Sandown surely you have to take into account that Treve went much faster from 1000m out to 400m out and therefore it's no surprise New Bay was just 0.1s slower for last 400.

From memory I can't recall many 5yos that were strongly fancied for the race. There was Orfevre, who I backed, a couple of years ago, he beat everything else bar Treve which most people agree was an outstanding winning performance, so no disgrace there. In hindsight I don't know if I'd overrated his chances anyway, as I had no fast times for him and was going more by visual impressions and the fact I thought it was a weak field. There was Daylami but in light of the performances he'd already put up earlier in the year I think it was half expected that he might not be at his best. There was Mtoto who ran very well to finish second to another 5yo in Tony Bin. If there were more in recent times I've forgotten them but I'm sure none went into the race with anything close to Treve's credentials or were anything like as well fancied.

Stevie

Sandown surely you have to take into account that Treve went much faster from 1000m out to 400m out and therefore it's no surprise New Bay was just 0.1s slower for last 400.

The other side of that argument is that the Vermeille was run that much slower to begin with which would have helped her. You can't have it both ways.

Figgis

There have been plenty of older horses who were well fancied and who got beat over the 66 years since 1949 but listing them won't change your mind. There have been plenty of any age who have beaten at very short odds (Montjeu (4) comes to mind after having destroyed the KG field) . Point is, as in any race, favouritism only represents majority opinion. Anything and everything can be beaten. Often we don't see it coming.

Of course it is subjective Sandown... as is everyone elses!

Again, each to their own, but I am hugely against using the clock as a tool as simply as that. Treve had almost given up in the last furlong... NB was still being pushed out. I just dont see how that can tell us anything informative myself.

But Im not wanting to cause an argument, just expressing my view.

Sandown, what puzzles me here is that I know you're a man who usually likes some meat on the bones of any stats, as I do. However, giving the poor 5yo win ratio bare stats so much respect without any explanation behind them takes no account of the realistic chances those runners had or how often they ran below expectations and by how much. It's like saying it doesn't matter if this horse is good enough, it is aged 5 so it's chances are lessened, I can't buy into that.

Figgis

Market prices over the long run are about as accurate an indication of a horses chance than any other source. If you have the price its unnecessary to discuss individual cases in a large sample.They take into account about every single piece of information that is available. Long run you can beat the market but only by being selective. A 100/1 shot gets given a 1% chance n evens chance gets 50%. Over a sample the expected number of winners is about as statistically reliable as you can get.Sure we can discuss individual cases and play the "what if" game but excuses average themselves out.Its not the same as taking number of winners compared with number of runners.

Interpreting stats is only about large groups. Its not much help in an individual case. But it will have a bearing on the estimate of chances just as some other diagnostic factor will. Hope that gets us closer to agreement.

Sandown, fair point, and I agree about the market in the long, but I would argue that even going back through years of Arcs it's still an inadequate sample size given the percentage of 5yo runners. That could easily change in years to come.

Montjeu is a very interesting case even as a 4yo. He looked extremely impressive when winning that year's King George, however I don't know how you rated it but I had him running barely quicker than he had as a 3yo. The talk was that he could've won by 8 lengths etc if asked but I wasn't so sure. We've seen many occasions where a horse looks about to demolish its field on the bridle but finds little when the chips are down, El Gran Senor in the Derby was a famous one. His other wins that year were non contests really and I thought there was still a chance he hadn't really improved from 3 to 4.

TREVE'S dominance of her rivals in Sunday's Qatar Prix Vermeille was underestimated in at least one quarter, after officials blamed a technical error for knocking a length and a half of the winning distance.

The dual Arc winner burst clear of her toling rivals turning into the straight and, despite not being hard-pressed by Thierry Jarnet, streaked clear of the duel for second between Candarliya and Sea Calisi.

Eyebrows were raised in several quarters when a winning distance of four and a half lengths was given, half a length shy of her margin in the 2013 Arc.

A communique issued by France Galop on behalf of the Paris Racecourse Technical Group (GTHP) gave the distance back to Candarliya as six lengths, the gap determined by the judge on the day but which was miscommunicated by officials at Longchamp.

Felt, it was the year before I started taking a serious interest in racing, but I've watched it on video. I had my own similar moment when going in large on Harchibald in the '05 Champion Hurdle.

Sandown,

As I said previously I do not now have the paperwork to back up my stats. I left the family home a few months ago, a lot of paperwork of various things and some of my clothing did not come with me, hope you can guess where that is leading...

Figgis is correct, it was a Mordin stat that got me thinking , not of previous performances, but the next race performance. He is correct with his 3 horses, but interestingly for me was Motivator also quickened in the derby. He turned out 4 weeks later and was beaten. Now this is thinking with hindsight, but my theory never really worked with 2yos as they I consider to be still immature on the whole as a rule, and tend to be quite excitable and early season 3yo races. Early season lasting upto when the 3yos meet their elders in group 1s, which is the eclipse I believe.

I've just been through the racing post in running notes for the last 25 years, couldn't read back any further. 3 winners had quickened in their previous race, Sakhee and Urban Sea, both, coincidently on the 21st of August, giving a 6-7 week rest. Only Subotica had quickened in her prep within the 5 week period. 1/25. Incidently, Magic Night quickened to beat Subotica in the following seasons Foy, before being hammered in the Arc.

I'm not trying to get into an argument or derail the thread in any way, just hoping to put up an alternative view as to finding the winner.

A few years earlier Suave Dancer and Dancing Brave received the quickened comment in September.

Looking back at Fabre's impressive Arc record there's no question that he knows what it takes and he can get them ready to peak on the day that matters. His winners were Rail Link, Hurricane Run, Sagamix, Peintre Celebre, Carnegie, Subotica and Trempolino. All colts and all 3yos apart from Subotica. On the negative side I'd say most of those winners won without producing form that could be compared with Treve's.

For me, out of those winners there is only Peintre Celebre who I'd say was capable of running Treve very close or beating her. To be fair, while looking a good horse beforehand Peintre Celebre hadn't obviously looked capable of putting up the performance he did in the Arc, so there's no saying that New Bay can't do something similar. Peintre Celebre never ran again so we don't know if he would've ever repeated that effort. If Treve is on form I do think that New Bay will have to be somewhere near as good as his best ever Arc winner, rather than the typical level of his winners.

On RPR's only Montjeu and Peintre Celebre would have beaten her.

*Since 1991

I always thought her first Arc win was a bit overrated anyway and said so at the time, not that it wasn't good, but it wasn't a very strong field, a few ran below form, the ground was soft and I always think the weight allowance distorts things. I said I would oppose her the following year when she met better horses at their peak on better ground and I did quite well out of that. The mistake I made was she was still my top rated in last year's Arc field but I didn't have a penny on.

I think last year's Arc form was decent but I agree that it wasn't exceptional and I was hoping to find something to beat it but I have seen nothing. Of course this is another year and Fabre's past winners don't figure here but I still think that regardless of his good record, none of those winners matched the form that Treve showed last year, with the exception of Peintre Celebre. It's all about opinions and others will disagree but none of those winners proved themselves special horses afterwards, in my view.

The recent comment by the owner of Golden Horn (GH) to back it with a 'run' has no doubt caused the drift over the last few days here; will he turn up at the 'Arc' even on suitable ground eg gd/firm, a rather unlikely event at Longchamp?; if so, will GH beat either Treve and/or New Bay given the impressive displays by these two 'Arc' candidates last weekend?; if not, how will it impact on GH value at stud compare to present?; if not, will the Champion Stakes at Ascot not be a more appropriate proposition at this stage of the season? Would you, if you were the owner of GH, go for the 'Arc' having witnessed the performances of Treve and New Bay last weekend? I certainly would not.

The owner always sounded negative about running in the Arc and so did Gosden until the York defeat. He then quickly mentioned the Arc as an option but I thought it was no more than an understandable defensive response to his horse getting beat for the first time. Now he has another win under his belt with the Irish Champion I doubt they'll be so keen to run in the Arc, maybe if it was fast ground but that seems unlikely. Just my guess and I could be wrong.

With Golden Horn I think it's very simple - if the ground is right then he'll run

Gosden is keen, he said after Leopardstown "it's a perfect three weeks to the Arc", and even added that Jack Hobbs would only go if it was soft as he "doesn't want Jack Hobbs being beaten again by Golden Horn"

That's a very interesting comment in itself, as it would be no surprise to see Jack Hobbs come on for his break, but in Gosden's mind there's a clear favourite between them (on good ground)

I also think unless Treve throws an uncharacteristic wobbly, then only Golden Horn, New Bay and Found have a chance of beating her, for different reasons obviously,

GH - has the form on good ground to match her best

NB - very likely to improve and be sharp as a tack

Found - Devastating there last year and promised a hugely improved performance lto and delivered - promises more.

Personally, I think GH will swerve the 'Arc' and head straight to Ascot instead - just too much to lose; I also believe Jack Hobbs (JH) has improved over the 'Arc' distance since the Derby and has a better chance of finishing on the podium at Longchamp than GH even on good going. However, I can understand why Gosden is unwilling to run his two charges in the same race again as JH is partially owned by his wife.