Epsom DERBY 2016

He should be odds against to run and short.

at least it happened now and not down at the start...hate it when that happens.

Bookies shortening Harzand right up incase it could be a rule 4. I think he will run.

confirmed runner

As is the case money is beginning to come in for UAR similar to previous years and Minding yesterday when connections have a tilt at the market.

I still have some concerns about the ground for WOD but he looks so well and he has the best form for me that I have gone back in for him to small money and had some on USAR who has scope for big improvement. Negatives for everything else and its a very competitive race so no more than hopeful, unlike yesterday.

UAR at 5.1 here - colossal money for this horse.

And Harzand at 9.

boom u fking beauty

Get in

unclepuncle 30 May 16 13:22
Plenty of rain forecast on Tuesday, then showers and drizzle Wednesday, and possibly the odd spot on Thursday too, and dull and cool all week so if it does go a bit softer it won't dry up that quickly.

With that in mind I have taken a chance on Harzand at 32 on here - probably be a non runner but will surely be about 10/1 if he runs.

Not too shabby, and my long range antepost fancy Idaho ran well too.

Well done winners, great shout Howellsy on your projected ratings

Cheers Bobbyjo but anti climax for me. I needed USAR to get up for a 32 grand tricast. It looked on for a few strides. I suppose I should have done some reverses. Oh well a profit on the race at least.

Well done winners.

And thanks kincsem - I suppose it would be a bit of a task - didn't think it through

Unlucky Howellsy. I backed the first three ante post and like a mug didn't do a tricast.

Jamie Spencer would've won on USAR ;-)

Thought the front two ran tremendous Arc trials there.....hopefully they'll square off a few more times this season and it'll take a good one to topple them if they both make it to France. Can't see Postponed given them weight in the King George.   

Thought class really came to the fore. 

I imagine Idaho will go globe trotting like Highland Reel now....early Cox Plate ap bet.

Not a good Derby for me.  My main bet Moonlight Magic finished last.
I place laid five horses and none placed which was some consolation.

The draw analysis of past years that suggested stall 10 has been destroyed.
Today they put 8 horses in the first stalls machine, and 8 in the second stalls machine (field was 16).
I think previously they would have put 10 in the first machine and 6 in the second.
That meant draw 8 (Idaho finished 3rd) was in the ideal spot today.

Not Moore's finest ride and even though I'm a fan of him in general I prefer the Piggott method of riding the Derby, being handy at Tattenham Corner. Admittedly Moore has ridden two Derby winners in similar style from the rear before in Workforce and Ruler of the World, but they ended up having very hard races and both horses put up pretty lifeless displays on their very next starts.

Probably Harzand was a worthy winner anyway as he was going away again at the finish but it's impossible to know how much the effort USAR put in to get so close took out of him. Possibly if he'd have been ridden closer early he would've used up just as much energy and still would've been wanting at the finish. Whatever the truth it was a nice run for such an inexperienced horse and I still like him for the future.

Well done Howellsy (hard luck on the tricast) and other backers.

Well the pricked foot hurt me more than Harzand
and wiped a grand off the profit

Good day for me apart from Maljaa




Joined: 23 Mar 03 | Topic/replies: 93 | Blogger: Killie Sunt's blog

Don't usually bet much AP other than Cheltenham, but have done 5 in the Derby and amazingly all are still in (for now)

All small stakes

Ulysses         28

Port Douglas    34

Massaat         29

Harzand         150

Algometer       170

I also did trebles fours and an accy on the following

Epsom Derby 2016
Harzand - 21


Epsom Dash
Maljaa -  11


Yorkshire Cup
Clever Cookie - 7
--    --    Won

Lockinge Stakes
Belardo   -  13
--    --    Won

Epsom Oaks 2016
So Mi Dar - 6 N/R

Moore's effort on USAR was deja vu - just like Dancing Brave and Shahrastani but Moore is better than Greville Starkey although yesterday 's ride on Minding and today's on USAR were not his best. WOD will be much better on fast ground whilst USAR should improve again although his action does look best suited to soft ground.

The winner is all over a stayer and looks like he too will be best on soft ground so perhaps both horses will meet again in the Arc.

Would Minding have won today? Don't know about that but I'd fancy her receiving weight from the colts over 10f.

Yep, well done winners - I share the Moonlight Magic pain (though I can't help wondering if some of the Bolger horses are sick given MM went out like a light and Turret Rocks ran deplorably yesterday).

The way Harzand saw it out when challenged by USAR and his obvious liking for a bit of cut make me wonder if they might look at St Leger later in the year?

I've never been so delighted to lose €101.41  It could have been a loss of €1,200. 
A large rum and coke for me

Jun 4, 2016 -- 11:09AM, Figgis wrote:

Not Moore's finest ride and even though I'm a fan of him in general I prefer the Piggott method of riding the Derby, being handy at Tattenham Corner. Admittedly Moore has ridden two Derby winners in similar style from the rear before in Workforce and Ruler of the World, but they ended up having very hard races and both horses put up pretty lifeless displays on their very next starts.Probably Harzand was a worthy winner anyway as he was going away again at the finish but it's impossible to know how much the effort USAR put in to get so close took out of him. Possibly if he'd have been ridden closer early he would've used up just as much energy and still would've been wanting at the finish. Whatever the truth it was a nice run for such an inexperienced horse and I still like him for the future.Well done Howellsy (hard luck on the tricast) and other backers.

Yes I thought a quick first two furlong to three furlongs followed by a visually slow next two was possibly the downfall of the second, they should have been closer, + horrific traffic problems at a crucial time.

I rate the race winner around 125 after today, not sure circumstances for the second have been ideal this year, I would never send a good horse to Chester(it seemed rushed), they all remain a suspect bunch in my eyes, but we have what we got, a cracking race none the less

Oh yes wd winners , happy days

too big a thread to trawl through the pages but a couple of weeks ago i got involved with it and settled on idaho . somebody then pointed out to me harzand and from then i was convinced so thank you to the poster whom made me remember the ballsax as i overlooked it .you saw it and i knew you were right .

Derby draw warning

I noticed this year, 2016, they loaded 8 in stall machine 1, and 8 in stall machine 2.  The horse in the best draw therefore was stall 8.

I'm posting this to warn people against backing stall 10 blindly.  Stall 10 produced a lot of winners in the past when the field was 15+ runners.
In recent years the Derby fields have been smaller (average for last seven years was 12 runners.)

There is a draw for stall places, but they have been freestyling it a bit recently as to where a drawn horse is placed.
For example, a horse draw 8 in a field of 12 could be in stall machine 1, or in stall machine 2.

In the two banks of stalls they have in recent years done this:
Stalls machine 1 / Stalls machine 2:
2015: 7+5 ..... 2014: 10+2 ..... 2013: 6+6 ..... 2012: 9 only ran ..... 2011: 6+7 ..... 2010: 10+2 ..... 2009: 10+2
I haven't looked at videos for 2008 and earlier.

This is some info on the famous stall 10 draw.  It produced many winners.  Many of the abysmal failures for stall 10 were big outsiders.

1986    WIN - STALL 10
1987    WIN - STALL 10
1988    Maksud 200/1 - 13th/14
1989    WIN - STALL 10
1990    WIN - STALL 10
1991    WIN - STALL 10
1992    Twist And Turn 12/1 - 5th/19
1993    Tenby 4/5 fav - 10th/16
1994    Ionio 50/1 - 11th/25
1995    Maralingo 200/1 -15th/15
1996    Portuguese Lil 500/1 20th/20
1997    Fahris 12/1 -6th/14
1998    Second Empire 5/1 - 8th/14
1999    Glamis 40/1 6th/18
2000    Beat Hollow 3/1jf - 3rd/16
2001    WIN - STALL 10
2002    Where Or When 66/1 - 6th/12
2003    Shield 20/1 - 10th/20
2004    Massif Centrale 100/1 - 11th/14
2005    Oratorio 8/1 - 10th/14
2006    WIN - STALL 10
2007    Archipenko 13/2 - 19th/19
2008    Casual Conquest - 3rd/17
2009    Fame And Glory - 2nd/12  (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=2 loaded)
2010    Stall 10, Buzzword 40/1 8th/12  (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=2 loaded)
2011    Stall 6, Memphis Tennessee 4th/13  (stall 1=6 loaded, stall 2=7 loaded)
2012    n/a  …. only 9 runners
2013    Stall 6, Galileo Rock 3rd/12  (stall 1=6 loaded, stall 2=6 loaded)
2014    Stall 10, Our Channell 50/1 13th/16  (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=6 loaded)
2015    Stall 7, Storm The Stars 3rd/12  (stall 1=7 loaded, stall 2=5 loaded)
2016    Stall 8, Idaho 3rd/16  (stall 1=8 loaded, stall 2=8 loaded)

its lordnoise on page ten ty

Glad if I've helped gpz (my Mum told me I'd be famous but I'm not sure she had this in mind ) Well done to Impos123 for starting what turned into an informative and even tempered thread - looking forward to more in the future.

I'm back from Epsom and Harzand did the business but I would of preferred an AoB runner to win as that would of netted me hundreds instead of enough to buy a family dosa meal.  The general consensus near the lonsdale stand is that if Ryoore had rode UAR with more confidence it would have won for sure, but instead he  wasted all the energy going wide and was given too much to do from the wilderness.    Moore yesterday the hero, today, the villan.  That's racing!

Just a lot of love and respect respect to the fella who backed Harzand at 125s and to kinscem for all the long tedious hours put into research for this race.

thanks again .

Jun 4, 2016 -- 12:27PM, kincsem wrote:

Derby draw warningI noticed this year, 2016, they loaded 8 in stall machine 1, and 8 in stall machine 2.  The horse in the best draw therefore was stall 8.I'm posting this to warn people against backing stall 10 blindly.  Stall 10 produced a lot of winners in the past when the field was 15+ runners.In recent years the Derby fields have been smaller (average for last seven years was 12 runners.)There is a draw for stall places, but they have been freestyling it a bit recently as to where a drawn horse is placed.For example, a horse draw 8 in a field of 12 could be in stall machine 1, or in stall machine 2.In the two banks of stalls they have in recent years done this:Stalls machine 1 / Stalls machine 2:2015: 7+5 ..... 2014: 10+2 ..... 2013: 6+6 ..... 2012: 9 only ran ..... 2011: 6+7 ..... 2010: 10+2 ..... 2009: 10+2I haven't looked at videos for 2008 and earlier.This is some info on the famous stall 10 draw.  It produced many winners.  Many of the abysmal failures for stall 10 were big outsiders.1986    WIN - STALL 101987    WIN - STALL 101988    Maksud 200/1 - 13th/141989    WIN - STALL 101990    WIN - STALL 101991    WIN - STALL 101992    Twist And Turn 12/1 - 5th/191993    Tenby 4/5 fav - 10th/161994    Ionio 50/1 - 11th/251995    Maralingo 200/1 -15th/151996    Portuguese Lil 500/1 20th/201997    Fahris 12/1 -6th/141998    Second Empire 5/1 - 8th/141999    Glamis 40/1 6th/182000    Beat Hollow 3/1jf - 3rd/162001    WIN - STALL 102002    Where Or When 66/1 - 6th/122003    Shield 20/1 - 10th/202004    Massif Centrale 100/1 - 11th/142005    Oratorio 8/1 - 10th/142006    WIN - STALL 102007    Archipenko 13/2 - 19th/192008    Casual Conquest - 3rd/172009    Fame And Glory - 2nd/12  (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=2 loaded)2010    Stall 10, Buzzword 40/1 8th/12  (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=2 loaded)2011    Stall 6, Memphis Tennessee 4th/13  (stall 1=6 loaded, stall 2=7 loaded)2012    n/a  …. only 9 runners2013    Stall 6, Galileo Rock 3rd/12  (stall 1=6 loaded, stall 2=6 loaded)2014    Stall 10, Our Channell 50/1 13th/16  (stall 1=10 loaded, stall 2=6 loaded)2015    Stall 7, Storm The Stars 3rd/12  (stall 1=7 loaded, stall 2=5 loaded)2016    Stall 8, Idaho 3rd/16  (stall 1=8 loaded, stall 2=8 loaded)

Kincsem,

What rationale do you attribute these statistical results to ?

ffs
When the 2016 Derby draw was announced someone on the forum said draw 1 has no chance (Moonlight Magic).
Moonlight Magic finished last in 2016 so he may have had a point.

I had it in my head for years that the draw has no effect in the Derby, so I decided to test his assertion.
After inputting the draw and finishing position of every runner from 1952 to 2015 into a spreadsheet I found no draw bias.

When reviewing the spreadsheet I noticed draw 10 and 20 combined produced 12 winners, but draw 11 and 21 combined produced zero winners.
All of the 9 wins from draw 10 are since starting stalls were introduced in the Derby in 1967. (there was always a draw for starting position in the tape start days)
Did the introduction of starting stall that gave runners drawn in stall 10 a massive advantage?

There were 9 wins from draw 10 in the 35 years from 1977 to 2013 from an average field of 16.5. (I don't have data for two years)
589 runners in those 35 years:  drawn 10 produced 9 winners from 35 runners (25.7%); the other stalls produced 26 winners from 554 runners (4.6%).

The reason draw 10 and 20 are different is they are the furthest right stall on the stalls machines.
When a horse exits stall 10 (and stall 20 if there are 20+ runners) he exits into the free space in from of his stall and in front of the wheels that transport the stalls i.e. he has a double space.
Horses out of stalls 10 (and 20) will naturally go for the free space i.e. go right, and the jockey will also be keen to go right as the first slight bend if on the right.
This movement probably does two things (1) give stalls 10 (and 20) an easier stalls exit (2) blocks off the horse in stall 11 (and 21).

Unfortunately, this "system" has stopped working as Derby field have got smaller, now averaging 12.
With only 12 runners they still need two stalls machines (each holds ten horses), but the course management (clerk of course, handlers) now tend to put half the field in one set of stall and half in another.
In other words they do not fill the stalls as in earlier years with stall 1 at the very left of the first stall machine filled first.

Of course the horse in stall 10 does not automatically win.
Among those drawn in stall 10 who failed were:
1988 Maksud 200/1
1993 Tenby 4/5 fav
1994 Ionio 50/1
1995 Maralingo 200/1
1996 Portuguese Lil 500/1
1999 Glamis 40/1
2002 Where Or When 66/1
2004 Massif Centrale 100/1

Stall 10: 9 winners from 35 runners 1977 to 2013.
Remove 1 winner (2013) as stall 10 had no advantage that year.
That leaves 8 winners from 35 years
Takeaway the above "no hopers" (sorry Tenby)
That leaves 8 winners from 27 years where the horse in stall 10 was a goer = 29.6% win rate

It might just be luck of the draw, a statistical anomaly, small numbers producing odd results.

(The 2016 Kentucky Derby had 20 starters:- 14 in stall machine 1; and 6 in stall machine 2.)
(The 2013 Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe had 17 starters:- 14 in stall machine 1; 3 in stall machine 2)

Does that answer your question?

ffs
When the 2016 Derby draw was announced someone on the forum said draw 1 has no chance (Moonlight Magic).
Moonlight Magic finished last in 2016 so he may have had a point.

sorry kinscem that was me.

surprised you didn't back harzand kinscem.  It had massive balance issues pre race, but all of those issues were offset by the rain.

Moonlight Magic backer who knew a long way out that my bet was toast. Harzand was a very commendable winner and well done to his clued-up faithful backers. Great thread.

No horse behind him looks like turning around that in the Irish version, given ground conditions to suit the winner. And Idaho is running for 2nd in the St Leger to me unless it is really fast, and Moonlight Magic is no St Jovite. 5 lenghts clear of the rest, with 4th and 5th good markers, looks like a rating in the mid-120’s to me, although I want to see the fractions. The 111 rated Port Douglas was after all the hare. Almost the entire field looked badly out-classed and as usual, well strung-out. At no time did I see Harzand’s head raised to gasp air under pressure; in fact it went lower on numerous occasions leading me to believe he was still able to take in huge breaths and won comfortably and convincingly. He’s all heart. World-class is Pat Smullen and Dermot Weld, and their staff, and Jim Reilly, Jim Bolger's gifted farrier. Among other things I am in the sport’s medicine field, and am highly impressed by Epsom’s first-class British veterinary support.

USAR had a dreadful positioning and finish in the straight that is analogous to Dancing Brave. I will find it hard having to read about a less critical analysis of Ryan Moore’s ride when compared to the humorous dog-barking Greville Starkey’s (RIP) in relation to being unlucky/responsibility, as I was a big fan of Greville Starkey. This is true though- RM- "He ran great but was a bit inexperienced." We are all wise nodders after the event.

This year’s 3yo colts are all about potential, and I think they might turn out quite good as a generation after all. There is one overriding question I do have - did Wings of Desire’s ‘centre of gravity’ have anything to do with his defeat as someone had intimated: cannot get my head around that tripe. I think breeding class let him down; USAR went by him as he was standing still. Pivotal will never sire a genuine blue- ribbon 12f Group 1 colt. Respectfully, pie in the sky unfortunately. Sea The Stars, Cape Cross — Urban Sea, half-brother to Galileo, there is no need for rocket science, we are witnessing an evolution of sires from sires.

For what it’s worth, I looked around and did some quick research on the etymology of ‘Harzand’, the name chosen by His Highness Prince Shah Karim Al Hussaini, Aga Khan IV. As the old saying goes, he has the name of a Derby winner. Humphrey Bogart? Biodynamic? You are having a laugh! Harzandi dialect is an ancient dialect of the  Old Azeri language; an extinct Iranian language that was once spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan, and is a southern Tati variety spoken by peoples around the primeval city of Takestan;  Takestan literally means 'place of vine-yards'.

Unbelievable as it might sound, I've spent the last hour fighting the cause of horses drawn 11 in the Derby.
I wanted to know why they did so badly.  I though it was the nasty horse in stall 10 that barged him or tripped him up.

I listed info on all the stall 11 runners from 1988 to 2010 into Microsoft Word:  Year; Horse; finish; number of starters; odds, in-running comments.
In those 23 years the usual comment was something like "always towards rear" or "held up".
In 2006 Dragon Dancer who "pressed leader"  was the exception and he finished second.
I looked at the 2006 race on Youtube. Dragon Dancer shoots to the front of his group straight out of the stalls, and is at the front as the left side group (stalls 1 to 10) come over to the right rail.

Looking at replays it looks like e.g. with 15 runners, the ten horses drawn 1 to 10 run straight as a group for a short distance and then move across to the right rail as a group.
A group of ten will probably move more quickly that a group of five, and certainly will if they want to cut across.
They cut off the smaller group of five from the other stalls machine, and the horse the group of ten ploughs into first is the stall 11 horse, who does the sensible thing and gives way.

Fwiw the intelligent Americans split the 20 runners in the 2016 Kentucky Derby like this:
they put 14 horses in the stalls machine on the inside rails
they put the other 6 horses in the outer stal0sl machine.

That way 14 horses will soon be on the rail and the small group of 6 can join them.

In the UK they would do it the other way
They would probably put the 6 horses in the stall near the rail
and have the other 14 horses in the outside stalls

The result would be (and is) a large group of horses meeting a small group of horses.

I thought they did odds or evens, one of the two first, then the other over here kincsem?

Good ride on US Army Ranger. Held up at the back off a very strong gallop, but beaten by a stronger stayer in the end. Would much rather have been where he was than where Cloth of Stars was. Would have had to have been better than his dad to have won from that close to the pace.

Yep given the conditions pace way too hot up front set by Port Douglas even Cloth Of Stars who looked to be travelling well coming into the straight went out like a light.
Harzand a worthy winner but US Army Ranger ran a stormer still showing signs of inexperience/greeness.
A wonderfull Derby to trade given all the price fluctuation/anomalies/arbs .

And in other news, Dosage guy's three against the field finished 8th, 9th & 12th.

Would be great if the front 3 meet again in the Irish Derby though obviously Harzand would only run if it's good or softer. If they did all show up then the media focus will be totally on Harzand and UAR and so I would actually be keen to back Idaho e/w if he is ignored by the market.

Irrespective of the Irish Derby I doubt they will aim Harzand at the Leger - given his connections much more likely to be saved for the Arc in the hope of soft ground.

Can't see any of them going for the King George and taking on Postponed unless the weather plays havoc with running plans. Maybe Wings Of Desire would go for the King George, though I expect the Eclipse will be his next target.

The pace was fast early on but as metro john said it slowed markedly afterwards and much better to be in eighth place turning into the straight where Harzand was than last of sixteen where US Army Ranger ended up. Irrespective of the pace of the race, from what I saw of USAR previously he struck me more as a galloper than a hold up and sprint type and I doubt such tactics would show him at his best. I wasn't happy about the ride but I can't say I'm convinced USAR would've won anyway and probably Harzand was a worthy winner on the day. However, as for the future it's not always as simple as that. Dr Devious was a worthy winner over St Jovite but the form was comprehensively turned around in Ireland. Light Shift was a worthy winner from Peeping Fawn in her Oaks but that form was also turned around. It depends on which horse is more likely to go on from here and my money would still be on USAR, unless the Coolmore factor comes into play too much and there is no value.

Come on Betfair - lets have an Irish Derby exchange market!

Harzand ran a gutsy race and was a deserved winner and UAR also ran very well considering his adverse draw and position at the off. Should they meet again in the Irish Derby I think I'd like UAR on my side even on good/good to soft going.

If Harzand meets Minding in the Arc - Found unlikely to go now I think post the defeat by Postponed/2nd string and UAR too inexperienced and babyish to be considered - it could be a very interesting race with Postponed in the field.

O/T

I thought the comments of the owner of Postponed when interviewed was unnecessary, unjustified and disrespectful to Cumani who does not rush his horses or over race them, and a brilliant trainer.

Madhu
I thought they did odds or evens, one of the two first, then the other over here kincsem?

As far as I know the stalls handlers fill the stalls odds first (e.g 1,3,5,7,9,11).  Then they get the 2,4,6,8,10,12 to go in the stalls.
What I am talking about is how many do they put in each of the two stalls machines.
Typically there is a number card in a slot above each stall.  I do not know who decides where to place these numbers, probably the starter.
If there are 12 runners and 20 stalls (two machines of 10) then someone decides where to put the 1 to 12 number cards.

For example, if there were twelve runners in the Derby they would put ten horses in the stalls nearest the inner rail and two in the far stalls.
This meant a bunch of ten crossing over the group of two and effectively forcing the two to take evasive action and shuffle back..
This imo gave the horse drawn 10 the right hand (outside) rail as the field made the slight right turn after about two furlongs.
As the field then crossed the course to take the long left turn down to Tattenham corner the horses drawn about 1 to 6 are still on the left or behind and get squeezed/trail.

In the last few years, starting with 2011, they don't fill the inner rail stalls with ten horses, 1 to 10.
Now If they have a field of 12 they put might 6 in the inner rail stall and 6 in the outside stalls.
For some reason in 2014 they went back to 10 in inner stalls, 2 in outer.  But in 2015 they went 7 inner, 5 outer.

Horses are herd animals and run in a group.
What I think would be the safest for the horses and jockeys, and fairest for punters would be ....
.... if you have a field of 12 (or any size) put 10 in the outside stalls near the outside rail of the course (draws 3 to 12), and two in the inner rail stalls (draws 1 and 2).
The horses are heading for the outside rail first.  Put the horses near that rail.

Jun 4, 2016 -- 6:26PM, kincsem wrote:

ffsWhen the 2016 Derby draw was announced someone on the forum said draw 1 has no chance (Moonlight Magic).Moonlight Magic finished last in 2016 so he may have had a point.I had it in my head for years that the draw has no effect in the Derby, so I decided to test his assertion.After inputting the draw and finishing position of every runner from 1952 to 2015 into a spreadsheet I found no draw bias.When reviewing the spreadsheet I noticed draw 10 and 20 combined produced 12 winners, but draw 11 and 21 combined produced zero winners.All of the 9 wins from draw 10 are since starting stalls were introduced in the Derby in 1967. (there was always a draw for starting position in the tape start days)Did the introduction of starting stall that gave runners drawn in stall 10 a massive advantage?There were 9 wins from draw 10 in the 35 years from 1977 to 2013 from an average field of 16.5. (I don't have data for two years)589 runners in those 35 years:  drawn 10 produced 9 winners from 35 runners (25.7%); the other stalls produced 26 winners from 554 runners (4.6%).The reason draw 10 and 20 are different is they are the furthest right stall on the stalls machines.When a horse exits stall 10 (and stall 20 if there are 20+ runners) he exits into the free space in from of his stall and in front of the wheels that transport the stalls i.e. he has a double space.Horses out of stalls 10 (and 20) will naturally go for the free space i.e. go right, and the jockey will also be keen to go right as the first slight bend if on the right.This movement probably does two things (1) give stalls 10 (and 20) an easier stalls exit (2) blocks off the horse in stall 11 (and 21).Unfortunately, this "system" has stopped working as Derby field have got smaller, now averaging 12. With only 12 runners they still need two stalls machines (each holds ten horses), but the course management (clerk of course, handlers) now tend to put half the field in one set of stall and half in another.In other words they do not fill the stalls as in earlier years with stall 1 at the very left of the first stall machine filled first.Of course the horse in stall 10 does not automatically win.Among those drawn in stall 10 who failed were:1988 Maksud 200/11993 Tenby 4/5 fav1994 Ionio 50/11995 Maralingo 200/11996 Portuguese Lil 500/11999 Glamis 40/12002 Where Or When 66/12004 Massif Centrale 100/1Stall 10: 9 winners from 35 runners 1977 to 2013.Remove 1 winner (2013) as stall 10 had no advantage that year.That leaves 8 winners from 35 yearsTakeaway the above "no hopers" (sorry Tenby)That leaves 8 winners from 27 years where the horse in stall 10 was a goer = 29.6% win rateIt might just be luck of the draw, a statistical anomaly, small numbers producing odd results.(The 2016 Kentucky Derby had 20 starters:- 14 in stall machine 1; and 6 in stall machine 2.)(The 2013 Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe had 17 starters:- 14 in stall machine 1; 3 in stall machine 2)Does that answer your question?

YES, that's a v good analysis, ty and well done !

Money Tree cost me thousands!! 04 Jun 16 11:25 Joined: 09 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 12,514 | Blogger: Money Tree cost me thousands!!'s blog
The only battle Harzand will be in is the battle to keep up with the pace
No way he will be winning.

2nd only to Ali as the greatest of all time

Howellsy 03 Jun 16 18:45 Joined: 17 Mar 03 | Topic/replies: 688 | Blogger: Howellsy's blog
For me, this Derby is all about projected improvement. I’ve done some arguably educated guesswork and come up with these theoretical projections:

122 US Army Ranger
120 Harzand
116 Idaho

awesome

Well done Howellsy

Racing Post Weekender

"Ulysses won’t yield" – Alistair Whitehouse [Ulysses]
"Magic Stars" – Paul Kealy [Moonlight Magic]
"Desire can rise to the Classic test judged on Dante performance" – Dave Edwards [Wings Of Desire]
"Moonlight breeding suggests he has the requited magic" – Chril Hill [ Moonlight Magic]
"Stamina doubts don’t tell full story over Massaat" – Steve Miller [Massaat]
"Epsom looks tailor-made for progressive Cloth Of Stars" – Stuart Redding Cloth Of Stars]
"Guineas form all points to Massaat" – Key Trends – Alistair Whitehouse Jones [Massaat]
"Harzand can thwart O’Brien ace and land Derby Prize" – Cathal Gahan [Harzand]
Around the training centres
"Burrows’ Massaat the forgotten Derby horse" – Lambourn: James Burn [Massaat]
"Ulysses might take plenty of stopping" – Newmarket: David Milnes [Ulysses]

Cheers guys - I'm fairly proud of myself in theory but as I've already acknowledged, I ultimately failed to perm all three in tricasts, which in hindsight seems a shocking decision being as I had the three clear. All I can say is I went for the 30k win on two perms rather than the 16k win on all 6 perms at half stakes. It was the plan all week and for most of the week I expected at least twice that dividend but Harzand and Idaho shortened considerably. One lives and learns but it's only natural to wonder whether I'll ever have that chance again in the great race. My eventual profit on the race was risible in view of the time (and insight as it turned out)involved.

10p combination f/c and tricast on Harzand, Idaho, Port Douglas and Us Army Ranger: I know it only paid £28 and £324 respectively, but not bad for a fun bet.

i find it very interesting that no one that i can see has questioned US Army Rangers attitude, considering moore was only really going for the full out drive just outside the furlong and just when he got upside the winner, he seemed to back out of it very quickly in my book...

i know the winner stayed on well and just kept finding but usar found little under the maximum drive and although moores ride has been critized and i can see why considering where he came from, he did however sit out of the early pace and settled lovely one off the rail, whereas the winner was rousted for an early position...

anyway i just thought he found little when he looked certain to pick the winner quite easily, it is to early to start calling him names but in my book that is twice he has found little off the bridle, the irish derby will tell us more

With Free Eagle, Fascinating Rock and now Harzand - Dermot Weld's first English

Group 1 winners (bar the Gold Cup) since 2003 when he was dominant worldwide - there's plenty of evidence of an uptick in stable form at these distances

I don't know if it's the horses, or the training, but it's a virtuous circle the Aga Khan had cottoned on a few years back already, and can only continue to improve.

I must admit I didn't think Harzand had the scope to improve being a Weld horse vs the AO'B ones. Hats off to the man, won't be caught again

Jun 6, 2016 -- 2:20PM, harry callaghan wrote:

i find it very interesting that no one that i can see has questioned US Army Rangers attitude, considering moore was only really going for the full out drive just outside the furlong and just when he got upside the winner, he seemed to back out of it very quickly in my book...i know the winner stayed on well and just kept finding but usar found little under the maximum drive and although moores ride has been critized and i can see why considering where he came from, he did however sit out of the early pace and settled lovely one off the rail, whereas the winner was rousted for an early position... anyway i just thought he found little when he looked certain to pick the winner quite easily, it is to early to start calling him names but in my book that is twice he has found little off the bridle, the irish derby will tell us more

For the last ¼ furlong , I can''t decide if Harzand accelerated away or if USAR just lugged left and just didnlt want to go by either .prob a bit f both.

I've read some pieces questioning USAR's attitude elsewhere but I can't agree on the evidence so far. Due to where Moore had him positioned he was 'off the bridle' for the last 3 furlongs and obviously found plenty as he ran quicker than everything else for that section of the race.

The winner found plenty and stays every yard and more - best horse on the day won simple as that.

Epsom kicks up violently in the last 170 yards.  Given Harzand had a much cleaner race than USAR from an energy-distribution perspective and he's a strong stayer who potentially has the Leger on his agenda, I don't think we should worry about USAR's attitude at the moment.  I'd argue he showed loads of bottle to get into a challenging position and chase the winner hard up the straight.  Yes he was cooked in the last 100 yds.  Who could blame him? 

Of course he could go either way from this race but for me he did nothing wrong at the finish on Saturday.  Tough crowd!

figgis how can you say that when he only hooked him to the outside just outside the 2 pole and he had sat out of the heat of the race until that point

Harry, watch it again, Moore rides him up a couple of horses backsides first just before the 3 pole, he pulls him wide shortly afterwards, well before the 2f pole.

I'd argue he showed loads of bottle to get into a challenging position and chase the winner hard up the straight.


I'd argue headmaster he is a classy colt and his class got him where he finished, nothing to do with with his bottle, bottle is what he did not show when lugging in behind the winner as soon as he got the eye ball

I've said this before but it still puzzles me that all horses that find little off the bridle (and I wouldn't even put USAR in that bracket anyway as his sectionals testify just the opposite) are classed as rogues or shirkers. Some horses just give their all immediately when asked for an effort then have nothing left later. It could even be argued that some who find more have been saving a bit for themselves.

i don't disagree he didn't get a perfect run figgis but the winner had slight problems of his own if you watch carefully...

don't get me wrong in all this... i am not saying he didn't get a perfect trip but i would argue it was by design judging by the stable mates pace up front and apart from like you say at the 3 pole, he did sit out of the heat of the battle before picking up nicely from the 2 pole but he did go 1.3 in running and i was on the winner and i thought he was going to pick him up easy but personally i didn't think he fancied it or he certainly didn't find in my book and if i had been on the ranger i would of been a tad disappointed

did you think he was going to pick him up figgis??

USAR went up in everyone's estimation after the Derby surely?! If anything, I thought he was the one to take from the race going forwards ...

i don't disagree sint i was just interested why his attitude wasn't questioned

I usually come up with an opinion after several viewings of a race but I'm finding this one hard. US Army Ranger ran a creditable race for a colt on just his third start after a small field trial where he effectively saw only one or two horses all race, whereas Harzand had a really good, competitive test against the high class Idaho. In theory USAR is entitled to improve more than Harzand with one start in hand but who knows how much the Derby takes out of a colt especially in a losing cause. Given even money the pair in a match race at the Curragh on good ground I'd go for Harzand. But it won't be a match race and I'll certainly be tempted to back USAR with any significant price discrepancy between the two.

Harry, after only a few furlongs I was muttering to myself wtf is Moore doing here. Yes I know the horse was very relaxed (a good thing in my view) but there's such a thing as a jockey being proactive instead of letting the race evolve around him, particularly in a race like the Derby and especially when you think your horse has more tactical speed than most of the opposition. At Tattenham Corner I honestly thought he had no chance from that position, partly because they's slowed right down midrace but mainly because I didn't see him as a late burst Dancing Brave type who also had the speed for a mile. Even when he started to pick up I thought he's probably be placed at best. I was happily surprised to see him make up so much ground so quickly though and, like you, when he got within touching distance of the winner I thought he was going to pass him.

Obviously it was disappointing that he didn't but I didn't see any shirking from him, it just looked to me that he had no more to give. I think Harzand would probably have won anyway so, unlike Dancing Brave, I'm not saying the ride necessarily cost him the race. Nonetheless it wasn't a good ride, I don't think he's a horse who's going to show his best coming with a late swooping run from the rear and I doubt he'll be ridden like that again. None of us know how any of them will come out of the race, maybe that effort took a lot out of USAR but at this stage I still see him as the better future prospect.

Hitting the s key instead of the r during that, * they'd slowed right down, * he'd probably be placed.

I inadvertently posted this on another topic-

I wonder what the late talented Greville Starkey would have to say on the matter of  US Army Ranger's running? There is no doubt in my mind that other than through inexperience on the horses part, he was never given the opportunity throw his dice truly; for Harzand everything was in his favour and the brilliant jockeymanship of his rider allowed him to shine on the day. I think both horses will prove they are genuinely top-class in time. I feel for Ryan Moore also because he alone will know if he blew it.

I think Moore was victim to the draw tbf. The draw bias at Epsom when there is a big field, particularly in the Derby, is borne out again and again. Harzand and Idaho had perfect draws.

Someone said Jamie Spencer would of won on the colt- that made me think of comparisons also,

Tbh, I don't think postponed would have anything to fear from this years derby field. A lot is said of Moores ride, but what about Atzeni on Ulysses...gave him a shocker trying to go up the inside, where he was blocked at least twice. Rose of Lancaster, back over 10f at Haydock would be his best option.

fair enough and i think your probably right he certainly looks the quicker horse, harzand is much more a grinding type who i doubt will get a decent pace to run at like that very often, harzand is a likeable horse who will probably need that ground to blunt others speed in future but i would of thought dermot weld will see that and have a pace maker wherever he goes, i'm still not entirely satisfied with the class of the race although the right horses came to the fore, i just thought the race collapsed a tad, that's why i wasn't overly hard on moore as they seemed to be very tired but can see your annoyance

the irish derby will be interesting on good ground howellsy i still can't figure this race out either but i'm pretty strong on the fact i didn't actually think harzand liked the track, he never looked that comfortable to me i could be wrong but he could be a lot better than the bare result although he doesn't look to have much pace

Harry, well you never know. When Lammtarra won his Derby I didn't think he'd be that year's Arc winner and I didn't think Sinndar was going to be as good as he showed later. Harzand might surprise us both.

i hope he does figgis and if i'm right about the track, he could be a whole lot better than the bare result, he just looks a grinder but back on more conventional track he might stride out better, we will see...i see he is 6/4 against 7/4 usar for the irish derby...i think on better ground usar will be a lot shorter and we may just see a bit of value on harzand come the day...much to ponder

it still sickens me that pentire wouldn't go by lammtarra, thought pentire was a certainty that day against that slow boat

if it's faster than good at The Curragh, I doubt Harzand will run.

Harzand, as has been mentioned elsewhere, was clearly the best horse on the day - when he had seen off Idaho and USAR came he found again for pressure - that's real class.

As for USAR getting a bad trip - imo, there are only a few golden rules about running 1m4 around Epsom,

1) Get settled up the hill
2) Keep cool around Tatt
3) Never go too soon, that hill is a killer.

Splitting hairs whether if say Idaho and USAR had swapped trips - if anything Idaho actually went too soon

Settle,travel,quicken and battle thats what you want from a racehorse.Harzand exhibited the last quality a little better on the day.

there are only a few golden rules about running 1m4 around Epsom,

1) Get settled up the hill
2) Keep cool around Tatt
3) Never go too soon, that hill is a killer.

They didn't work out for Dancing Brave.

Green Light came from the rear when winning the 12f handicap but the difference was the pace of that race compared to the Derby. Given the lower class, GL's run was at an even pace, he passed slowing horses and although visually it looked like a great turn of foot, it wasn't. The horse ran to a true even pace.

The Derby wasn't run any slower than the handicap to the straight but given that we are talking G1 class, the pace could have been stronger. Given that Harzand finished faster than Green Light by 1.54 secs(9l) over the final 2f, USAR needed to travel faster for further. He started making up ground once into the 3f straight, he covered the final 2f in 24.0 secs and just failed. From the path at TC to the line took USAR 41.0 secs. Harzand took 41.50 secs.At the path USAR was 0.75 behind Harzand at the line 0.25 secs.If we had Trakus figures we would know just how much further USAR travelled than Harzand as he came wider.On time he made up 0.5 secs (3lngth) but it looked more than that, more like 5/6 lngths. On balance, I would say that the evidence does NOT point to USAR shirking anything, he just gave his all but he was given a little too much to do. That's flat racing.

I agree with Figgis that Dancing Brave's loss should have been a win. At the path he was 1.5 secs (9 lngths) behind Sharastani and finished in 38.7 secs compared to 40.2 for Shahrastani. That was a badly misjudged ride, whereas this year it was more marginal.

Imo both horses require some cut to be seen at their best as does Idaho. On fast ground WOD might turn the form around but it won't happen unless the ground is good and they are all allowed to run.

Personally I don't take Idaho as one to follow from the race. I've read that he went too soon and could do even better in future but for me he was just another O'Brien horse that excelled above his normal level on Derby day, like At First Sight and others have done in the past. I'll be surprised if he cuts it at the top level.

In any future races between Harzand and UAR, all things being equal, I think UAR must be closer to Harzand than he was at Epsom before UAR delivers his challenge. Otherwise, the result will most likely be the same given Harzand's ability to see out the 12f trip so well. Nevertheless, both horses ran exceedingly well.

Idaho ran above my expectation in the Derby; this time at least I'd a run for my money unlike his previous race when he was too far back to mount a serious challenge to Moonlight Magic when favourite. Whether Idaho will benefit more being held up longer than at the Derby or up in trip I'm none the wiser - I'll still back either UAR or Harzand over Idaho in a 12f or 14f race in the future, all things being equal.

Just an observation, Dancing Brave never won going left handed.

DB had had a long hard season when going to America, also he apparently lost weight and suffered some dehydration on arrival, he ran well below his form. The Derby was obviously an ill judged ride where he performed with great credit under the circumstances. Despite having read it before many times the left handed observation is nothing more than coincidence, about as pertinent as saying he couldn't win when there was an 'n' in the month.

Smullen sounds keen to run and from Weld's comments I'd expect him to run on anything but fast ground so even just the quick side of good ought to be okay. As O'Brien is unlikely to be against good ground for his horse I'd expect the Curragh to do everything they can to aim for it being as close to good as they can get.

The fact remains.

If DB did have a problem handling LH courses it would be because he had a problem changing from a right lead to a left lead. I've never heard any Starkey, Eddery, Harwood comment on this; surely they would have done if had been so. Most horses, like humans, favour one leg or the other but they are trained to use both legs like top footballers are trained to use both feet. In fact, to sustain top speed it is essential that they change leads because they will tire otherwise. Often when said to find another gear they have changed leads.

When winning the Arc DB was mostly on the left lead in the home straight so he had no problem then even though it was a right handed track.

In an ideal world what Sandown said is true, but in the real world it doesn't bear out. Right-handed horses can be taught to corner left-handed effectively enough, but are weak when askede to switch to a left-lead off a right-handed corner.

It depends on why the horse has a preference - sometimes it's literally from the spine being shaped crookedly - that's something you can't unlearn !

There are lots of examples, but here is one that explains why some horses have to go one way or the other:

A horse's spine is curved clockwise (as you look from above, in the direction of travel), and the horse also has turned out nearside legs and a lot of nearside muscle (could be learned as a result of keeping straight) - so will in fact travel ok in a straight line, but only able to corner right-handed.

lots of horses have crooked spines, I'm sure humans do too .. but I can't say I've ever seen the variation in the human population in terms of conformational defects that are so regular in the thoroughbred world (maybe it's the closed book ..)

Figgis 07 Jun 16 12:19 Joined: 28 Sep 04 | Topic/replies: 5,957 | Blogger: Figgis's blog
Personally I don't take Idaho as one to follow from the race. I've read that he went too soon and could do even better in future but for me he was just another O'Brien horse that excelled above his normal level on Derby day, like At First Sight and others have done in the past. I'll be surprised if he cuts it at the top level.

I get the point you are making here Figgis but tbf to Idaho he has two pieces of form with Harzand now and on both occasions you can make reasonable arguments for him getting a little bit closer to him, Though Harzand is clearly the better horse.  At First Sight was an unconsidered 150/1 and never achieved anything remotely like Idaho did before the Derby and I doubt Idaho will decline in the same way too.

his temperament is a concern though as he sweated up badly which suggests a horse that is stressed . he  does have scope .the worry is he may become muleish

Sint, At First Sight was probably not the best comparison I could've made, but there were others like Masterofthehorse and Astrology. That is just from the O'Brien yard but there have been plenty of other placed horses in the Derby that didn't do much afterwards at Gp1 level. From what I've seen of Idaho he just doesn't have the gears to be a genuine Gp1 horse and producing him for a later effort is unlikely to change that. To be honest I don't rate it great Derby form anyway. It wasn't amongst the poorer Derbys but I would only rate it medium level. I think both the winner and second will need to improve to win the better all age races later this year. Maybe one of those who finished behind could surprise me but I don't hold out much hope for them.

Jun 8, 2016 -- 4:10PM, Figgis wrote:

Sint, At First Sight was probably not the best comparison I could've made, but there were others like Masterofthehorse and Astrology. That is just from the O'Brien yard but there have been plenty of other placed horses in the Derby that didn't do much afterwards at Gp1 level. From what I've seen of Idaho he just doesn't have the gears to be a genuine Gp1 horse and producing him for a later effort is unlikely to change that. To be honest I don't rate it great Derby form anyway. It wasn't amongst the poorer Derbys but I would only rate it medium level. I think both the winner and second will need to improve to win the better all age races later this year. Maybe one of those who finished behind could surprise me but I don't hold out much hope for them.

I'd agree with that sentiment - probably Harzand, simply because he found again for pressure, was the only one to make any real positive impression at the level you'd expect of these horses - i.e. in terms of the Eclipse / International / Champ Stakes / Arc

Seamie Heffernan put it best before the racing "I guess all our horses have impressed me at some time but also disappointed me" ...

Obv Harzand won't be dropping back in trip, and they'll all go at it again in the Irish Derby when we might learn more, but for the sake of the Arc only Harzand for me could make an impression, and I think this year's race is relatively open.

That said - I wouldn't rule out some of the AO'B runners making a good effort in weaker (US Turf etc..) races than the KG / Arc / 10f championship races

well below average derby. none of these will be winning Gr1 races against other generations