I'm a big Enable fan and have been since the Oaks (I didn't back her then) and obviously it's all about opinions (that i respect) but i can't seen any negatives with her as far as the Arc is concerned.

Ground, trip, trainer, jockey, the field, draw ?

Several of the fancied ones may not even run anyway.

I agree she's short now, but there's a reason for it.

Hi Figgis,

I think Kempton basically only informed us what we needed to know, in that she's at least on the way and blown away a few cobwebs. She was heavily backed, well in at the weights and clearly the form horse by far so it would have been disappointing if she hadn't won.

She's going to improve significantly for the run of course, specially if John Gosdens assertion she was only 80/80% fit is correct although it's not necessarily a given she's made improvmement from 3 to 4 years.

Having said that, she's relatively lightly raced and of the 9 races, she's won 8 and not really been tested including 2 major races with colts.

She won last years Arc easily and although it wasn't the best field in the world, it was still a decent one and is this years any better ? Several of the entries may not even run anyway.

If she produces her Chantilly run at ParisLongchamp she will win in my opinion. It's difficult to pick holes in her form, class and style of running.

She could end up better than Dahlia, Treve and Oh So Sharp. If she does win, i think KA could keep her in training for a third attempt next year.

Good luck.

Could you really back Cracksman coming into a group 1 this late in the season after not running for 12 weeks?  Hopefully he will win as a prep for the champion stakes, if not, then he won't be back able there after coming into the race off a greater lay off.

Make that a 38.0
So a small cover interest for me.

I think that if Enable had run faster at Kempton, you'd be worrying that she might have done too much after a long break.As it is, providing all goes well between now and Paris, she is the deserving favourite and will come on for the run.

Looking at Cracksman's record, he has his top 3 RPR's over 10f and his best RPR over 12f is 8lbs behind his best RPR. He has to improve to beat Enable even if she is no better this year than last plus he also has to give her 3 lb. That's a hard task for him over 12f even if gets his preferred soft ground.

Sea of Class looked top class at York but on time and collateral form she has to improve 8lb to match Enable on her best RPR. She could do that but she is dependent on getting good or preferably faster ground.

Lah Ti Dar also looked top class at York but has a bit more to find than SOC on Enable. The SL looks ideal for her and whilst the Vermeille has a better record as a trial for the Arc, it is still 3 weeks before the Arc. As there is a first prize of £2.5 million for the Arc, it is a very tempting race for fillies and mares especially to go for.

Looking at Enable compared to Crystal Ocean, I was struck by how much she appeared to be a stronger horse than the colt and yet he, poor felloe, was trying to give her 8lb. I would think that he is still improving and he shouldn't be ruled out at the revised weights.

Whilst it seems that the French do not have much to offer, you never know what the trials may bring. Trainers like Fabre had bugsearly in the year and they are over that. We could see still see something improve significantly in the trials, but at this stage Enable is clearly the one to beat. 7/4 on the day would be acceptable but not A/P.

will come on for the run

I still don't understand why this phrase is used so much. Every year we hear this repeated about many horses who don't come on at all, Cracksman being a recent example. She might come on for the run, that's about all you can say.

Lah Ti Dar has just been confirmed for The Leger instead of The Vermeille. Can one infers The Arc is much less likely now? There is also the other factor of Cracksman and Enable from the same stable to consider.

do you think Kempton was proof positive that she's improved in real terms (in line with wfa)? Or do you think her 3yo form would be good enough anyway?

WFA improvement is assumed through the normal development of a thoroughbred - it is universally applied to all racehorses. It is something that has to be disproved not proved. Enable's Kempton run did not disprove it.

Would Crystal Ocean have beaten Enable at Kempton without the penalty he had to carry?

Meat loaf, no. Crystal Ocean has bottomed, just like Poets Word. Maybe stoute would have been better off doing a workforce and going straight to the arc from Ascot. Only time will tell, but CO just did not pick up at all at Kempton when the heat was turned on. Incidently, I rated enables run to be a middle of the range group 2 performance at Kempton..taking it literally, compared to CO' previous run, gives her about 2lengths in a group 1, but saying that, CO ran well below form.

I make the haggis filly as the one to beat

Shut Up.

dont know what you are describing here figgis but its not WFA improvement

The first sentence was A_T's description of the WFA scale. The next paragraph is what happens in the real world as horses develop with age.

when Bolt was 13 he ran 11 secs, when he was 19 he ran 10 secs. the majority of that improvement is what? real terms? or wfa?

what does "real terms" mean?

Shouldn't really need explaining to anyone but a novice as it's quite obvious, but it means when she won the Arc she was allowed 7lbs as that is the WFA scale's estimate of how much short of full maturity she was at that stage over that trip. A WFA scale that can only work using an estimated average of all horses at all levels of ability. A WFA scale that cannot possibly know if one horse is simply more mature than average, or make allowances for it.

I'm not actually aware of Enable's official rating but if the 128 is correct on this thread and if that was given for the Arc then in real terms Enable ran to 121, with a further 7lbs allowed for improvement she is 'expected' to make with age, but may not actually do in reality.

its how they develop with everything other than age

Not sure what this is on about. But if you think all racehorses naturally improve 7lbs from October to their 4yo season (irrelevant of any other improvement they may possibly make) and that some horses aren't simply a bit more mature than others that's up to you. I definitely don't believe that.

* she ran off ..... not was

I should have said a higher rating for Kempton than for any of her 3yo victories, not just the Arc win.

I've just had a look and they rated her a lowly 107 after her Oaks win,

Figgis,

Not after, but prior to.

Enables BHA rating before race time of the Epsom Oaks was 107, 3rd highest of the field.

After the win, she was upped 13 lb to 120 for the Irish Oaks, highest of the field.

To be honest, BHA, RPR, Timform whatever ratings are not set in stone anyway, i'm sure you would agree, but they are the only numerical system we have of comparing form lines and only 'guidance'. They're tried and tested over many years, but faulted, as is the WFA scale that BHA actually reviewed in 2017.

I think that sectionals are just as important to consider, but they relate to speed, not form.

Ah right, I'm looking at Raceform/Racing Post results and seems they must have some of the official ratings confused between before and after each race. For instance Kempton shows 128 but Epsom shows 107. As for ratings being influenced by opinion, that's how it should be as long as the opinion can be explained. I'm more of a speed figures man and despite what is sometimes inferred they are also influenced by opinion as to the allowances used. Any figures are only as good as whoever compiles them. I was going to ask how the official ratings have Crystal Ocean 122 for the King George result but up to 129 after Kempton, but they are probably mixed up again.

For reference Timeform have Enable on 134 and CO on 132

its how they develop with everything other than age

Not sure what this is on about. But if you think all racehorses naturally improve 7lbs from October to their 4yo season (irrelevant of any other improvement they may possibly make) and that some horses aren't simply a bit more mature than others that's up to you. I definitely don't believe that.

can you explain to me how a horse can make negative wfa improvement (as you have stated is possible)?