I'm sure some runners may have finished closer under different circumstances but while other people will have their own opinion I can't say I've seen one so unlucky that lost when it should've won. As already said, it looks like being a smaller field than usual so the draw may not be significant as in some years. Personally I think there are other considerations than just the draw, such as jockey tactics and the horse's running style. A horse that's going to be held up behind could forfeit any draw advantage early on, also a low draw could prove a hindrance to a horse that is going to be held up behind, as the gaps may not appear, particularly if they don't go fast early. I'd say a low draw would only be of certain advantage to a horse that's going to be ridden prominently or at least handily, just as a high draw would be an obvious disadvantage for a horse that needed to be ridden in that style.

I'd still like to know what price people think she should be (not what price they'd back her at)? And if she is too short then which other horses do they think are too big, specifically in the win market?

Her and New Bay

I meant quite a big disparity.

kincem

Deep Impact was a tasty 1/2 fav.
Someone told me he had the biggest bet of him life on Deep Impact.

I had 25k on DI believing that he was another  Sea Bird . Fortunately, I took 25/1 Rail Link  with bookies offering PMU price to save my stake.Don't think they would lay the bet now.

I'm not afraid of having a different view.

And that's how it should be. I just meant that if I think I've found value then I would rarely trade out a bet even if the price becomes shorter if I still believe the shortened price represents value, likewise when I oppose what I see as poor value. If I laid one at a short price then it became even shorter I would be looking to lay more, up until I've laid my maximum outlay of course. Other people would be looking for a trade out whether or not.

Figgis
Are you saying a horse in not unlucky if it is drawn 18?  Does luck only apply after the stalls open?

Treve's price for 2015:  I think about 4/1.
It looks like being a fast ground race so a low draw is important.
She won at 9/2 and 11/1 in the Arc, the first time with the lowest weight, getting 12 pounds from the 2nd Orfevre, , the next time with probably the best draw on fast ground, so she won with the advantages.
Imponderables for 2015 are the field size, the draw, and to a lesser extent the going.

Uninformative
Treve's last race told up nothing.  The 2nd, 3rd, 4th Candarliya (1x 12f Gr3), Sea Calisi (1 x 12f Gr2), Frine (a x 10.5 Gr3 2013; 1 x 12.5 Gr2 2014) should have been beaten.
In her previous race she beat Flintshire and Dolniya, the two she beat in last year's Arc.
Some of the horses (fillies) she beat this year have yet to win a Group race: All At Sea; Silvaplana; Al Waab; Dauran; Altaira; Beautiful Romance; Al Naamah; Dihna = 8 horses
And other have won one Group race: We Are; Mayhem; Feodora; Dolniya; Meleagros; Candarliya; Sea Calisi; Diamondsandrubies = 8 horses
That leaves Siljan's Saga (2 x Gr2); Cocktail Queen (1 x Gr2; 1 x Gr3); Flintshire (2 x Gr1; 1 x Gr3); Manatee (2 x Gr2); Frine (1 x Gr2; 1 x Gr3); Arabian Queen (1 x Gr2; 2 x Gr3) = 6 horses
She beat Arabian Queen at 12f but Arabian Queen's three Group race wins were at 6f, 9f, 10f.
She beat Diamondsandrubies at 12f very soft, a horse with one 10f good Gr1 win.

Positive
One positive franking of Treve's form by the horses she beat was Siljan's Saga winning a 12.f Group 2 on 30/08/15.  Treve beat her on good three months earlier.
Treve's form hangs largely imo on her beating of Flintshire, who was 2nd in last year's Arc.  Flintshire was placed four times in 2014, no win.
He recently (29/08/15) won the Sword Dancer Stakes (12f, firm) in Saratoga £342,948.  That can be taken as another positive for Treve.

Historic backing the favourite in the Arc
+58.09 (34 wins) -59.00 (59 losses) = -0.91 loss

Figgis
Are you saying a horse in not unlucky if it is drawn 18?  Does luck only apply after the stalls open?

No, I'm saying what I said before, it largely depends on jockey tactics and the horse's running style. Treve was drawn 15 a couple of years ago and the way she was ridden I don't believe the draw reduced her superiority at all. If you do then you must think she would've won by even further given a low draw, fair enough, but I don't.

Treve's price for 2015:  I think about 4/1.

Well in that belief there's huge value in laying her at around evens, if I thought I'd found that kind of value I wouldn't even be attempting to find the winner, thereby reducing my chances of making a profit.

Would anyone say Goldikova or Moonlight Cloud deteriorated at the age of 5? For me they were at least as good, if not slightly better, than ever.

Kincsem, ignoring for a moment the fact that very few Arcs are actually run on what we'd call 'fast' ground, what is your explanation for the conclusion that a low draw is of more importance on 'fast' ground in the Arc?

lewishan ranger
Just a question for you Sandown, you say based on stats mares depreciate from 3 to 5, yet surely based on the visual evidence of her last run, Treve has far from gone backwards? In fact you could argue that she's better than ever, given that she pulled for her head the whole way around and still destroyed a field that included a mare who had beaten a derby winner last time out?

You might well be right with your 3 to 5 stats, but Treve is the type of freak that defies stats.

I don't know why 5 yr olds and upwards generally have a worse record  than 3 yr especially or 4yr. Could be the wfa, could be self-selecting (better 3 yr olds race than 5 yr olds). Neither do I know why  5+ mares have an even worse record. It shouldn't be surprising that elite athletes generally regress with age. Happens in every sport. Some horses are precocious, others mature later. Its only a generalisation and each horse has to be looked at individually.

In Treve's case I can only point out that on RPR's Treve has not matched her 2013 ARC win nor her 2014 win since then. Its for each to decide whether she can do so on Oct 4 2015 and bet accordingly.

I doubt I'll be laying Treve unless it is a big field, firm ground, she has a high draw, and is around evens.


Treve had three prep races in 2013, 2014, 2015
She met about the same number of opposition each year.
In 2015 she met a lot less runners who had won a Group 1 (5 winners of 6 Group 1s)
And the number of Group 2s (9) and Group 3s (8) won by the 23 opposition was a bit weaker.

The figures are a bit fudged
The Group 1, 2, 3 wins for all years are the lifetime wins by the horses she ran against (e.g. for the horses she ran against in 2013, it includes their wins after 2013.)***
The 2014 Group wins are inflated by Cirrus Des Aigles running against her.  He has a shedload of Group wins.

Year____Fields__Without Group win___Group 1 winners___Group 1 wins__Group 2 wins __Group 3 wins
2013____23__________9_________________9_____________ (12 Gr1)_______(6 Gr2) __________(11 Gr3)
2014____22 _________4__________________9____________ (19 Gr1) _______(18 Gr2)_________(20 Gr3)
2015____23_________8__________________5_____________ (6 Gr1)_________(9 Gr2)__________(8 Gr3)

* Esoterique won 2xGr1 + 1xGr3
* Baltic Baroness won 1xGr1
* Venus de Milo won 1xGr3

It looks like she had less competitive races in 2015.  The opposition was weaker.

kincem

Excellent delving.The really top class mares amongst these were Park Top, Allez France, Dahlia,Stannerra,All Along,Time charter, Triptych, so not all lesser animals then.

We assume that if a horse is in say the first 4 of the betting, it should run pretty close to its best rating or even better. This doesn't happen. Of the 60 horses in the first 4 of the betting in the past 15 years, only 10 actually improved and 4 of those won. Of the remaining 50 horses,48 regressed.5 of these won.

The fact is that the average change in rating of the first 4 in the betting over the past 15 years is to run 5 lbs below previous best. Take out the 10 who increased then the average drops to -7 lbs.

Put simply, fancied horses in this race have regressed rather than progressed by a factor of 5 to 1.Perhaps we should be looking to identify those who won't run their race as much as try to find those that will.

John Gosden is on record as saying he believes they peak at 5 if they are well maintained.

John Gosden is on record as saying he believes they peak at 5 if they are well maintained.

I'm in total agreement with Gosden, certainly on the clock they don't generally start to slow down until the age of 6.

his assertion that Treve is/has the potential for being better than Frankel in his eyes

I used to buy the Weekender years ago, did he really say that? Mind boggling.

John Gosden is on record as saying he believes they peak at 5 if they are well maintained.

I'm in total agreement with Gosden, certainly on the clock they don't generally start to slow down until the age of 6.

Using the rest of those stats as any negative evidence against 5yos is as relevant as saying a trainer with an even money fav in a race had little chance of winning it because he's had 8 other runners down the years that went off at 10/1+ but none of them won.


These comments are made about older horses in general. You may or may not be right. But we are specifically debating the record of older horses in the top turf race in europe. And I can assure you that older horses have a poorer record than younger horses whether you take win record or another measure.

For example, i looked at the record of horses in the race over the past 20 years to see how the age groups performed as measured by , to see whether they improved or regressed at different rates.


Older horses regressed twice the rate of 4 yrs who in turn regressed at twice the rate for  3yr olds. I allowed for chance in the race by only sampling horses at 14/1 and below.

If you don't agree perhaps you should provide somedat yourself to back up your assertions. Personally, it doen't matter to me whether you agree or not but this thread is intended to throw light onto the race.

I agree that these facts will not detrmine whether treve wins or not but it should influence how you see the chance of the horse.They provide doubts and sdoubts leadto lower confidence in assessing its chance. At least they do for me.

we are specifically debating the record of older horses in the top turf race in europe

I am not debating the record of older horses in the Arc, a record is a record, the stats are there. I am arguing that past statistics are not a pointer to the future unless there is some explanation behind the stats. The only explanation I've seen so far is that horses deteriorate at 5. I would say some do, some don't. Many horses racing careers deteriorate after the age of 2. What I do know is if a horse remains in form it can run as fast at 5 as it could at 4. The deterioration doesn't usually set in until the age of 6.

These comments are made about older horses in general

Yes of course it is a generalisation, the alternative would be to believe that somehow 5ys only deteriorate when running in the Arc, which makes no sense to me.

If you don't agree perhaps you should provide somedat yourself to back up your assertions

I could provide my ratings for 5yos down the years but the exercise would be futile as they mean nothing to anybody else.

Another point to mention is that while there have been winners who've had very busy campaigns and some hard races, such as Dylan Thomas, it is accepted by most of us on here that a campaign specifically geared towards the Arc is a big advantage. How many 5yos with form considered good enough to win have been given such a campaign with the aim of winning the Arc the utmost priority? Very very few I'd wager.