia it's perfectly reasonable.
I've said myself that I would've run Australia in the KG if he's ready, as, for me, the weight allowance is too generous to pass up at this time of year. They've taken a different view and that's their prerogative. If Muscat can't get excited about this year's race instead of moaning about his perceived damage Coolmore are doing to the race then it says more about the writer than the target of the piece.
Muscat's point was that since Galileo won and was then subsequently beaten by Fantastic Light in Ireland their policy has been to almost completely avoid the race.
That has also been my guess as to why they've skipped the race with Australia, if that's right then I don't agree with their conclusions but they're perfectly entitled to take that view. Just like punters or anybody else, when something doesn't go to plan explanations are looked for and efforts are taken to avoid previous errors or to improve upon previous decisions, if Coolmore think it's best to avoid the race with Australia it's perfectly reasonable.
I've said myself that I would've run Australia in the KG if he's ready, as, for me, the weight allowance is too generous to pass up at this time of year. They've taken a different view and that's their prerogative. If Muscat can't get excited about this year's race instead of moaning about his perceived damage Coolmore are doing to the race then it says more about the writer than the target of the piece.
I have said often enough and been criticised for doing so but I think we are going through a poor era. It may be circumstantial but the races a horse needs to win to achieve a good rating are generally dominated by Coolmore. In one way or another. And surprisingly enough the three horses that have stepped up to the plate in this era namely Frankel, Sea the Stars and Harbinger none were from Coolmore. Yet they have virtually dominated this area for the whole era. In my original post I listed a few horses I thought may have changed the ratings for this era had they been placed better and maybe Camelot fits that bill as well. Time will tell whether or not Australia also falls into the 'nearly but not quite' category?
What happened there? Anyway Muscat was saying that if Gosden had not had a last minute change of heart regarding his three year olds this wouldn't be much of a championship race at all. And if they fail to step up to the mark what is left cannot really be considered champion material just by winning on Saturday.
If that's his opinion then I'd say he must be a fairly crap punter, that's if he punts at all.
So you think without the Gosden runners it was a good race, Fig?
Obviously it's a better market with their inclusion and it makes it a more interesting race, whether it makes it a better race in reality is another matter, as I see them as having only an outside chance but time will tell. For me there was still a good race in prospect without them, as it included the Eclipse winner, the winner of the Hardwicke, a couple of 4yos that even though they haven't shown brilliant form this year they'd won Gp1s as 3yos and could still have more to come as 4yos. People always say today's renewals aren't as good as the 80s, with the Dancing Brave KG often cropping up, but taking that race for example it contained two potentially top class 3yos, a mare that had been already thrashed in the Eclipse by one of the 3yos and a relatively unfancied 4yo unproven at Gp1 level. In the event one of the 3yo contenders ran no race at all but it was still regarded as a good race, and rightly so. If one of the older horses wins well it won't matter a jot to me whether it's another older horse in second or a 3yo, it can still be a very good race.
Poor old Dancing Brave eh? And poor old Tritych. Nothing of her quality in this field though. Not even near. Let's just say this is one of the lowest rated fields in the last 20 years. But if one of the 3 year olds step up to the plate or Telescope goes on from here there might be something to gain from it. I do suggest though that if Flintshire gets stuffed we can wave goodbye to Ruler of the World as he heads for stud.
Some terrible revisionism going on here, as usual. It's 1.01 that if there was a horse running on Saturday who'd won a poor Irish 2000 Guineas the previous year, finished 2nd in a weak Coronation Cup, got stuffed in the Eclipse, then you'd be doing anything but rating it highly.
Would that have been by Oh So Sharp? The Oh So Sharp who was beaten in the King George by Petoski who Triptych beat in the Coronation Cup the next year.
You can knock this bonny filly/mare as much as you like Figgis but she would give this bunch weight and beat them. And guess what. Once again you brought up Dancing Brave. Odd eh?
You can knock this bonny filly/mare as much as you like Figgis but she would give this bunch weight and beat them. And guess what. Once again you brought up Dancing Brave. Odd eh?
You can knock this bonny filly/mare as much as you like Figgis
Read the words instead of making up your own. I have not knocked the mare, I have simply given her record leading up to the race and said you would be slating a horse in current times with such a record, you do it on regular basis day in day out.
The Oh So Sharp who was beaten in the King George by Petoski
Yes Petoski, the same horse who never won another race, funny that didn't seem to matter then but is brought up constantly about any race today.
Petoski who Triptych beat in the Coronation Cup the next year.
Both beaten by Saint Estephe, a moderate Gp1 winner by anyone's standards.
And guess what. Once again you brought up Dancing Brave. Odd eh?
Guess what? That could be because that's how far back I have to go to come up with a runner before your imagined degeneration of the breed started.
Nothing of her quality in this field though. Not even near.
I would expect somebody who has such a patronising confidence in their own ability to recognise what is quality and what isn't "even near" to have a reasonable record of getting it right before a race, sadly I've not seen much evidence of that, let's see if your record can improve on Saturday
Read the words instead of making up your own. I have not knocked the mare, I have simply given her record leading up to the race and said you would be slating a horse in current times with such a record, you do it on regular basis day in day out.
The Oh So Sharp who was beaten in the King George by Petoski
Yes Petoski, the same horse who never won another race, funny that didn't seem to matter then but is brought up constantly about any race today.
Petoski who Triptych beat in the Coronation Cup the next year.
Both beaten by Saint Estephe, a moderate Gp1 winner by anyone's standards.
And guess what. Once again you brought up Dancing Brave. Odd eh?
Guess what? That could be because that's how far back I have to go to come up with a runner before your imagined degeneration of the breed started.
Nothing of her quality in this field though. Not even near.
I would expect somebody who has such a patronising confidence in their own ability to recognise what is quality and what isn't "even near" to have a reasonable record of getting it right before a race, sadly I've not seen much evidence of that, let's see if your record can improve on Saturday
Ooh bitchy? Hit a nerve? Truth hurts does it? And all those insults in one statement. You must be seething.
Read this then Figgis! 'I have not knocked the mare' after you wrote 'Oh yeah, and got hammered 6 lengths in an Oaks'.
I rest my case. Go to bed before you have a seizure.
You have an unhealthy fixation on Dancing Brave, the best horse to run in your experience of the turf except you are in denial.
As I said, go to bed before you have a seizure.
Read this then Figgis! 'I have not knocked the mare' after you wrote 'Oh yeah, and got hammered 6 lengths in an Oaks'.
I rest my case. Go to bed before you have a seizure.
You have an unhealthy fixation on Dancing Brave, the best horse to run in your experience of the turf except you are in denial.
As I said, go to bed before you have a seizure.
Truth hurts does it?
got hammered 6 lengths in an Oaks
You mean that truth? How would you have phrased it? She was impressively beaten by 6 lengths?
You have an unhealthy fixation on Dancing Brave
There is no point in mentioning any horse after him as you've crabbed them all at one time or another. Actually there was an hilarious post of yours on last year's Arc thread where you slated them all in one go.
You must be seething.
Seething? While wringing hands and gnashing teeth? Sounds like somebody else to me.
You can take solace in being some all knowing after timing merchant of what is quality and what isn't even near, a messenger that the kids today wouldn't even recognise a good racehorse if it bit them on the arse, a general all round purveyor of doom and gloom, the rest of us will take some by backing a few winners.
got hammered 6 lengths in an Oaks
You mean that truth? How would you have phrased it? She was impressively beaten by 6 lengths?
You have an unhealthy fixation on Dancing Brave
There is no point in mentioning any horse after him as you've crabbed them all at one time or another. Actually there was an hilarious post of yours on last year's Arc thread where you slated them all in one go.
You must be seething.
Seething? While wringing hands and gnashing teeth? Sounds like somebody else to me.
You can take solace in being some all knowing after timing merchant of what is quality and what isn't even near, a messenger that the kids today wouldn't even recognise a good racehorse if it bit them on the arse, a general all round purveyor of doom and gloom, the rest of us will take some by backing a few winners.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539