What I thought about it can be read on pages 255,256,257 of the paperback edition of Men and Horses I Have Known (publ 1924) by the Hon George Lambton.

I have not seen the horse in the flesh, but from comments from those who have , he may be a better performer than looker

Sandown, I certainly don't regard myself as an expert paddock watcher, and was only watching on tv. My only learning about paddock watching came from the often maligned Nick Mordin, which boiled down was basically keep it simple and go with your overall striking impression of how the horse looks. I did read another book by some Aussie bloke I forget the name of but it didn't leave me with any lasting insight that I could use.

From the tv screen I did think COT looked particularly well before the race and while he may not have been massively imposing he did stand out in that regard from the rest. Whereas on seeing Ancient Wisdom on screen my heart sank, along with my bet as it turned out

Justify = yes.

An interesting English Derby double is that Deep Impact, the sire of the 2023 winner, Auguste Rodin, and Justify, the sire
of the 2024 winner, were both disqualified from a race during their racing careers when a prohibited substance was found.

Deep Impact was disqualified after finishing 3rd in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (ipratropium).
Justify was disqualified after winning the Santa Anita Derby (scopolamine).


Deep Impact's Wiki page says he tested positive (does not mention disqualification).  A Japanese website says Deep Impact "did not finish".
The Los Angeles Superior Court judge ordered the California Horse Racing Board stewards to disqualify Justify from the 2018 Santa Anita Derby victory.

Sandown, I think when you start out following racing it's only natural to believe a large amount of what you hear. Even if a lot of it turns out to be balls, you are listening to people with more experience than yourself. As the years go by you learn to still keep an open mind about what you hear but not to take it as read until you've seen it. The same goes with your own preconceptions.

For instance, on watching the Guineas I assumed that I'd overrated Rosallion and Notable Speech, being on the inexperienced side, had probably just put up an average Guineas winning performance. However, when analysing the results I didn't let that preconception stop me from rating him the best winner for years. Which is still to be proved of course.

Before the Derby when the tv cameras went into the paddock I expected to see the same fairly ordinary looking COT and was surprised that he took the eye as much as he did. Not that that necessarily meant he was going to run well. Similarly with Ancient Wisdom, both Appleby (who often talks up his runners before they run terribly) and Buick had said that the horse had come on a lot from the Dante. I expected to see that evidenced in the paddock and what I saw went against my preconceptions.

I admit that when analysing times on a racecard it can still be a battle. As whether you're analysing form without times or with them the whole exercise has to be based on what horses have done before (preconceptions) and what improvement you think they might be capable of (which may include having to take on board trainer opinion). It gets easier with more experience but not in every case.

Figgis

Confirmation bias is a problem for all of us. We most definitely see and hear what we want to see and hear. The same with conformation bias. We will upgrade and downgrade chances on what we see in the paddock and on the way to post. And  I accept that I can make mistakes  especially in this area. Sometimes I may be proved right but mostly I have been proved wrong. For example, horses with daisy cutting actions can run well on soft ground. Horses with large feet may run well on soft, but there again that isn't always true.

The same is true with market movements. Drifters win and heavily backed horses lose.

The ONLY safe proven method is to rely on the proven metrics of times, weight, comparatives, ratings.

I was in the States for the 2 weeks prior to Epsom, and I had no strong views prior about the English and French Derbies until I returned. Like everyone else, I had no strong opinions about COT getting back to his best other than it was a guess either way. I figured that if he was back to his best it would have been reflected in the market. It wasn't. I had AF as the most likely winner on my figures without COT, so a cover bet on COT was the only way I could go but with only the minimum of confidence, with something also on a longshot.

As for Los Vegas, on his Derby performance, my opinion is that he will never beat COT at 10f,12f,14f. In fact, I don't see him beating AF either. He is not fast enough. Maybe at 16f and on soft ground he will improve to win a G1.

In France on Sunday, I had really good figures on Look De Vega and Fast Tracker. The paddock played no part , the paddock judges were not an influence, and I was 50% right. Fast Tracker over-raced and LDV put up a performance that for me was better than COT, and that is saying something. We have 2 very good horses for the season. LDV will no doubt be trained for the Arc whilst COT may have other targets. Either way, they are both capable of more imo.

[i]Personally I thought COT was very well supported considering the Guineas run.[/i]

Its a moot point, but I thought that if COT was back to his 2yr best, for certain, then his price would have been more like 3.0 or shorter.

As to the French winners on Sunday. I don't have Look De Vega's win quite as high as COT's Derby win but he is the one I'd want to follow for future events. His stamina for 12f is still unproven, but if this was still the old days where the French would often send their best to the Irish Derby I'd be wanting to back him against COT. I also reckon Aventure would've won our Oaks fairly comfortably. For me Economics is still marginally the best 3yo middle distance runner I've seen this season.

He certainly didn't, but that still depends on whether you think he performed equally in both races. I don't.

I just watched the race again. The injection of pace from the back (3rd last) in the last 4 furlongs was very impressive; 3rd last to 3rd sluicing thro' on the inside next to the rails just infront of Ambiente Friendly - he was ridden like a stayer. Ambiente Friendly was going the best, with Havlin mottionless onboard.

Ambiente Friendly gave chase, and managed to get within a length of City Of Troy; the latter went again and had 3 lengths spare at the line.

Ylang Ylang        OAKS Sunk without trace

I didn't back Ylang Ylang, Must Try Harder.

Apologies, you backed Secret Satire that finished 10th in the Oaks 4 places behind Ylang Ylang. I don't need to try harder with you.

The bickering between 'Try My Best' and 'Figgis' is infantile, disruptive and unnecessary on this platform. Take a step back, please!

Anytime you want a tipping contest six bags let me know.