Fair play to Dettori. Was jocked off Treve unfairly and sure had the last laugh today. Thought Jarnet was poor, asleep in the stalls, dropped her right back then tried to go round everything. The horse wasn't good enough on the day.

I think most of us thought Golden Horn had the form in his locker to win or at least go close, I had him top rated but only 1lb ahead of Treve. 4lbs ahead of Flintshire and that roughly worked out. Treve didn't run her race but I don't buy the ground excuse, as the good ground description is rightly being ignored in favour of good to firm but the same could be said when she beat Flintshire earlier this year and last.

The reason many of us didn't want to be with GH was because of his hard season. If the likes of Authorized, Generous and Reference Point had won people would've said afterwards that it was an easy prediction and the horse with the best form won, but they didn't. This time around Golden Horn got away with having a hard season. Maybe the fact that his last two races weren't up to his best actually helped him in that they didn't take much out of him or maybe he's just a tougher horse than those others mentioned?

For me, the only thing to reflect on is his price. Even in the knowledge that he had a hard season did his price still offer any value? Arguably it did, but I'm not sure how much and I still wouldn't be rushing to back horses with similar preparations for the race in future. When he drifted after the draw announcement then that was the time I possibly should've had a few quid on him, as I thought it was probably an overreaction and there was a bit more value about him. No major regrets about the race though and I enjoyed it.

Timeform did an article about three days ago saying there was a very small draw bias stalls 1-4 in the Arc but nothing discernable for any of the stalls outside of this. It heavily swayed me, I can add a link on here.

Sea The Stars had a virtually identical season, and an extrenmely simialr style, to Golden Horn and he won the Arc just a few of years ago so I don't know why some people kept harking back to the failure of horses like Genreous and Authorised as a reason why Golden Horn couldn't win.

The ground is the most important thing in racing - GH and Flintshire wouldn't even have run if the race had been held 3 weeks ago on the Arc trial day, and if they had they would have been stuffed by New Bay and Treve.

I don't think anyone said that GH couldn't win, just that it was difficult to win after such a season. Authorized was only 2 years before Sea The Stars, so not too far back. In the case of Sea The Stars, he was already rated a better horse than GH, he was unbeaten that year, his latest win was far more impressive than GH's and there was a general belief that he did no more than enough.

Since Sea Bird did the double twenty two other horses have attempted the feat, only five before today managed it. As when using any statistics as a reference each race and horse has to be judged on its merits but it's obviously no simple task.

Before I head out again this is a summary of the Arc weekend races

Race...................................................Rank....Years

Prix De La Foret...................................1.......36
Prix De Royallieu................................1.......34
Prix Hubert De Chaudenay................    1.......17
Grand Criterium..................................2........36
Prix De L'Abbaye De Longchamp.......3.......36
Prix Dollar............................................6.......35
Prix Daniel Wildenstein....................7........35
Prix De L'Arc De Triomphe................10.......36
Prix Du Cadran...................................12.......36
Prix Marcel Boussac.........................14.......15
Prix De L'Opera...................................19.......36

Rank 1 means fastest time in years 1980 to 2015
Rank 10 means 10th fastest time in years 1980 to 2015

Rank for the 9 races 2015 run for 34,35,36 years .......    5th fastest of the 36 years   
I ignore races run for only 15, 16, 17 years as race location or race month of year changed.

I rank by time per 100 metres i.e race time/distance

(The Prix Marcel Boussac dist is up from 1400m to 1600m in 2015 and probably
should be ignored as comparing secs/100 metres at diff distances/courses?.)

You can see that the five races at the top of the above list were run in very fast times in 2015
Perhaps they were run on different parts of the course.

Conclusion:  the ground in 2015 was fast, or the horses are faster that the last 36 years.
You can call it "good", "soft", or "heavy", but race times say different.

I don't think the ground is the most important thing in racing. I think the most important thing is who the fastest horse is.

What he does know is that under virtually any ground scenario Jack Hobbs is not going to beat Golden Horn, he has made that pretty clear throughout and this must have been communicated to the owners.

of course a lot of it is hindsight

but the last seven winners of the arc three of them have won the epsom derby in the same year

I never really rated Camelot. Thought he was a typical Ballydoyle hype horse that won a poor guineas and derby. Also he was going into the arc on the back of a defeat- not the same case with golden horn

Generous was a top class horse of course, there was no reason why he couldn't win the arc, in that case he possibly was over the top, but I think the fact that he was an out and out galloper whereas Suave dancer had that brilliant turn of foot rather tilted the balance in favour of the french horse around Longchamp

dont think it's anything to
do with having a hard season
if the horse is good enough
myself,don't forget most French
runners are targeted at the race
where as ours are not most of the time.
Dancing Brave,STS and now Golden Horn,
all ran from early on in the season.

Camelot, Authorized, Generous, Daylami, etc, these horses weren't just defeated by horses who had been better targeted at the race, they were stuffed.

Another red herring that the "pundits" try to fool you with is the draw, it's totally irrelevant

Lewisham Ranger, yes I know Daylami didn't win the Derby but the point is that hard seasons can affect any horse, to limit it to Derby winners doesn't reveal the whole picture, neither does limiting it to Arc runners.

For me the Irish Derby run was largely due to Munro's tactics of using his horse's stamina to outstay Suave Dancer, so the race panned out that way. I don't think anyone who saw Generous in the Derby and King George could say he was merely a galloper without a turn of foot, quite the opposite. I did actually back Suave Dancer for the Arc as I thought he'd improved at Leopardstown. However, the fact that Suave Dancer beat Generous in the Arc isn't the point, the point is Generous was well beaten by other horses that had no right to beat him.

Yes, fair point.

Yes fallen angel, although I like others possibly also overrated Treve, (athough she may just have had an off day) which also may have dampened enthusiasm for the Gosden horse, if you think you are up against an unbeatable superstar it rather encourages caution

She did seem to run a bit flat today, I think history will show that the prep run in the Vermielle was completely bonkers, Criquette Head a media darling no doubt but why take her off the leash when the real prize was still to be run? In any case she's probably not as great as we thought she was.

I recall Tom Segal saying a few weeks ago that he thought Treve was such a freak that she was probably better than Frankel, that animal must be laughing his head off in Juddmonte farms right now

The key is whether they're ever bottomed out - Frankie said they'd never get to the bottom of Golden Horn, knew the horse had the constitution, was helped by once-raced 2yo career and skipping KG,

Had his ground, was never going to be beaten from 3f into the race !

Same trick I believe Kingston Hill used to get to the front, history repeats but selectively

I wouldn't have backed Flintshire on g/s either but Treve had already comfortably beaten Flintshire on their last two meetings on ground that like yesterday was described as good but in truth was good to firm. Possibly she has declined this year or maybe she just didn't quite fire on the day, even greats like Messi and Djokovic have off days, don't see why it should be any different for racehorses. Not sure she'd have beaten GH anyway looking at the form with Flintshire but it would've been close.

10 things thatI learned from yesterday

1. The going firming up was a game changer

2. A great jockey can sometimes overcome a draw disadvantage

3. Why bother wth A/P betting?

4. There was a distinct pace bias yesterday to horses at the front in most of the races

5 5+ olds are at a disadvantage at the weights compared to 3 yr olds at this time of the year over 12f

6. Treve was never a 2.0 chance even on the day let alone A/P ad I should have been bolder

7.Fabre is a great trainer and Gosden is not half bad either

8. There is always something new to learn

9. Make Believe looks very good and New Bay might still prove to be top class on softer ground.

10. Ignore other peoples opinions.

5 5+ olds are at a disadvantage at the weights compared to 3 yr olds at this time of the year over 12f

Does this mean everything behind Flintshire was pretty poor or that he's very good?

6. Treve was never a 2.0 chance even on the day let alone A/P ad I should have been bolder

How can one result prove whether a horse was the right price or not? It's a bit like saying heads was never an evens shot just because tails came up.

I didn't spot that Flintshire actually won

Right, so we're back to only winners count then, ok.