Lochinge Group 1

It doesn't mean the AOB horse cannot win the Queen Anne only that his price is likely to be shorter thsn I think it should be.

Tulius is a 6 year old. He won 1st time out in 2 of his last three seasons. The race he last won the 2nd horse got beaten today along with the 4th horse. The 3rd horse was well beaten in Ireland in the week.

Must take a hell of a long time to find a good bet then if you're waiting for all form to be franked afterwards, and when they do appear I can't imagine they'd be much of a price. I think a lot of people who can read the form book without requiring such rigorous testing would've thought Tullius a good bet at the price at Sandown.

Can you listen to yourself? What does it matter to you when or where I have a bet? In fact I wasn't even in the country.

I don't like backing horses that haven't already run unless I know they are fully fit. I said at the time I backed Australia against my normal style. If I think I would be surprised if something got beaten then I will have a bet if I wouldn't be surprisedvthen I don't bet. Simple really.

I'm off to bed.

If I think I would be surprised if something got beaten then I will have a bet if I wouldn't be surprisedvthen I don't bet.

That has to be the most rigidly limited betting strategy I've ever heard from somebody who has claimed they're a successful punter. I don't think anybody would say they'd be surprised if a 6/4 chance got beaten, after all, in theory it should win only 4 times in every 10 runnings. I also don't know of any decent punter who would turn up the opportunity of backing a 6/4 chance at 3/1.

And that is coming from someone who has to write a number down beside a horse before they have a bet. You use your strategy and I will use mine. If I need to ask your advice about betting be sure I will let you know.
So far in the major Group races I never bet Treve because I didn't know she was race fit and the ground may not have suited. In the 2000 gns, as I said many times it was against my normal betting, I backedAustralia even though there was a fitness question. In theLockinge I never backed Olympic Glory because there were fitness and ground questions.
You may think I have a strange betting strategy but it works fine for me. I do not NEED to have a bet and I bet to win throughout the year.

May 17, 2014 -- 2:41PM, Figgis wrote:

I've not played yet, harry, and it's not the kind of price that really whets my appetite but I'll have a few quid on if there's a slight drift. I think it's a very good price on last year's form, but if I'm having a really decent bet at short odds I prefer to have some racecourse evidence that season. I'm sure he won't lack for fitness but you can never be absolutely sure that a horse will have the same ability when it hasn't seen a racecourse for more than 6 months.

You are no different from me it seems Figgis. You  obviously had a bet while I didn't. I never, and wouldn't have criticised you had he been beaten. So why do you feel the need to criticise me for deciding not to bet on this particular occasion?
Like too many on here you don't deal with the post you have to criticise or say something against the poster. Why is that do you think? If I was so wrong then that is easily pointed out I would have thought.

brigust,montiridge looks a decent call,I would consider Producer if it was rattling,ok all 7f form ,but ground proven more than most,the chill the kite form would see it in the places.

Olympic Glory ridden by the excellent Frankie Dettori,haven`t heard from Pedro.

Ruby gets on Long Run, never thought you`d see it Brigust did you?

So why do you feel the need to criticise me for deciding not to bet on this particular occasion?

Wtf are you talking about now? I couldn't give a sh1te if you have a bet or not, or if you win or lose. I'm just sick and tired of you not offering any worthwhile betting opinions pre-race, then jumping in on threads post-race to peddle your tiresome twaddle about your imagined deterioration of the breed.

You are the original pompous tw at Figgis. You really are up yourself aren't you? Can you tell me pray what threads I have been on where I never had a bet? Not that I knew that was a pre-requisite. Perhaps I should bother to read through the threads you have been on to see exactly where you are coming from? But then again I couldn't give a crap. And incidently I wasn't talking to you so why not keep your nose out eh?

think tullius was entiltled to run a big race, an easy winner at group 2 level LTO, obviuosly thriving at the moment, olympic glory was 4th top rated as a european 2yo, best piece of form IM0 from last year. that liked was the shd 2nd to moolight cloud at group1 level.
proving the promise showed as a 2yo now, gaining more wins at group 1 level.

And I have never adopted AOBs view as my own

Well the swing from this

I don't know who is the best horse and I have no view as yet. But what I do know is that AOB's comments clearly indicate his view. Is that clear enough?

to this

I have been scratching my head why he was beaten

very much suggests otherwise.

Absolutely he was. I think he had already beaten the majority of the other runners last time out. So he was literally confirming the form. The winner bolted up and looked different class, time will tell. My point was it wasn't a very strong race excluding the winner so the run of the AOB horse should be taken into context. If he progresses from this he may make a mark at Group 1 level but I suggest the 2nd and 3rd are not Group 1 horses. That's all. If the AOB horse bolts up in the Queen Anne I will have been wrong considering Declaration of War progressed to win last season.

It was a soft Group 1 on paper but at the same time you can see Tullius is in the form of his life at the moment, and we know very little about the horse in 3rd. Who knows how he'll progress. We do know that the Hannons rate Toronado a better horse than OG hence why he is being tee'd up for the Queen Anne, a far more prestigious and sort after Group 1.

Figgis do you think just because I believed what AOB was saying about a horse in his yard means I cannot wonder what happened to it in a race? Do you? Wierd! And if you read all of the commens afterwards almost everyone said the race was unsatifactory . And most people on here had differing views.

I had OG 1lb ahead of Toronado at the end of last season, although it has to be taken into account that Toronado's ratings were based on form earlier in the season. I've rated OG's win yesterday just 1lb better than his QE2 win, so no significant improvement. Even though it was his first run of the year and further improvement is possible, I think it's highly likely he was primed yesterday. As for the future, I prefer to stay with 4yos that have showed improvement from 3 to 4, he's going to be vulnerable I reckon.

Brigust, going into the Guineas you said you had no firm view about how good Australia was, you were simply betting him as you believed O'Brien had faith in the horse and would run him, which was a good call. However, after the race you are scratching your head as to why he was beaten. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how the race panned out, that is you being unwilling to accept Australia's run at face value, a massive shift.

No. I was scratching my head as to why he was beaten. I never saw the race live, only a recording. Was he fit enough? Did the race splitting give him a disadvatage? Did JOB give him a good ride? Was he running on the slowest part of the track? These were among the very reasonable questions that needed to be answered. And there was a wide range of reasons put forward on this forum. As it was he had a cough, a point o-one raised, and was slightly below full fitness so there was obviously a very good reason for me to scratch my head because the reasons put forward just did not add up. Now they do. 
What a strange view on ife you have Figgis. Now I am not even allowed to wonder why a horse I had backed was beaten. As I said, wierd.

the reasons put forward just did not add up

What reasons were they exactly? As the only one I saw put forward was that he just wasn't the best horse over the mile on the day, he wasn't quite the wonder horse he'd been made out to be. A very plausible reason I would think, and one that certainly "adds up".

Of course there has been no mention of the winner making his own task harder by wandering across the track. I'm quite sure it would have been though if it was Australia doing the wandering.

Firstly whether the going was faster or slower on the near side. Different views were offered. Second was why they chose to go down either side when in all of the othrr races they had raced down the middle. There were many views put forward including the one you think. Subsequently AOB has said his horses had been coughing and, knowing how this an be a setback, plus the form of his horses confirming that view then this time I will ignore your view Figgis and believe AOB.

"The reality is we've never had a horse like this, including everything. Camelot was, I thought, the best horse we've had for the Derby, that's the way he came along. This horse is another step up. Whether that's going to happen I don't know, but I'd imagine that time will say that the Guineas was a lot better Guineas than Camelot's Guineas.

O'Brien thought Camelot was their best Derby horse, he also managed to win a poor Guineas. He thinks Australia is a better Derby horse, but that this year's Guineas was better than Camelot's. I'm also inclined to believe O'Brien on this occasion, I imagine you will choose to ignore his views in this instance.

He never said Australia wouldn't have won had he had an untroubled preparation. I believe he would have won had he had a prep run and had he had an untroubled preparation. So at this moment in time I think NOT was a fortunate winner as a result of good fortune.

Well, like most of the opinions you choose to post, it's one that will not get the opportunity to be proved either way in future.

You really should try to deal with the post and not the poster. In fact I suggest many peoples opinions, including yours, will never be proven such is the nature of horse racing. You will have to live with that Figgis.

Yes, but you're full of it, brig, even when Australia (a horse who you had no opinion of your own on) is beaten fair and square to most people's eyes you have excuses. Ruler of the World being the "moral" winner of last year's Champion Stakes is also still fresh in the mind

In fact I don't think it is unreasonable to believe if they ran the 2000 guineas again next week that Australia would be favourite and very likely the winner. It isn't something I can prove obviously but I don't think it is unreasonable.
You just get wierder and wierder Figgis. At the time I posted thst I thought Australia would run in the Guineas it wasn't ased on anything I knew. It was solely based on AOB's words. That was what I hadn't an opinion on. Whether he would run in the 2000 gns.
I also don't think a horse beaten narrowly having not had the run of the race could be concerned the moral winner. Wierd. You really do have problems don't you? I am wrong for not having an opinion, I'm wrong for having an opinion, my opinions are wrong, you really are only interested in me Figgis. You do have aproblem don't you. Be sure I will no go through your posts to highlight what you have said in the last 6 months or so.

Why not just continue this 'spat' in private message mode, rather than spoil the thread?

The race is over, looks to me like all those who wanted to contribute to the Lockinge already have done.

if they ran the 2000 guineas again next week that Australia would be favourite and very likely the winner. It isn't something I can prove obviously but I don't think it is unreasonable.

Unreasonable? No. Pointless? Yes.

I also don't think a horse beaten narrowly having not had the run of the race could be concerned the moral winner.

No idea what this means?

I am wrong for not having an opinion, I'm wrong for having an opinion, my opinions are wrong

Not at all, it would just be a welcome change to hear a pre-race opinion of the outcome of an event, or perceived value, instead of aftertiming posts about 'if this and if that', never ending posts about too many Gp1s, today's horses are overrated, the old days were the best, etc, and posts that schizophrenically switch from 'O'Brien doesn't know what he's doing and is bad for the game' to treating his statements as gospel.

It's called life Figgis, you should get one.

You really are screwed up. Do you really think that just because AOB is noted for hypeing his horses occasionally that he does it all of the time, and every time. Sometimes he will be right and sometimes he will be wrong. Just like you Figgis. Wierd isn't it?
One moment you say I don't offer an opinion then you criticise me for having one. Wierd that, wouldn't you think?
I do believe the Coolmore operation is bad for racing. It is only my opinion, don't let it bother you.
I also believe AOB has made some high profile errors during his career with Coolmore but it is only my opinion. Don't let it bother you.
You see this is a horseracing forum where different views about horse racing are discussed or not as the case may be. If that doesn't fit in with your plans why don't you do something about it?
You see no-one forced you to respond to the occasional post I write. You chose to in some attempt to make my views look irrelevent because occasionally they differ from yours. Get a life Figgis.
You brought up the Champion Stakes at Newmarket last season. One of the few threads I went onto. As far as I can remember I gave very clear views about what would win. I think the War Command thread and he 2000 gns thread are all I have been on since and only one ws about a particular race and I did have a bet. So praytell me what on earth you are talking about?

Do you really think that just because AOB is noted for hypeing his horses occasionally that he does it all of the time, and every time

Certainly not, I actually said I thought he genuinely believed Australia to be his best horse of last year's crop, there would've been no point in him saying what he had otherwise.

Sometimes he will be right and sometimes he will be wrong

Yes, but you pick and choose when he's right or wrong just on your say so, without providing any supporting evidence.

Anyway, I'll leave you to proclaim Australia the winner of a hypothetical re-run of the Guineas, I'm off to study some races that are actually going to take place

It isn't on my say so, as you say it is called an opinion. The good thing aboutvracing is that there are any number of opinions.  I don, t know whether he is 'right or wrong' as you say it is just an opinion. Likewise if they ran the 2000 guineas again it is simply an opinion. You really should come to terms that some folk have different opnions to you sometimes it really isn't a difficult as it seems.You may then be able to address the content of their post without actually bothering from whence the post came. Becase it really doesn't matter.
Now I'm off out for a meal. I really can't be bothered trying to work out whether horse 'A' is a pond or two better than horse 'B' that represents a bigger waste of time and life than I can imagine. But that's only my opinion.

I really can't be bothered trying to work out whether horse 'A' is a pond or two better than horse 'B' that represents a bigger waste of time and life than I can imagine.

Coming from someone who argued until they were blue in the face (through hundreds of posts on here and countless letters to the Racing Post) during Frankel's career that Timeform had rated him, and others he ran against, too highly (not to mention virtually every Gp1 winner these day). Priceless

You that just shows just how little you know and how bigotted you are. Are we finally seeing the real Figgis?

As you already know Timeforms figures are wrong. They know they are wrong that is why their leader utters similar diatribe about me that you utter. When you cannot prove your point for others to belive you then attack the poster. Two peas in a pod. If they have the rating of Frankel wrong then it goes to say the horses they rated through him are wrong also. Something you know very well and it only belittles you that once again you attack the poster and not the post. You really are screwed up about me Figgis. Get over it.
Will you look at yourself? You have swung from one point to another as you wildly dive from one point to another as every one is dealt with succinctly. You really should take a good look at yourself Figgis.
Now the wife waiting in the car so I am off out.

Brigust, but handicapping "represents a bigger waste of time and life than I can imagine", so how can you know Timeform ratings are wrong? Can it be that you, who has openly said he's never handicapped a horse in his life, knows more than the official handicappers and Timeform who have been doing it for a career? What a remarkable human being you must be. Just imagine what you could've achieved if you'd devoted your time and considerable brain power to something less futile than horses running around a field

figgis,brigust is trying to find winners not rate them,his methods from what i have read in his posts,do make more sense than some made up race standard figure,which makes non.

Metro John, I haven't said I agree with race standardisation, and there are certainly more ways than one to play the game. Not everybody compiles their own private handicap, but it's a bit rich to dismiss handicapping as a "waste of time" then incessantly bang on about ratings being wrong.

I do believe Brigust does indeed study ratings,we all of us have no choice,with the amount that are run,but we are all human ,this is a forum and sometimes we express conflicting views ,it is the human interaction and moods that make it so,I contradict myself too much,but lets not fall out

MJ, this isn't about a conflict of views regarding the prediction of a result, it's about Brigust's insistence on joining in threads post race with the sole aim of pulling down the form of any big race winner. Always pointing to the worst bits of a horse's form, for example, "Tullius was beaten in the Lincoln", while ignoring his better efforts. All the horses behind Australia in the Guineas were sprinters, hell even Kingman is supposed to be one. It's been a constant theme of his posts for the last few years, he has an agenda, as all of his letters to the Racing Post confirm. That's his opinion, but it's tedious in the extreme to have to endure it on every big race thread.

We need different opinions figgis,He was correct with Kingman the horse did not improve for the trip and was outstayed by NOT whom he had beat out of sight over 7f,I would say that was a good observation.

MJ, he wouldn't have to improve for the trip to prove he stayed. It's also stretching things to attribute NoT's improvement entirely down to the extra furlong. I think it's also a bit incredulous to say Australia is a special horse, as Brigust has done when he's echoed O'Brien, when he couldn't beat a horse that is supposed to stay barely a yard more than 7f. Anyway, as I've said, it isn't about an opinion on one race.

* a bit incredible

May 17, 2014 -- 7:55PM, brigust1 wrote:

I would treat the result with a great deal of caution. The 2nd was 2nd in the Lincoln and hasn, t looked like a Group 1 horse before. The winner won easily though wasn, t running away from the 2nd who was race fit. It was a Group 1 race in name only. With the winner the only Group 1 winnrr in it. Caution.

Good evening, good company and a very nice meal.

You know Figgis you are a snake. You really need to look at yourself.
I have posted my original comment above which was a response to an enquiry about Verrazano.
You will see that everything I wrote was true. The 2nd was 2nd in the Lincoln. It hadn't looked like a Group 1 horse before. The winner won easily and being the only Group 1 winner it was a Group 1 race in name only. You need at least 2 Group  1 horses to make a Group 1 race. All true.

Yet Figgis wasn't happy because I never provided input before the race. Actually the thread was started on the day of the race and, as I never posted anywhere because I wasn't around, that would have been difficult. Plus my computer is in dock and I went to buy this tablet. Anyway Figgis was dissatisfied because  I never posted before the race. No other reason was offered, then.
Then the snake turned. He knew the content of my post was accurate so he sought another agenda. He accused me of high-jacking all of the big race threads with my Group 1 views. Is this true?
Well looking back at the recent Group 1 races starting from the Champion Stakes I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race.
Next we have the QE11 Stakes I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race. Then we have the 2000 Guineas I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race. Then we have the 1000 Guineas I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race. Then we have the Prix Ganay I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race and finally we have last years Arc and I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race.
Are we getting a picture of Figgis's problem here?
To continue with this thread and realising my original comments were correct Figgis then turned snake again.

I will spare you all from the finer points but on this Lockinge thread he went from O'Briens opinions to my betting strategy to my not giving selections to return to the original post to back to my betting to AOB to Australia to my opinions to Ruler of the World to too many Group 1s to Australia again to Frankel to handicpping.
IT HAS BEEN SOME JOURNEY I CAN TELL YOU.

All I did was respond to a minor question about the Lockinge. You can read my response above. Apologies about the spelling etc new tablet.
You really should look at yourself Figgis you have a grudge too big for any sane human being. In your desperate attempts to win a point you switch from one point to another when you know you aren't winning. That is what a snake does.
Anyway it's been a lovely evening so I am now off to bed. Goodnight all.

Well looking back at the recent Group 1 races starting from the Champion Stakes I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race

The reason is because the 'Champion' Stakes is a joke.
If CDA wins they say he is back to his best.
If Farhh wins with CDA in 2nd he will be credited with beating a back to his best CDA.
What is ignored is that this is a race for these two to lose.

Hunter's Light isn't Gr1 class.
Main Sequence is unreliable at best. And on form is not good enough.
Mukhadram is Gr2 at best.
Parish Hall is not good enough.
Hillstar, possibly Gr2, has been passed over, rightly, by Moore and only just beat the outsider last time.
Morandi is not good enough.
Ruler of the World will want a huge pace but could be the only fly in the ointment. Never had a race in the Arc so who knows?
Triple Treat is not good enough.

What a crock of s h i t. We are headed for another dose of hype tomorrow just as served up by Fig when he said Farhh's Lockinge was the best win of the season. Rubbish. Complete rubbish.


Oh dear, brigust, I realise that when you write so much bollocks it must be difficult to remember what you've said, but do try to be consistent

we have last years Arc and I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race.

AT don't agree about Treve's Arc. Orfevre is seriously over rated imo. Intello is untested, Kizuna won a below average Japanese Derby as his only Group 1 win and Penglai Pavilion has only won a Listed race. Too much hype about the strength of this race. Al Kazeem was lucky to win 3 Gr1's. The first was only against Camelot. The 2nd was a mess and the horse he beat couldn't win a Gr1 and the Eclipse should have been won by The Fugue but she was unwell. The Epsom Derby winner was beaten 10 lengths at the Curragh and the placed horses at Epsom have won nothing. Too much hype trying to make the UK horses look better than what they are.

Add to that Wild Coco (Group 2 horse at best) and Chicquita (single Gr1 winner) are definitely not Goldikova (14 times Gr1 winner)or Dar Re Mi (4 times Group 1 winner).

She was impressive but this is a clear case of style over substance. Not for the first time.

Another ringing endorsement

Then we have the 2000 Guineas I certainly never said that wasn't a Group 1 race.

I have little doubt the best 3 horses finished in the first three but when you consider the next three home were Shifting Power (Compton Place 6.6f), Charm School (Invincible Spirit 7.1f) and the Spanish horse who is now going for the July Cup then it looks like a sprint in anything but name. In fact if you take out the winner who s bred to be at least a miler and Australia then Kingman beat three sprinters home.

I have to admire your creativity here in bringing a race down, brig, you're now resorting to removing the winner and third horse

anything to add sinty ? 

Well done to OG backers.

People always like to say the Lockinge is a poor G1 but I don't see it myself. It's early season and the starting point for many but whilst it's not the Queene Anne if you look at the recent history it is always generally won by top class performers. There are usually decent horses in behind as well.

Thought Verrazano ran well for his first race over here on a new surface. Joseph said he was green! There are very few animals in training as impressive to look at as this beast and I'd say similar to Dec Of War you can expect him to improve with racing.
Olympic Glory was very impressive. I'm not drop sure he's in need of soft ground he needs a flat straight mile to be seen at his best whatever the conditions and he got that on Saturday. Tullius does look in the form of his life and was race fit.

Was disappointed to see Montiridge ridden as a pacemaker with no prior hint from connections. Makes these columns and quotes in the press absolutely pointless. Obviously they don't want to give away tactics but they shouldn't pretend they are expecting him to run a big race. Very poor form. A lot of people saw him as a great e/w bet early in the day but had done their money the second the gate opened.

I just found another excuse made by AOB for one of his horses whoch ran yesterday, and, surprisingly, won. He appears to get a rush of blood to the head after a win? Thats when the hype comes out.

----

O'Brien doubled up when Leading Light's full-brother John Constable (5-4 favourite) stayed on strongly in the Excelebration Maiden.

The three-year-old was getting off the mark at the sixth time of asking, beating Karezak by three-quarters of a length.

Like his brother last year, he could be aimed at the Queen's Vase at the Royal meeting.

O'Brien said: "We might have run him a bit short the first couple of times. He only ran over seven furlongs twice as a two-year-old. When we stepped him up to a mile and two it appeared to help. The Queen's Vase at Royal Ascot could be an option now."

With regards to what, Bread and butter?

I agree with Figgis here. I have said before Brig's posts are too contradictory and seem to suit whatever point he is making at that moment in time.

It would be nice to see some of these bold opinions before a race takes place. The season is still young so plenty of time for it.

Good morning Figgis the snake. I find it masterful how you twist words around to suit your agenda.
The interesting thing is you obviously hang on my every word. What a disturbing twisted mind you must have. You have posted on numerous threads on here on a daily basis yet I' m dam ned if I can think of anything you have said. I suppose that says more about you than it does aboutme.
Let me deal with your points. One at a time.

I think the point you skipped over in your usual snake way was that you accused me of saying the same thing about Group 1s not being Group 1s. I cannot see any evidence of this but why would you let that get in the way of your small mind? It simply appears from the points you raised that I made a pretty fair asessment of every race. I had forgotten, thank you for reminding me.

1) The first thing you said to me on this thread was about NEVER commenting BEFORE a race yet now you are picking out my comments BEFORE the Champion Stakes. What a twisted confused indidual you are.
Does this now mean I DO comment BEFORE races therefore rubbishing your earlier diatribe on this thread?

2)You constantly accuse AOB of hype yet when I said the Champion S takes would be hyped that is wrong. How is it you are allowed to rant your agenda yet I am not?

3)Your point about the 2000 Gns is just your snake way of interpreting a point. If you read it again you will see that I said 'the best three horses finished in the first three. Was that true? The point about the potential sprinters was true. They are potential sprinters. It is true. I never arranged the result that is where they finished.
But the fact is the truth and you are strangers Figgis. If you don't like the truth you manipulate it to suit your own agenda.

4)Was there anything I wrote about the Arc won by Treve that was untrue? As I said before you despise AOB for hypeing his horses yet anyone else responding to the constant daily hype of everything is wrong. Why let the facts and the truth get in the way of a good dose of hype? As I said Figgis you and the truth are strangers.

I must say though Fiiggis I find it extremely flattering, though a bit disturbing, that you can respond and comment at will about things I have said months and sometimes years ago. I have never seen anything like it on this whole forum. And the thing is I couldn't remember a single thing you have said on this entire forum either.
You have a total inability to address the issues of the day on their own merits and then when your nasty, bitchy comment is dealt with you rapidly move onto another that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread at all.

I have said it before and I will say it again. You are a snake. Cunning, slimy, wriggly and not to be trusted.

Figgis it is clear You have an agenda but be sure I will address your agenda and shove it right down your throat. I would shove it up your arris but you spend most of you time speaking out of that so the opportunity will be rarer.

And finally can I add your comments about the letters to the Racing Post. Again I am flattered thst you think it was me and equally flattered that you remmber them. A little disturbing though. Anyway as far a the letters go, if my memory serves, there were 6 letters in the last two and a half years. So thst is 6 letters from a potential 1500. An avalanche.
Also if I remember correctly one was an open letter to the BHA about the quality of this era. One was about Brigadier Gerard's stud career in response to errors made in their paper. One was about the good quality of Danedream's Arc therefore boosting Frankel. One was about Treve's Arc and the hype. Andfinally on was about the World Thoroughbred Rankings. None mentiined Timeform.
Do want everone to dance to your tune? I thought the wonderous thing about this or any forum was that DIFFERENT points ofview were discussed. The fact that my point of view is constant should be a good thing and easy to address. This is a free society and anyone can put pen to paper. But some small minded individuals like you Figgis would rather snake around in the grass. Disturbing and very, very sad.

That's alright Sin at least I know where you are ciming from. I disagree but this is a forum. As I have said I had no view before the Lockinge. I said plenty before the 2000 Gns and as you can see from Figgis's historical work  I had plenty to say before the ChampionStakes. I think that is fair enough considering I wouldn't have bet in the 2000 Gns, didn't bet in the Lockinge but did have a good bet n the Champion Stakes. Do you really want me telling others what to do in a race I wouldn't bet in personally? Do you?

you accused me of saying the same thing about Group 1s not being Group 1s. I cannot see any evidence of this

a jaundiced view on current day Gp1s

Not quite the same thing really is it? But if you can point me to the evidence it would be helpful.

Figgis look I am just flattered that you pour through my posts in your vain attempt to prove a silly point. I'm flattered you hang on my ever word even though you try to twist it to suit your own agenda. You really should look very, very hard at yourself.

1) The first thing you said to me on this thread was about NEVER commenting BEFORE a race yet now you are picking out my comments BEFORE the Champion Stakes. What a twisted confused indidual you are.

Yes fair dues, those comments were pre-race for a change. Your aftertiming views were mainly strong insinuations that Farhh's victory was due to foul play.

As you are so well versed on my historical posts, do you see how you have now switched to Farhh and foul play? Anyway as I was saying you are so well versed on my historical posts can you remind me which race the 'foul play' refers to?

Brigust, I think you'll find that all my posts, unlike yours, have been very consistent with my original points, that you rarely put up posts concerning the outcome of a race or perceived value, and that you're far more interested in berating the quality of today's horses.

can you remind me which race the 'foul play' refers to?

No problem

brigust1 Joined: 07 Dec 01
Replies: 8003 23 Oct 13 16:50   
Miller does it not bother you just a little that with the recent problems the boys in blue have had Farhh was aimed at the Lockinge successfully then aimed at the Champion Stakes successfully. Two races with a long break before and in between. I wouldn't bother so much had he been lined up for other races during the season but had to miss them but he was off nearly 6 months until the Champion and they hit the nail bang on the head both times.

well done figgis, with your form guide of the lockinge, read your comments, had already made up my mind on the race few days earlier.
next time will post views before the race, dont know why anyone would think montiridge would be able to win a group 1 race let alone turnaround the form with tullius LTO. there is nothing to suggest that horse is capable of winning at the top level, seems was fancied
by a few people on the day. will be interesting to see how VERRAZANO does this season, after winning easily at group 1 level, has been
beaten since then and (profile suggests) he was most likely exhausted at the end of a long season 2013.

Roadrunner, I don't have anything against people sometimes only commenting post race, it just pisses me off when it's used as a foot in the door to carp about today's horses for the umpteenth time.

well done figgis, with your form guide of the lockinge, read your comments, had already made up my mind on the race few days earlier.
next time will post views before the race, dont know why anyone would think montiridge would be able to win a group 1 race let alone turnaround the form with tullius LTO. there is nothing to suggest that horse is capable of winning at the top level, seems was fancied
by a few people on the day.

a pint at the arms for you sir...

you must of thought the lochinge had lots of group 1 winning turf horses running roadrunner and lots of horses with a rating/form far superior to what montiridge has achieved in the past...

if you have a look at the form there was not pal, except the favourite and people thinking the form maybe turned round with tullius were thinking his best form had been on quick ground and tullius best form had been with cut and he had had a prep run before sandown...

no matter montiridge ran like a drain and you are now right after the event




interesting lots of ranting although enjoyed masterminded write up...i just wanted to pop on just to say apologies for putting anyone away with the O.P saturday and did put a lot of time in for nothing, with the ground being the major angle as was soft in the week - no-one did there nuts more than me i can assure you, just the way it is going at the moment...

the game is tough enough when you are putting decent money down on horses finishing last and it is even more painful when you are against a horse who pizzed up...anyway back to the drawing board as am getting anally penetrated at present with 2 bets in a week that have finished last...something is wrong with the race reading at present, so need to have a month form boost and hope the confidence returns...

a friend of mine wants me to find him a nag at the doncaster sales this week answers on a postcard please

take a look at the horses profile, keeps getting beat all the time at group 2 and 3 level, what has the horse done to suggest that
its capable at the highest level, nothing. tipped the winner on this website midweek, people moan about the quality of group 1 races,
not many horses win group 1 races. like to go with proven form most of the time. two group 1 winners in the race and inform group 2 winner and they filled the places, form of the race has worked out perfectly. my post wasnt aimed at your selection, thought you done
a good job on the write up, just didnt agree with your view of the form. gl

Problem with this Lochinge thread was that it was put up late , had it gone up a week or two  earlier the   points made by Figgis in relation to the variance in ground descriptions from country to country may have been affirmed or contested by other time evaluators on here .

I would have found such a debate very useful
and  may well have gone for the fav if others agreed with his conclusions 

Would like to hear more on that, from those that have something to say .

Thank you Figgis. I would use you as a secretary but you are far too bitter and twisted for that.
I remember the point. Should it not have been raised? Do you live your life in sheltered accommodation? Did you not hear Lydia Hislop at Newbury? It wasn't a point relevant to any other horse so there was a perfectly valid reason to ask another poster what he thought. For some banal inconsequential reason you think you can police this forum to check what I have written. Where do you get of exactly? You are clearly some disturbed individual.
If you read my earlier post with regard to CONTINUALLY checking what I say. I'm sure there is no-one else on this forum that disturbed. And it really is disturbing.
You must have a complete dossier to refer to. This is becoming a problem and you should really deal with it.

You bring up a point. I deal with it. You then bring up an unrelated point. I deal with that. You then bring up another unrelated point. I deal with that. And so the cycle continues. In the end following my responding HONESTLY and OPENLY to another poster about a race you dive in and the cycle begins again. For the umpteenth time.
From my comments about the Lockinge you diverted to AOB.
From AOB you then diverted to my betting.
From my betting you then diverted to me not giving tips.
From me not giving tips you then diverted to my original post.
From my original post you then diverted to my betting again.
From my betting you then diverted back to AOB.
From AOB you then diverted to Australia.
From Australia you then diverted to AOB again.
From AOB you then diverted to my opinions.
From my opinions you then diverted to Ruler of the World.
From Ruler of the World you then diverted to Group 1 races.
From Group 1 races you then diverted back to Australia.
From Australia you then diverted to Frankel.
From Frankel you then diverted to Handicapping.
From handicapping you then diverted to letters in the Racing Post.
From letters in the Racing Post well I gave up.
I know I have left a few of

Can you not see how disturbed you must be? This is a public forum filled with people who proffer their views. Some think AP is finished. Some think AOB is a liar. Yet for some reason you have this disturbing fetish about me.

And would you believe it. All this because I said caution should be shown about Verrazano because the Lockinge wasn't a great race. Something since stated by Richard Hughes, Frankie Dettori, Harry Herbert the list is endless ffs Figgis.

CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW F U C K I N G TWISTED AND SCREWED UP YOU ARE?

no offence to me roadrunner

take a look at the horses profile, keeps getting beat all the time at group 2 and 3 level, what has the horse done to suggest that its capable at the highest level, nothing.

interesting roadrunner so would you of had montiridge getting beat 22 lengths pre-race or should i say, do you believe he ran to his level...considering he was beat at the 2 pole on saturday??

are you saying his profile said he would run like he did against these horses?? and want credit for it??

it is ok being right after an event if a said horse has run to his potential, however are you are saying montiridge ran to his group 2/3 level or lets say, do you believe he say ran to his jersey stakes form

for me he just ran like a drain and not to his potential

Sorry, brig, but I'm too bored with you to read all that, no offense

Or even, offence, Americanisms creeping in.

dont think montridge will ever win a group 1 race, doesnt make me any smarter than the next punter. just IMO. you didnt get run for your money which is always disappointing. dont see how you could see the possiblity of it beating tullius, that was an easy winner, and although hasnt won much, starting to improve now, thats another horse that will be group 2/3 level at most. im saying his profile wouldnt make it worthy of consideration for a group 1 race. maybe its horse you have won a few pounds on, and you thought could make the step up into group 1 class, wouldnt put anyone off betting their fav horses, one of the most successful ways to bet is on horses you know and like.

You are right of course. It does look ridiculous when you write it down. But in short it tracks the route you have taken since my original comment.
And you will also note EVERY comment I made was as a response to a comment you made first. The clues are there.

Sorry again, brig, but work to do. You seem to be the embodiment of something I thought was a mythical creature, the carefree successful punter who wins with minimal effort, bets jumping off the page at him that are determined by the simple question of "Will I be surprised if it wins or not?". Unfortunately most of us poor souls have to work for it

Well I suggest you spend your time working at it then Fig and less time trawling through my posts over the last year or so to try to score a  point worth nothing. Or maybe 'working at it' is deluding yourself? Who knows?

Me I only bet on a limited range of targets. I stick rigidly within that range and waste not one minute of time writing down what may be a pound or two pound better than anything else. The Official Handicapper and his team spends all year handicapping up to 4000 races a year. His aim is to get them all finishing in a line. In 50 years I cannot remember that ever happening. The professional ratings firms spend all year rating horses and all would end up losing money if you followed their advice. It sounds like a very worthwhile exercise to me. I have a life to live.

The Jehovas Witness comparison is coming back to haunt me . I will have to give you the same suggestion I give to those when they come round on a Saturday afternoon just because they haven't anything better to do

Anything better to do? I've just finished writing my eighth book. I rebuilt my son's car engine last year completely and am currently building a new eco friendly house for my other son. It is completely solar generated with geothermal heating and evacuated tubes and rainwater harvesting. And it is built in a beautiful sweet chestnut wood. Don't bother Jehovah he hasn't the time.

Well done. All that and still able to do a better job than the official handicappers, Timeform, and anybody else wasting their time handicapping horses. As I said previously, a remarkable human being

I never said that. Of you go again. Strange. And you know full well the only gripe I have with Timeform is very well founded. And if anyone wants to handicap horses or swim the channel good luck to them. It is not for me I'm afraid. Nothing remarkable either. Just good time management. A love of what I do and I have no hidden agenda. Just good honest toil.

dont think montridge will ever win a group 1 race,

probably not but this was not a strong group 1 race hence backing a group 2/3 horse to win it...just one group 1 winner running and it was a drifting favourite...if you tipped the horse on another forum a couple of days before, you clearly knew the ground would change how it did

wouldnt put anyone off betting their fav horses, one of the most successful ways to bet is on horses you know and like.

lol roadrunner i am mercenary and certainly not into favorite horses, else i suppose i should of been all over olympic glory saturday who i have shared some good days

dont see how you could see the possiblity of it beating tullius, that was an easy winner, and although hasnt won much, starting to improve now, thats another horse that will be group 2/3 level at most.

i think your missing the point - tullius had shown his best form on a soft surface and saturday was run on nearly a good/firm surface which should of favoured montiridge who was making his seasonal reappearance at sandown on ground not ideal and is 2 years younger and open to more improvement

anyway the game has clearly gone easy for some, i should of known he had no chance of turning that deficit around on his favoured surface like you point out...like i said in the opening post i felt like a mug backing the horse and you have certainly confirmed that with a good summary of the horse and why he couldn't of possibly of gone well against these mediocre horses

Good for you, I somehow doubt the 8 books would be about betting horses.

moonlight cloud form is excellent form, that horse has proven to be top class group 1 performer, who ran the famous black caviar to
within a short head at ascot, olympic glory was rated 4th best in the european 2yo ratings, hes proven at the top level, like you say wasnt strongest of fields. had a saver on tullius just in case, the LINCOLN form has been working out very well. as has been said few times on here, there are always few lesser competitive group 1 races in the calendar, still not easy to win. hope this matter is settled
now, have answered you to the best of my knowledge. gl

No I try not to tell other people what to bet on. I get into trouble for not doing so sometimes but I refrain. I did tip Danedream at Ascot at 10/1 and I did tip Dynaste at Aintree last year at 9/4. I also tipped a loser. And I suggested a bet in the Champion Stakes which won. That I think is the sum total of my advices so I will leave it to others who know more. Anyway I doubt a book about betting would sell the number of copies required. I just hope when you get to my age you don't look back and think about the time you have wasted in your life. That would be sadder than stalking me.

Brigust, this was a thread I was already involved in before you chimed in with your usual pitch. I just hope for the readers' sakes that the books provide more insight than your racing related posts, or, at least, more positivity.

Bitchy. Bitchy. I am not going over all that again. Will you never learn? I thought you were working on your numbers?

Nope, this afternoon's racing.

Good grief. I never bet in races lower than Grade 4. Never bet in handicaps. Never bet at Towcester. Almost never bet on the AW. Never bet at Southwell. Never bet in 2 year old races before Ascot. A day off.

That doesn't surprise me that you have strict rules. I prefer to bet when I see an opportunity, or sometimes just when I'm in the mood to put in the effort.

I won't be having any bets until possibly the weekend. That suits me fine I have plenty of things to do. But if it works for you go for it.

Well, there are different scales of bets and the tastier stuff is always in the better races, for me. However, I don't see how it's possible to get a complete handle on all the better stuff if you completely ignore the lower grade races. Horses step up, and there has even been a Leicester nursery winner that won a Gp1 next time. There are also horses that have run at grade 1 courses stepping down, if you've got the information you might as well use it. As I said, it also sometimes depends on the mood.

There are always exceptions to the rules that is why punters back losers and I am no different. I just cannot fill my head with day to day dross. I give the races I consider an early look. If I need to 'study' the form I think then probably the race is not for me. But of course there are many ways to skin a cat and many types of bet now available to us. I have a list of the bets I consider and if the race suits then I select the bet that best suits the race. It doesn't take long and nowadays it seldom includes ante post betting because prices are often better on the day.

find notebooking long lists of horses the best approach to finding winners, everyday when the emails arrive, already have list
of potential bets. running a list at the moment, 327 notebooks, so far have accumulated over 144 wins from the list, averaging
11/2 at SP'S for the winners. one year will be completed at the start of september 2014. then will start another long list for
next years flat season, hopefully will have few winners on the all weather through the winter, and start up again next summer.
took me 6 weeks worth of results to sort through to make my list, good thing is most of them wont race again till the next season.
the others that do race usually through winter do well on the all weather. my favourite horses are the improvers, they usually
improve 20 lbs or more through the season. always looking for these types. dont like notebooking winning favs, some make the list.

Verrazano is a beast....followed him from his debut win right through the season....smashing horse...a beast.....reminds me of Point Given......but ****......he will let you down when the guns put to his head...very talented but let the side down a bit last year,

Maybe he was still a baby and  just found the hustle and bustle of some of the races he went for too much....the derby....22 and 44 for the first two quarters...first four home came from a mile back and Verrazano was chasing it early. then that insane BC Dirt mile where Goldencents clocked crazy sectionals...Maybe Joseph did the right thing Saturday in teaching him his job again.

He strikes me as the type who might fall in love with Goodwood.

Very surprised to see Olympic Glory is being aimed at France on Sunday.

Same here, though it's good for the race. Could it because they do not want to class with Toronado at Ascot?

Looks that way, sint, but seems a bit soon to me.

Al Shaqab racing manager Harry Herbert confirmed Olympic Glory's likely participation in the Group 1 over an extended 1m1f.

He said: “At the moment I would say we are very likely to run him. It is an unusual move but he is a very tough and hardy horse. Looking at all the options and knowing that he is kicking and bucking, Richard said to me that we should seriously consider this.”

Obviously they think he can take another quick race, they might be right, but it wouldn't be the first time we heard this before a race then after a below par effort it's said the race came too soon. I don't believe he's improved from last year anyway so he's not a horse I wanted to follow after the Lockinge. I also think CDA isn't quite as good as he used to be (no surprise given his age) in spite of his good defeat of Treve. Just a watching race for me.

so you dont think the horse is capable of improving this year, hope it beats CDA on the weekend. suppose will need to keep winning to improve on the 125 OR. its no sure thing and at the prices on offer, just a watching race. possible will put the horse in a few multiples on the weekend. do thing the horse had an easy race LTO. CDA is a formidable race horse even at 8 years old, maybe there
will be an improver from the rest of the field? probably unlikely.

I can't say he won't improve, just that I didn't see any evidence of it on Saturday. I already rated him highly on his QE2 win so he didn't need to improve for the Lockinge. I don't think he needs to improve to beat CDA as an 8yo either, that's assuming he'll get the trip, I just prefer to follow 4yos that have shown improvement, if a horse has peaked there's a danger it will begin to regress.

Smoking Sun was well beaten behind Treve & CDA last time out and nearly one a Group 1 at the weekend in Singapore.

thought OG hated Longchamp....

are they having a laugh, OG was racing beyond beyond 8f for the first time