There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 52 comments are related to the topic:
"The only one we can rule out is BENEFICIENT'
"The only one we can rule out is BENEFICIENT'
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 52
|
By:
no one mentioned value before race,i just looked up its form after race to see if it had anything of interest.
|
|
By:
Anyone who says Benefficient had no chance is misguided. His official rating before the race was 136. Sous le Cieux rated 145 based on a win where he lay 2nd and led entering the straight. This race he was held up in the rear therefore negating any advantage he had. Of the others, through Lord Windemere and Dylan Ross, they were overated and should have been in the low 130's, but even so still only had 6 or 8lb in hand assuming the Benefficient rating was correct.
I know. I laid this thing instead of the 118 rated Burn and Turn and against my better judgement.Purely because of Jessica Harrington's comments in the RP and the betting led me. A bad error. |
|
By:
CUTH - I like your approach in that you're looking back on a freakish looking result to try and find a plausible explanation for the result. Good punters do this in my view, instead of ranting at a race in which they lost and moving onto the next one.
It's commendable for you to do so but I honestly believe you're barking up the wrong tree with the Beneficial angle - it just doesn't make sense fella, your assumption isn't borne out by the progeny results of that sire which are proven for a decade. The bigger lesson to take out of the result is when you have trainers like Tony Martin who's horses can show seemingly quite unreal form compared to previous efforts (someone made, quite rightly, a Ferdy Murphy comparison, earlier on in the thread) then it's best to treat any runner from his stable with caution & give them extra respect than that of their bare form. Brigust seem's to think he rated the race wrong beforehand and that Benefficient had a chance, he could be right, depends on his interpretation of form but in my book he wasn't a 50/1 shot, i.e if that race was run 50 times I wouldn't expect him to win even once - that's based on pure form again which subjective and just my take on his form going into the race in respect of the form of his rivals. However a smarter punter than myself yesterday (and I think I'm pretty clued up by and large) wouldn't have dismissed it so easily as I did pre race purely because of the trainer, I simply had forgotten about that one crucial angle, which in his case is far more important than bare form. On that basis maybe 50/1 was overpriced. Anyway shan't prattle on - as said, despite the knockers on this thread (me being one initially!) your last post is good, it's good to try and work out why things happened that you didn't expect but I think you have come up with the wrong angle. Either brigust has the correct one or mine has more credence - there isn't another explanation here. Best of luck anyway. |
|
By:
whatever way you look at it, it's safe to say that even connections didn't fancy it yesterday.
when you see the number of people in the winners enclosure afterwards, then you know that they didn't back it either, otherwise it would never have started as big as 50/1. |
|
By:
Well done to Kevin Blake of the Racing Post who put this one up
as his selection in the pre race forum at Leopardstown.I owe that man a drink.Kevin said the horse couldn't handle the ground the day it ran at Thurles,it was like glue.Note,another horse that ran that day and was pulled up because he couldn't cope with the ground was Salsify and he won the Hunters chase yesterday.By the way the owner of Benefficient did back the horse as he said so in the post race interview. |
|
By:
By the way the owner of Benefficient did back the horse as he said so in the post race interview.
What about the other 30 people he had with him? |
|
By:
snaff -- could be right,named himself after a drug induced film,but at least he offered some facts to back up niaevity,you usually get ,what a load of rubbish.
i think you'll find my forum name is a Terminology used in the racing fraternity, Hope this helps,YDC  |
|
By:
i think he was referring to me, OTS (the film reference being My Own Private Idaho, which of course i'm not named after at all!). he's a funny fellow alright
 |
|
By:
Funny rory connections never mentioned the ground as an excuse for its Thurles flop, when interviwed post race on Sunday, owner said horse wasn't right and had an infection, no mention of this infection after the Thurles race or before the Leopardstown race?.
Lets just put 2 and 2 together, the name beside the horses name AJ Martin is the only explanation anyone requires for the horses deplorable but deliberate run at Thurles. |
|
By:
apologies duncan,if that is the case,he didnt make himself very clear,although having read his comments on this thread,it appears to be a regular occurrence
|
|
By:
OTS, in his 23.29 post, he 'cleverly' spun it so that it seemed that you were agreeing with him that Beneficials are useless on soft grd and that your 'is this guy on drugs?' was aimed at me for disagreeing with that not him...or something like that
 . Glad that's clear! |
|
By:
duncan idaho get a life mate seriously
|
|
By:
what's the problem, pal?....OTS got confused, i have replied to his posts to clarify. cheers.
|