Ima, Detriot City lost his form fairly spectacularly having won 8 off the bounce and been a brilliant hurdler. He got beaten inexplicably in 2 races and was called a dog and everything. If I remember they even fitted him with blinkers.
Then, in the third race after his winning streak, approaching the last in a race, he had a heart attack and died.

Just because you cannot see pain that doesn't mean it isn't there and pain shows itself in various ways including hanging. Just because, in fact simply because, CC had shown signs of suffering before then there is even more reason for his reaction when put under pressre at Goodwood.
If you think CC hanging had absolutely no effect on the result I suggest you refer to the formbook. I don't think for one moment CC would have troubled Frankel but for you lot to only have the CC form to hang onto says everything.

Yeah of course Canford Cliffs hanging had an effect on the result brigust1 but only by the distance beaten due to running off a true line but the finishing places would obviously have still been the same. All I'm suggesting is the so called injury that was never shown to actually be an injury was an excuse to retire the horse with its reputation reasonably intact before it was totally destroyed via facing Frankel again.

Forget CC and Excelebration then and for the sake of example purposes say they never faced Frankel but the races he ran were the same, he'd have won the Greenham by 10L, Sussex Stakes by 7½L, QEll by 7½L and the Lockinge by 9L, all Gr1s and how often does that kind of thing happen? That alone makes him a top class horse.

I know your Detroit City example was just that, but a horse suffering a heart attack doesn't mean it has always had a heart problem DC had won 8 on the trot not long before his final race, including the Cesarewitch on the flat but the final 3 races he was beaten in that came after those 8 wins were Grd1 races like the Champion Hurdle, Aintree hurdle and so were no gimmes anyway and you can obviously ignore the last race even though it was only a Grd2.

Yes and in many of those other Gr1s Frankel would have been entered in them too so how would they have known where or when they could run to avoid him and not also make it look as if they weren't trying to?

I also didn't just give an isolated big distance Gr1 win, I gave you a series and all from the same horse but the fact you had to go back to the the 2003 Lockinge winner, 1981 winner and a 12f race and the 1970 1000 Guineas winner kind of gives the game away that it's not too often.........and I wasn't actually saying it never happens, just asking how often.

LOL.....I love how some on here just come out with a basically meaningless sweeping statement with nothing specific just because you don't agree with their point of view. Nothing is ever going to convince me that there was any physical injury that caused Frankel to beat CC the way he did and the main reason for that is that no actual injury was found. If that counts as not being able to see rational points of view then I am more than happy to plead guilty to it.

RH put CC away after the Sussex Stakes the year before as well. Once the horse's status had been established seemed they didn't want to take any risks.

It was one race that season brigust1 but it was still one race too many that they didn't fancy and who is to say they wouldn't have kept Canford Cliffs in training for another year had they won the Sussex that season? Hannon did it with Paco Boy and Coolmore have kept the likes of Yeats, Scorpion, Septimus, Powerscourt and Fame and Glory, all of those racing as 5YOs and older. What I do suspect is that almost every mile race Canford Cliffs was entered in after the Sussex Stakes, Frankel would have been in too. I dare say Hannon could have found a race for CC even after the defeat but as I've already said, they wouldn't be sure or not if Frankel would actually run in it too and if they went for unusual choices it would be obvious they were avoiding him.

Maybe they didn't retire CC after beating RVW (a 10-12f horse btw) in the Sussex or after beating Goldikova at RA due to the fact CC won those races. They were also more than keen to take on Frankel because they were confident they would win.

Lets see just who has the guts in the juddmonte brigust

So let me see if I can get this straight in my twisted mind brigust1.

Are you seriously trying to say now that the Hannon team knowingly ran an injured horse against Frankel? As for them being sporting, I've said why I think they took on Frankel and that reason was because they thought they would win. When a multi-classic winning trainer like Hannon tells the racing world that Canford Cliffs is the best he's trained in 40 years then going to look a bit daft dodging anything else as he will feel quite confident of beating them.

Maybe the Hannon team would have retired CC after his Sussex win if they had been unbeaten during the horse's 3YO career having included winning the Newmarket 2000gns in that but the horse only really showed an increased level of form after the Irish 2000 win. It then only ran again at RA in the St James's and then the Sussex and I'm assuming they must have thought it a bit daft to retire it once it had only just started to show and fulfil its true potential. Then if they were going to keep a horse in training as a 4YO it would seem a bit of a waste to the retire it after only 2 runs in the Lockinge and Queen Anne. Had they won the Sussex for a second time then the QEll would have probably been next, then possibly the Breeders' Cup and a repeat campaign of races as a 5YO if staying in training.

As for all odds being against CC taking on Frankel in the Sussex, CC was the bookies favourite when the betting first opened up and he was going into the race off the back of a cosy win over a great like Goldikova (which had gone off favourite in the Queen Anne too btw), whereas Frankel went into it having just scraped home at RA after a hard race and with the first signs over vulnerability and also off the back of two rides that Tom Queally was absolutely slaughtered for and being told the horse/ride/occasions were too big for him by many, as opposed to Richard Hughes being lauded as cool as a cucumber and the ultimate horseman.

If you want to talk about twisted minds though then how about this?

Canford Cliffs - kicks off his 3YO career in the Greenham, then goes for the 2000, Irish 2000, St James's and Sussex.

Frankel - kicks off his 3YO career in the Greenham, then goes for the 2000, St James's and Sussex.

Canford Cliffs - begins his 4YO career in the Lockinge, then runs in the Queen Anne and Sussex.

Frankel - begins his 4YO career in the Lockinge, then is expected to run in the in the Queen Anne and Sussex.

So their 3YO careers were identical but for the Irish 2000 and their 4YO careers are identical so far and look as if they will continue to be, and yet according to you Canford Cliffs connections are sporting and tell me that I "cannot recognise sportsmanship when it is staring me in the face" but for Frankel it's a case of the Cecil team clearly have no guts. What I can recognise when it's staring me in the face is complete double standards and how did Canford Cliffs get on when they stepped him up from a mile to 10f at RA for the POW the way you are saying Frankel has to do?

Brilliant? Are you kidding TT. The 'Ima' speaks total nonsense.

1) Hannon never claimed CC would stay 10f that is why they kept him to a mile.

2) CC was never being claimed, by anyone, as being the greatest horse ever.

Whereas Cecil has claimed repeatedly that Frankel will stay 10f but hasn't the courage to go with it. If Cecil claimed Frankel was only a miler then I, for one, wouldn't want him to run over 10f. But Cecil has repeatedly claimed he thinks Frankel will stay 10f and is suggesting he will step him up in trip at York over an extended 10f. At least that is his claim.

Why did you waste so much energy completely missing the point Ima?

Do you get it yet? Cecil claims regularly that Frankel will stay 10f. But he hasn't the guts to run him over it. I say 'Put up or shut up'.

It surprises me that someone can take so much time talking such utter b oll ox.

There comes a time when you have to realise the discussion is totally pointless and I have reached that time. Good luck to you.

9TH