Nice of Side Glance to boost the Frankel Form this morning in Australia

It's a shame that threads tend to descend into farce when the Aussies get involved. BJT keeps coming out with this 3 furlong burst as if it's a weakness. I'll show you some more comparisons shall I?

In the Queen Anne Excelebration tried to go with him as he quickened. The respective splits over the last 4 furlongs.

Frankel       11.26, 10.58, 11.04, 14.01
Excelebration 11.38, 11.12, 11.68, 14.70

From furlongs 4 to 1 Frankel went a Group 1 sprinters pace. Excelebration tried to match it and we can see what happened to him. How do we know this was a sprinter's pace? This is Black Caviar's splits for the last 4 furlongs from the Saturday on the same course.

Black Caviar  11.66, 11.40, 10.84, 13.70

We can see what a sub 11 second furlong did to her whereas Frankel backed it up with another furlong bordering on it.

You really do have to get away from this 3 furlong burst thing being a weakness dear boy. Oh and you're wrong about that being the only way he could win btw. Before they'd completely worked out the best way to ride him they were using that burst a lot earlier. You may have seen the 2000 Guineas

You want to use an injured sprinter to compare with Frankel to prove some sort of a point?  Certainly doesn't help your cause.

1.  BC has run a sub 10 second split.
2.  BCs win in the lightning
Black Caviar (2)    13.63 (3)    10.37 (1)    10.21 (1)    10.17 (1)    11.05 (1)    55.42

Hands and heels....

I know you like to base everything on 1 run but if you want to suggest that Frankel in some way runs faster than BC, at least do your research.
Not sure why you wish to bring her up though, she is irrelevant to this topic.


When I mention 3 furlongs, you may note that I am referring to him keeping his momentum up for 3 furlongs and if the jockey has to ask him to go before the 3f pole, he slows to a walk across the line as a spent force.  His splits show without question that when he is asked to go he is going slower than under his own steam and that the jockey is merely trying to keep as much speed as possible.  Certainly isn't a "burst".

In regards to your QA attempt at an example, I think you find Excelebration wasn't getting the benefit of slipstreaming his brother.

And I never said it was a bad thing.  What I said, was that it is proven in every race he had, that he didn't have anything left in the tank, let alone the extra lengths that everybody suggested he would have won by if he didn't pull up on the line.

If, and it's a big if, if you guys believe the Queen Anne was the greatest racecourse performance by some way by any racehorse in the last 65 years and in the history of this great sport you have either memory loss or my sympathy. Because that is exactly what the ratings guys are saying. Not that Frankel's overall career was brilliant, not that he beat top class horses easily, not that his sectionals were exceptional. They are saying that without any doubt the Queen Anne was the greatest racecourse performance by any racehorse anywhere in the world in the last 65 years.

I would partly agree with you there brigust1
if you look at Side Glance, he was consistently around 115...then Frankel beat him 11 1/4 lengths...
in all other races Excelebration was much closer to Frankel, which I feel is the true difference between them
so 11 1/4 lengths better than 115 should be his rating, whatever that comes to
impressive performance though

no Frankel in the race, I am sure Excelebration would have beaten Side Glance more than a neck, unless he ran below form

still it is all interpretation, no certainties in this game, well not for me anyway

putting ratings systems together it is normal to assume the 2nd has run to his previous rating
but that might not have been so on this occasion

Firstly, as has been pointed out to you before, nobody knows when that injury actually happened during the race. Maybe Nolan's easing down just before the line was when he felt something. Whatever the case anyone trying to claim she was injured for the whole 6 furlongs of that race is severely clutching at straws.

Secondly, those splits weren't meant to show Frankel can run faster than Black Caviar. They were an example of him comparing to a Group 1 sprinter. I could have used the 5 furlong Group 1 immediately after the Queen Anne which compare equally as well. Plus showing an example of a race she won on what is clearly a fast 6 furlongs means nothing in this particular comparison. It would be like me digging out one of our 6 furlong winners at Chester and comparing that time with Black Caviar at Ascot.

Thirdly, you are making no sense with this under his own steam stuff. The last furlong of a race is invariably slower than the 2 furlongs before it even though jockey's are usually applying maximum pressure. You do realise that just because a jockey isn't pushing the ears off something it doesn't mean he's not asking don't you? For example the 11.26 to 10.58 acceleration at a time when Queally appeared to be motionless at Ascot.

I've told you this before but the aim of any jockey is to try and keep a horse's sectionals as even as possible to ensure as much energy is kept for the latter part of the race as possible. I've compared it with a world record attempt in athletics previously where a pacemaker is asked to maintain a steady string of laps at similar pace to give the best possible chance of breaking a record time. What Frankel had was an acceleration that other horses aren't capable of producing whilst being able to maintain it for longer than they can sustain their maximum speed. That's not based on one race, that was shown over and over and over again.

Of course he was feeling it in the final furlong because he was doing something exceptional for a mile horse during the 3 furlongs before that. That's what killed the opposition. They could have held onto him longer and achieved better times but why do that when they knew he was going to blow the opposition away from the 3 pole? The aim of any race, whether human or equine, is to make it hurt as much as possible for your rivals for as long as possible. That doesn't mean that you're not going to be going through a considerable amount of pain yourself whilst doing so.

The other thing about this horse is that a lot of people were convinced he could win the Arc. That's a a winning miler running 3/8 of mile races at sprinters pace. It was remarkable a horse of that profile was even winning over 10 furlongs.

That's a classic misunderstanding of horses Marcce. Some horses are free running and need no encouragement whatsoever. A bit like Rakti I suppose. Frankel was like that.
That is why Queally never had to push him. Personally I thought he would find nothing off the bridle and the two clear occasions were in the SJP and the Champion. For that reason I think he would never win an average Arc, the same people probably think CDA would win the Arc. In this instance I agree with his handlers that they knew this fact and never even entered him.
I do believe however that the 'greatest racehorse ever' should have run in the best races. I think you would find none of the races he won would be in any trainers or jockeys list of races they would most like to win.

I'm not saying Henry was wrong in aiming him at races he knew he could win. After all he got Kris to win 14 out of 16 without attempting even 10f.
And it wasn't Henry who created all of the hype. He knew how to play the press.

For those that argue against Frankels Ascot QA performance, the below is copied from Timeform. Note the part in bold font.

The unbeaten Frankel increased his Timeform rating to an unparalleled 147 with a scintillating victory in the Queen Anne Stakes on day one of Royal Ascot 2012. Simon Rowlands explains the historical significance and some of the processes involved.

Frankel's performance in winning the Queen Anne Stakes on the opening day of Royal Ascot 2012 by 11 lengths rightly had the scribes reaching for superlatives. As racing fans, we can all take a few moments out to appreciate such a display, instinctively, for what it was: equine magnificence.

Yet, when the dust has settled, Frankel will be judged by history not just for the emotions he provoked and for the memories he gave us, but for his achievements in cold, hard terms.

How, then, do those achievements stack up, in clinical, rather than in visceral, terms?

Timeform was founded in 1948 by Phil Bull, a man who prided himself in dispassionate analysis. That mindset has informed every person who has worked at the company since.

Recent generations have been acutely aware of the legacy of Bull's philosophy, and of the defining horses and performances over what is more than 60 years now.

On the Flat, Sea-Bird (born in 1962, rated 145), Brigadier Gerard (born in 1968, rated 144) and Tudor Minstrel (born in 1944, rated 144) have towered over those who have come since. Until Frankel came along, no horse had breached the 140 rating barrier since the 1970s.

So, it was not done lightly when Frankel was rated 143 at the end of his three-year-old career. And it is not done lightly now that he, on 147, is rated higher than any horse in Timeform's history.

Frankel's 147 rating is not simply a response to just one remarkable performance, either. It might have been plausible to have rated him that highly on his facile win in the Lockinge Stakes at Newbury in May as well, but caution was exercised given the race's position early in the season.

Frankel has now won 11 races out of 11, the last six of them Group 1s by a combined winning margin of 31 and three-quarter lengths. That is an astonishing record even when judged against the greats of yesteryear.

Frankel may have taken his form to a different level at Royal Ascot on Tuesday, but it was not as if the effort came out of the blue, in other words.

An explanation of the mechanics of Timeform's assessment of this year's Queen Anne Stakes is, of course, required.

One important factor is the poundage for distance beaten in use. Margins between horses have, since 1997, been conversions of the time lapses between those horses at the finish. These conversions are made by the racecourse Judge on a fixed scale according to the official going.

It is, therefore, necessary first to come up with a pounds per second figure, into which the lengths per second allowance is divided, in order to come up with pounds per length.

The official conversion in use for the first two races at Royal Ascot on Tuesday was 5.5, in accordance with the official description of the going as "good to soft". Later races were calculated at 6 lengths per second, in line with an overdue change in the going to "good".

It follows that Frankel's 11 lengths winning margin was equivalent, more or less, to 2 seconds. If his race had taken place later on the card, that winning margin would have been returned as 12 lengths instead.

It is also folly to treat poundage allowances the same for a given race distance irrespective of the time of the race. Frankel ran the straight mile in 1 min 37.85 sec - not far off a course record - and it follows that each unit time converted into a length will have been greater than in a race run more slowly.

Both of these factors correctly give rise to a pounds-per-length allowance that is higher than under conventional circumstances.

Also, and very much to the point, Timeform categorically does not favour the dubious convention of rating races "around" cherry-picked horses. As we have explained often before, such "yardstick" handicapping is unscientific and far too subjective.

Instead, a race is tackled statistically according to historical measures (race standards) and information about the achievements of the individual runners themselves (prior-rating standards).

Both of these tried-and-trusted measures place Frankel's Queen Anne win well into the 140s on the Timeform scale. Race standards could justify the figure being as high as 148, prior-rating standards make it a few pounds less.

"Dispassionate analysis" points to a figure in the mid- to high-140s, in other words.

Frankel's 147 rating actually has his old foe Excelebration running a good few lengths below his previous form. It has the third and fourth, Side Glance and Indomito, within 2 lb of their previous form. And it has every other horse that contested the race below its best by between 4 and 34 lb.

We will leave it to others to explain the reasoning behind their own assessments. But it should be pointed out that the BHA - which works with a lower and rigid poundage allowance, and which favours yardstick handicapping - operates at a level that is, at least now, several pounds below Timeform's.

There have been plenty of performances over the decades since 1948 in which the heart has said "yes" but the head has said "no". This is not one of them.

Frankel's stunning Queen Anne Stakes win is emphatically one in which the heart and head can provide the same answer: "Yes. Oh, yes indeed!"

I'm afraid BJT you have just shown your complete ignorance and lack of understanding of sectionals but you wouldn't be the first Aussie on here to do that as megsy also believe horses run faster in the final furlong thatn they do at any other furlong in their races. The clue is if that have already run several furlongs prior to the final one then that will take it's toll time wise during the final furlong and/or horses get eased when crossing the line.

Add to that your total lack of race reading skills too and if a horse is held up in last at the 4f pole around 6L off the pace as Frankel was in the Juddmonte, but hits the front between 2-3f out then he will have had to have started to quicken in order to do that and funnily enough that's exactly what he did, hence the fastest furlong time of that race. You don't have to be arms flailing whip windmill style to ask a horse to initially quicken and once they do the rest of the race is spent asking them to maintain that to the line as best they can. If you seriously believe Frankel was tying up and emptying as he won the Juddmonte then I'm genuinely embarrassed for you.

Same thing in the QA and here jockeys start to ride a finish between 2-3f out which is why I asked you how long are they supposed to ride them from over there when you embarrassed yourself by claiming Frankel only had 3f in him.

Andrew Timeform is correct but they are disparate in thier attempts to justify their actions.

Of course Frankel won a lot of races. He kept to the same distance against the same horses. So it is whether Timeform's ratings are correct whether or not Frankel has achieved anything. They are writing it themselves ffs. If they had calculated Exelebrstion or CDA or Farhh by 7lbs lower then their calculations would be wrong.
To put it clearer. CDA couldn't beat Goldikova so if the rated CDA the same as Goldikova their figures would be wrong. Excelebration couldn't beat Wise Dan or Zoffany so if they rated him through them their figures would be wrong. Farhh couldn't beat Moonlight Cloud and by virtually dead heating with CDA in the Champion Stakes, CDA virtually dead heating with St Nicholas Abbey in Meydan and Farhh virtually dead heating with St Nic in the Juddmonte it is clear there is nothing between Farhh and St Nicholas Abbey so if the rated him  the same as St Nicholas Abbey then their figures would be wrong again. 

I've already shown on here the calculations where Brigadier Gerard is 6lbs in front of Frankel on 153 using their own calculations but when I asked them to explain they couldn't.

Frankel is obviously an exceptional horse and I'm pleased you feel that way about him but when the next 'real' champion comes along I am afraid both you and Timeform will have a lot of explaining to do.

And I am sorry to say Andrew that anyone who thinks the greatest racehorse performance in turf history is a race where the 2nd horse never ran to form, as agreed by Timeform, the 3rd horse couldn't win a European Group 1 or a handicap of 102, the 4th horse's last win was in Dresden where he narrowly beat a horse whose last win was in an Exeter Handicap Hurdle and the 5th and 6th horses were the pacemakers. I'm sorry Andrew that doesn't cut it.

It's not me making noises about jockeys asking horses Brigust, that was the Aussie. Whatever the characteristics of a horse they react to commands from the jockey. Frankel didn't suddenly go from running comfortable 11.5 second furlongs to 10.5 second furlongs because he suddenly felt like it. Also found nothing in the Champion? He found a length and a half having run on ground he wasn't liking. I've told you what happened in the SJP. The facts are there but you suddenly seem to go blind to facts when they don't suit your agenda. You've accused others of making assumptions about various things and then come out with stuff like Excelebration could well have been unfit and that's a more likely explanation than what's there in black and white. Do you ever at any point stop to think just how many contradictions you continually come up with?

You keep going on about races a jockey or trainer would want to win. Firstly, you consider the Derby a great race. I don't. Yes it's prestigious and it's traditional but the simple fact is it's very rare that top class horses win it these days and you certainly don't get top class fields. It's also the case that probably 3 quarters of the horses running in it in any particular year don't act on the track. You keep going on about looking beyond the hype but you seem incapable of doing that with races. What was a great race in 1971 isn't necessarily the be all and end all now.

Secondly and I keep telling you this, that blinkered attitude suggests a 6 furlong horse could never be considered the best horse of all time because it could never win the "right" races. It's just a silly argument. If a sprinter was to come out and beat proven 135 rated horses by 10 lengths over and over it's the best horse of all time and not a Derby or Arc win will be seen.

Thirdly, Frankel as a miler won all the races trainers of a top class miler would like to win. Frankel as a mile and a quarter horse won races trainers and jockeys of 10 furlong horses would like to win. Indeed the trainer of Brigadier Gerard wanted to win them.

could lady cecil have got a win out of frankel

Marcce can you tell me how many miler's on the same course, on the same going, with the same aim in mind you have calculations to compare with? By keep referring to sprinters you don't understand racing. Sprinters go from start to finish at a speed they can sustain for the distance. They won't suddenly quicken off such a sustained fast pace the way a miler can because he or she is quickening off a much slower pace. A pace designed to prevail over a longer trip.

So if you cannot tell me how many miler's running on the same course, on the same going with the same aim in mind your comments are meaningless.

Carrot1960, I could have got a win out of Frankel ..... training and riding it

Brigust unfortunately for you I understand racing far more than you ever will.

I presume you're referring to the sectionals above seeing as you've suddenly gone off on a tangent? Those times don't refer to a sudden quick furlong. It shows that for a sustained 3 furlongs Frankel was able to maintain a pace which compares with specialist sprinters i.e 5 and 6 furlong horses. You also act as if the first 2 or 3 furlongs of a mile race don't take any energy out of a horse. They don't walk those first couple of furlongs you know?

You see I really do question things Brigust. I don't rely on the rather primitive methods you seem to still rely on. When Frankel was slaughtering rivals in finishing times that appeared to be well within their comfort zones I wanted to know how that could continually happen. A little research showed me exactly why it was happening. Unfortunately, you're still having to search for a wide array of ever more outlandish explanations which in your mind alone seem to make some kind of sense.  Well I'm sorry but no they don't.

You stick to your pounds and lengths calculations old fella. I fear the wide range of information available nowadays is a little beyond you.

Marcce stop waffling and answer the question. Put up or shut up.

How many miler's on the same course, on the same going with the same aim in mind do you have sectionals to compare Frankel with?

Not a hard question for someone so clued up.

andrew so could John McCririck,the question is   what about lady cecil. the  wheels have come firmly off the cecil bandwagon and i doubt if khalid abdullah will be long following the rest in departing warren place

Stepping into the shoes of probably the best English trainer ever was never going to be easy, but I suspect that KA will be at Warren Place for many more years to come.

No waffling. You know that sectionals have been used for certain races over the past couple of years. You know the information is limited. Now hit me with your big point.

No big point Marcce. That was my point. I'll leave it at that. G'night.

brigust1 05 Nov 13 09:52 
Ima AOB sent Istabraq to Cheltenham not knowing how he was going to run and he was pulled up.

Goodness me you not only get confused but you show a complete lack of knowledge about horses and horse racing. Where have you been all of your life?

Where did I say RVW would have beaten STS? You made that one up.

Paco Boy was beaten easily by RVW in the Sussex and by nothing at all by Goldikova in the Queen Anne.

I never said RVW would have beaten Canford Cliffs. You made that one up as well.........

Very puzzling response if you don't mind me saying brigust1 and you seem to have confused yourself a little here on several points I have made and even several that I haven't, so I'll do my best to clarify for you.

I mentioned Istabraq somewhat flippantly in response to BJT's embarrassing comment that Aidan O'Brien has a one size fits all training policy for his horses and made the point of showing he trains juveniles to win top races, sprinters to win Gr1s and Ascot Gold Cup winners as well as a Champion Hurdle winner, so to say he trains that range otf horses all one way it sheer stupidity. It might be more the case with someone like Dandy Nicholls who seems to specialise in sprinters or Jack Berry with his 2YOs but certainly no a trainer with such a range of horses and winners.

So that was my only reason for mentioning Istabraq on the one size fits all point and nothing to do with the separate but equally daft claim that O'Brien sends out unfit horses to the big meetings. For the record Istabraq was pulled up in its final race during the CH after jumping only 2 flights and was found to have pulled muscles in its back, so even if it was sent there lacking race fitness you would still expect it to only blow up in the latter stages of the race and get further than 2 hurdles.

As for some of your confusion on other points, you ask:

Where did I say RVW would have beaten STS? You made that one up.

Paco Boy was beaten easily by RVW in the Sussex and by nothing at all by Goldikova in the Queen Anne.

I never said RVW would have beaten Canford Cliffs. You made that one up as well.


but all I can say to that is I have no idea what you are on about there as I attributed no such things to you and certainly didn't make anything up anywhere? What I sometimes do to counter claims made by others is ask rhetorical questions as a method of showing I disagree with points and my main point regarding RvW is he wasn't really a miler and I stand by that.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to respond to your points as it's hard to defend something I haven't actually said but I'll repeat, RvW wasn't a miler but could beat lesser horses at that trip but he actually stole the Sussex anyway by making it a true test, kicked early and stole a march on Paco Boy, tactics he tried on Canford Cliffs too but wasn't able to repeat. Now my seasoning for that was that CC was a better horse than PB, proving my very point about beating the lesser horses but not the very best.

I've also said on numerous occasions that you can just look at winning margins and take them at face value, as a neck in a driving finish isn't the same as a neck when coasting clear and taking the final part of a race easy. So whilst I'm not saying Goldikova was eased in the QA, she was in front a long time for around 2f out and was then just kept up to her work with the jockey not really going all out on her and looked to be idling a little too in isolation until PB came out of the pack.

THERE....IS....NO....SPOOOOON  05 Nov 13 12:09 

Odd description of ImanOracle

He can give definitive outcome results between horses anywhere on the planet regardless of whether they are in work

or long retired.

Brigust, how could you ?

Oops, haven't I told you before it's never good for a bloke to be premature as I'm sure you will know from personal experience. I've also told you before that I don't need to be psychic to know Usian Bolt would beat you in a race nor that Frankel would have beaten Black Caviar at 7f to a mile or that Black Caviar wouldn't have held on at Royal Ascot if that race had been more than 6f.

It's called using common sense mate, you should give it a try one day.

Bear in mind that's official sectional times. There's a large number of unofficial figures from time experts telling the same story.

If Black Caviar lays claim to being the world's best sprinter

she was conspicuous by her absence for Breeders Cup Sprint

and of course the same can be said of Frankel

no appearance in the Arc, no appearance in the Breeders Classic or even the Breeders mile

I believe great horses have to perform great deeds

lbs per length or sectional timings over inferior opposition don't do it for me

I found Frankels owners arrogant, lacking in vision, lacking in ambition

and downright wimps...thy did not deserve a horse of his merit

ps

I do not include HRC in this, he was just the trainer, he gave the owners what they wanted

and a magnificent job he did

why would balack caviar need to have run at the breeders for less money than at home.

ask yourself, why has australian bred horses been crown worlds best sprinter the last 10 years +

the breeders is full of drugged up horses.


i see imagoose is now an expert in sectional splits, when splits were never part of english racing until last year


keep up the charade ima goose

a real champion can be in a position during a race with no possibility of winning, but draws on all its energy and determination to do the impossible.

a real champion can be stuck 4 wide with no cover, serverly checked rounding for home and still rattle home to win.

the list goes on.

Frankel tucks away behind bullet train, goes to sleep whilst his challenger namely excelerbration does donkey work with no cover, bullet train moves to one side, frankels woken up and the race is over.

the latter is boring racing and not a real champion. champion he maybe, but not a real champion

It is about the dream megsy, not just money

as you have said in your last post

horses are who not quite the best can be carefully placed

but those who claim to be best....they have to be prepared to take on everybody

and you are right about boring megsy

we knew Frankel was faster than Excelebration...did we need to see it repeated umpteen times

after his win in the Champion...they should have tagged on the Breeders Classic

sure another race at the end of a long season, he has to travel, he has to go on the dirt, he may get a bad draw

so what...that is what dreams are made of...

he was quick enough to go the pace, bring him to the outside, unleash him in the home straight

unfortunately just a dream

I'm afraid I disagree here Ebul. I don't think Frankel should have gone to the Breeders Cup. Even some of the Yanks avoid the BC. The same as Meydan. They are specialist races and can provide a good culmination to a season. In the BC if you win it counts but if you lose it doesn't. How is that ffs?
I also don't think Frankel should have gone for the Arc. Isn't it funny how Sir Henry is the God of all he surveys. The best trainer possibly ever in the history of the turf.Yet his decision not to run Frankel over 12 furlongs was irrelevant. If Sir Henry thought Frankel would stay 12 furlongs he would have run him over 12 furlongs. If there people are saying Frankel would have won the Arc then what they are saying is that Sir Henry was either a coward, selfish or doesn't know his horses. Well that is rubbish. He never ran Frankel over 12f because he never believed the horse stayed.


Henry ran Kris 16 times but never over 10f though he was entered in the Eclipse as a 4 year old. He never ran.

Kris (14 from 16) was the best miler in GB and Irish River was the best miler in France but Sir Henry never left the UK to take on the best 3 year old in France, Irish River (10 from 12)in the Marois or Moulin. Instead he stayed at home to run in the Challenge Stakes (Group 2) at Newmarket.

Henry ran Twice Over 33 times but never once over 12 furlongs.
Twice Over won over 10 furlongs as a 2 year old five years ago ffs.
Twice Over ran 26 times over 10 furlongs and never under 8 furlongs.

All three horses were owned by K Abdullah. So either the instructions were from their connections or Henry showed repeatedly a complete lack of ambition and endeavour.

I know about Oh So Sharp etc but maybe their owners decided where the horses ran?

I think it is a great pity that the whole nation loves a champion yet the opportunity was ducked. Notwithstanding that the media did his job for him and they have a great deal to answer for. In their defence Sir Henry's illness may have had a measure of restraint added.

I do believe however that the 'greatest racehorse ever'

I understand your intent, Brigust so i'm not including you.......

the greatest racehorse ever

,always gives me a chuckle.

Not at whichever horse is being described, at the retards who make statements like that....and they're oblivious!

Brigust, Spare yourself from trying to enlighten ImanOracle....HE KNOWS IT ALLLLLLLLL

Frankel a great Miler,a good 10f horse,never tried over 12f,would have gone well in the Breeders cup Mile(I think he could have won it),but they were always worried the horse may bolt too early against better sorts methinks.

Looked a wonderful horse. Like many these days, stolen from the masses by the greedy.

your logic is impeccable as usual brigust1

but you see...if you are going to make a claim to be best ever

then we have the right to expect him to take a risk

racing is international nowadays, I feel he had to leave our shores at least once

Nov 5, 2013 -- 11:25PM, ebulGery wrote:

If Black Caviar lays claim to being the world's best sprintershe was conspicuous by her absence for Breeders Cup Sprintand of course the same can be said of Frankelno appearance in the Arc, no appearance in the Breeders Classic or even the Breeders mileI believe great horses have to perform great deedslbs per length or sectional timings over inferior opposition don't do it for meI found Frankels owners arrogant, lacking in vision, lacking in ambitionand downright wimps...thy did not deserve a horse of his meritpsI do not include HRC in this, he was just the trainer, he gave the owners what they wantedand a magnificent job he did

As megsy has already stated, the BC sits alongside the Spring Carnival in Australia where all the money is.  There was zero reason to give up the Spring Carnival and all its riches to race in the US.
Moody didn't even want to run in the UK due to the campaign she had, the the owners insisted, and he went along and did the best he could.
For those of you who miss out on the BC superstar, then so be it.  Pity on you.  The horse was something special, and unlikely to see another win 25/25 for a long long time.  Does that make her the best ever?  Fcuk no.  But she did win under severe duress, way out of her comfort zone, in an injury riddled career and was never beaten.  Did things Frankel could only dream of, was asked questions Frankel would never dream of bothering attempting.  Frankel was an exciting horse, and an exceptional horse.  But that was it.
Yes, Frankel is one of the most valuable studs on the planet.  But that doesn't make a racehorse.  Nothing inspiring ever came from it.  Never beat anything, never stepped outside his comfort zone, and was never asked any questions.  Was babied from day one, and had his brother do the bullying work for him to ease into his races.

Exceptional horse, but we see 2-3 of him a decade.  That indeed makes him a special horse but nowhere near the best ever.
The mere fact that people are still trying to find formlines to boost him to prove his worth is testament to just how many questions there are about him.
Real champions don't create questions, they create WOW.....

The big difference between BC and Frankel, is Frankel to travel internationally had to travel 10% the distance BC had to to race interstate.  The distance she travelled to compete in some of her races would have covered Europe 3 times over, yet Frankel couldn't, and wouldn't travel more than a few hundred kilometres for a race.  Wouldn't travel anything other than 8 furlongs until any threat was gone.
I think one of the biggest reasons he didn't, is because he didn't have to.  The media machine dictated that he didn't have to do anything special.  Horses trying to prove themselves take on the best races, win at all costs, but Frankel was given a luxury ride where he was already touted as the best in history, so he merely had to enter a race, then claim that everybody was dodging him. 
Yes his owners are loaded, and he is worth a fcuking mint at stud, but nobody in their right mind can suggest that the best horse in the history of the world would possibly choose to target the lowest races on the card to maximise his chances, without the knowledge that he was dodging something.
You may all have the opinion that he "would have", "could have", "should have" won against anybody, there are real reasons why he didn't get that chance.  His trainer placed him well, and minimised the chances of him being beaten, by targetting the worst races on the cards, and then when certain horses retired, he stepped up for a chance at a small % rise in stud fee, and fell in, due to illegal, fraudulent team riding, that everybody was happy to turn a blind eye to.

due to illegal, fraudulent team riding,

Bllowjob, if you're referring to pacemakers, I must disagree with you.

It seems an accepted part of the racing landscape over there. Not for us but that doesn't make it "wrong"...or illegal.

Not referring to pacemakers.  Referring to a horse sent to slipstream his brother at all costs, and if all else fails pressure the rival until you can't run any more.

Which is, of course completely against the BHA rules of racing.

I cannot disagree with you over Frankel BJT

His careful placed itinerary, always beautifully prepared to do the job, I feel was an exercise

in understatement

What has caused the problems is the overstatements people have made about him.

I don't mind your average race goer believing he was the best ever...I would not take that away from them

It is experts who should no better, including Timeform who have told us, that we have to believe he was the best ever

that leaves a sour taste in my mouth

He was a great miler, certainly the best since Brigadier Gerard, maybe better. He may have been the same over 10f

but 2 races was never going to be enough, they could even have popped him in the Irish Champion stakes to make it look better

Still it is all opinion..people can believe or not believe he was the best ever

I would just like those who ought to know better to stop pulling the wool over our eyes

that we have to believe he was the best ever

classic

ever

adverb

1.at any time.


2.
at all times; always.

LOL.....every time you post mugsy all you really succeed in doing is confirming what a total plank you really are. So don't dare though go on about the length of this post when the whole of it has been spent correcting your usual b0ll0cks.

megsy 05 Nov 13 08:10 
i wish you lot would make up your mind

your country men go on the australian thread posting a average group 3 horse in side glance wins the group 1 mckinnon.

so i then take it, frankel was overrated???.....


Right so Frankel was beating Side Glance in head bobbing photo finishes was he? Please stop typing or do you not really care that every time you do so you make yourself look a complete tool?

How far do you reckon Frankel would have won the Mackinnon by using Side Glance as a benchmark? I'm guessing about 10L easing down!

megsy 06 Nov 13 00:57 
why would balack caviar need to have run at the breeders for less money than at home.

ask yourself, why has australian bred horses been crown worlds best sprinter the last 10 years +

the breeders is full of drugged up horses.

i see imagoose is now an expert in sectional splits, when splits were never part of english racing until last year Laugh

keep up the charade ima goose

Well in answer to your first question, she wouldn't because the BC Sprint is run in November, whereas around the same time over there you have the Patinack and when Back Caviar last won it she received the equivalent of £393,790.85 yet that same year's BC Sprint winner received the equivalent of £519,230.77, so there is actually a world outside of Australia some of you might be surprised to find and you don't have the biggest or best of everything on the planet and so your prize money point is a dud one.

The answer to your next question regarding Aussie horses being crowned best sprinters in the world I've told you numerous times before (but you have failed to retain the answer yet again) is the criteria of races regarding how that is decided. So when Aussie horses come over here and get spanked by our sprinters but then win a series of races elsewhere where only a small number of countries tend to have runners in those other races, our ones that spank yours won't be part of that.

The next quote coming from an Aussie is just classic:

the breeders is full of drugged up horses.

It's irrelevant how long sectionals have been used in the UK mugsy because unlike you I actually understand them and if they are in use for so long in Australia then what's your excuse for laughably denying the final furlong time in races is usually slower that the couple or so before? Your childlike logic was quite cute in one way by thinking they quicken up in the latter stages of races but by the final furlong the exertions of that and/or easing when winnings means the final furlong time is slower.

Although why it's supposed to matter whether sectionals are used in the UK for me to understand them is beyond me as metres aren't used in UK racing either but I still get what the are, just as I know regarding Aussie racing that there's a race called the Mackinnon Stakes and not the mckinnon as you claim. Even if they are newly used here though, some of us pick things up quickly so not everyone is like you and needs forever to try to work them out in the same way as you have had years of schooling but still don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" so don't (mis)judge everyone else by your own (low) standards.

Oh and speaking of that very same Mackinnon race, when the claim was made that Excelebration might have been unfit in the QA and I said it was still good enough to have a recent Aussie Gr1 behind I was actually on about Side Glance, the clue was in the word recent!

As for me needing to try to make Frankel's and Excelebration's look good I'll let the very same Side Glance do that for me. Beaten out of sight on occasions by both horses yet still goes over there and wins one of your top Gr1 races.

Please let me know though if you need more lessons on anything else, whether it be UK racing, Aussie racing or just basic English and I'm always willing to help those a little less fortunate than myself.

BJT 05 Nov 13 16:31 
And I never said it was a bad thing.  What I said, was that it is proven in every race he had, that he didn't have anything left in the tank, let alone the extra lengths that everybody suggested he would have won by if he didn't pull up on the line.

Oh what you meant it as a compliment then and not as disparaging in any way?

Well anyway like I've said previously, if you think Frankel had nothing left at the end of all of his races then find a new hobby as racing clearly isn't for you, but there's very little credit to your point anyway and would it make Frankel a better horse if he came off the bridle at halfway in his races and then had to be ridden to reduce his times in the following furlongs rather than travel easily for three-quarters of the race and then win them with a shake of the reins?

Why can't you bitter Aussies just accept you thought you once had the best horse in the world and we told you that you didn't and you would see that at Royal Ascot, whilst all the time we were hearing that BC would win by a street. Even Peter Moody accepted the obvious after seeing Frankel's QA run and that was actually before BC had the chance to showcase herself too.

Whilst I would have loved to see Frankel at Longchamp, it was never going to happen, HRC had basically mapped out his program before he won the Lockinge last year. He was already a very sick man (watch the you-tube interviews) and by the time the QA arrived, he probably knew he was on borrowed time and a trip to Paris wasn't on the cards, irrespective of later winning the Juddmonte so impressively. He was never a keen fan of French racing anyway and i'm having to think when he last had a runner in the Arc. Yes, the it's the most prestigious race in Europe, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best every year. Brigadier Gerard never even ran in it and he had more of a 12f profile than Frankel did. I don't subscribe to the theory that HRC thought he wouldn't stay 12f (at least on good going), look at the VR of his Juddmonte win, he could have gone around again ! Would he have won the Arc ? ...... who knows and it's not even debatable.

Nor do I believe in the 'wrapped in cotton wool' numptys on here who wouldn't know the difference between Longchamp and Lingfield. Whilst the remain unbeaten record must obviously have been a 'goal' in the last year, if it was the 'be all and end all', they would not have raced in the champion; it was a race Frankel could easily have lost, even in the morning, connections stated he was not a certain runner.

and a trip to Paris wasn't on the cards, irrespective of later winning the Juddmonte so impressively.

I was obviously referring to Frankel, not HRC

Hi Andrew.

Unlike you I agree with Henry and don't think Frankel should have gone to the Arc or the Breeder's Cup. Had he done so, in my opinion, I think he would have won the latter but I also think he would never have won the former. Henry is no mug and he never even entered him and KA's experience with Dancing Brave would rule out the BC anyway. Anyone thinking otherwise is clutching at straws in a herculean way.

I know you are a huge Frankel fan Andrew and I think that is great but Frankel's 4 year old career may, as you have said, been plotted since before the Lockinge but that doesn't make it right for the racing enthusiast. But that is their and your loss. Nothing can change that but it will mar his success every time he is mentioned now the hype is dying down. I think I have put up a good reason why Brigadier Gerard was potentially better than Frankel working from just memory, newspaper cuttings and the form book. Imagine if I had Frankel's 'hype' as well. Frankel wouldn't have stood a chance. 

By doing what they did, KA's team, they have potentially deprived a whole generation from celebrating possibly the greatest horse ever.

You Andrew,and many other may not mind that and I fully understand the joy he has given but I think you and they are being selfish, maybe too strong a word. Perfectly happy to stand by knowing the facts are being distorted but not caring a jot. They just want to tell everyone they meet that 'they were there' when this, that or the other happened. It doesn't matter if it is an extrapolation of the facts because the people they are telling will know no better. I think it is sad. But human nature I suppose. A bit like collecting a prize but knowing the losers were cheated.


You may say it doesn't make any difference but when the next champion comes along the normal route of Guineas, Derby and Arc you will have to stand up and be counted. I know what that is like to be vilified and criticised and called all sorts of names and I think my case is more proven. And when this new champion comes along I'm certain his credentials will be compared with Sea Bird 11 and Dancing Brave and not Frankel. Mark my words.

Frankel's 4 year old career may, as you have said, been plotted since before the Lockinge but that doesn't make it right for the racing enthusiast.

Hi Brigust, I totally agree with the above, but racing enthusiasts don't pay the bills. I would have walked to Longchamp on crutches if Frankel had ran in the Arc, and if he had, winning or otherwise, it may have answered a lot of questions posed by threads such as this one; but as much as I admire the exploits of the greats BG, Mill Reef, Sea Bird II et all, I really do think future champions will be gauged using Frankel as a 'datum'. Even if they are, it certainly wouldn't devalue the pre-mentioned in my eyes ..... and I suspect those of racing enthusiasts as well.

Andrew maybe if another miler comes along but not if a Derby/Arc winner comes along. These are no direct comparisons. There are few tangible methods to use. At least BG won at 12f so a cross comparison can be made there. But I don't even think Frankel achieved at a mile what BG achieved anyway. And in the future there will be more hype and pretty in depth analysis.

You see the pundits and press are not interested because who wants to confess the past was better? No-one. How many times have you seen the pundits directly comparing Frankel openly with BG for example or even Sea Bird 11? I could give you umpteen reasons why BG was better than Frankel yet none were mentioned by the press or TV pundits. The nearest it got was when Jim McGrath compared what BG won throughout his career and how much STS won by winning the Arc.

I wrote a booklet over 100 pages listing all the important points including the 10 possible areas for comparison between the two. From prize money to form lines.

In the list of ten Frankel never won even a single category. So if another great horse comes along Frankel will be fighting alone without all the hype and that will be interesting then. The thing is he should have won at least 50% but he never even won one. From all the copies I have given to the people in the know I have only had positive responses mainly because it is all fact and fully supported. Nothing hypothetical. No 'I think' or 'in my opinion' only bare, hard facts. Many of which I have posted on here at one time and another. 

Henry actually wrote to me saying he would love to see a copy so I sent him one. I hope it made him smile.

Don't forget Roberto ,he was a cracker on his day.

He was one his day, Dunlaying. A bit like Harbinger I suppose.

Still if you compare the Juddmonte Roberto won in 1972 with the one Frankel won in 2012 then Roberto wins by 8 lengths. Not bad eh? The pundits won't want to discuss that though.

I take it you mean by the time. I watched the last two furlongs or so earlier ,of Robert that is, and I was trying to remember if it was a track record . If it was did The Brigadier "do the clock" in second place?

They knocked nearly 2 seconds off the track record on good ground. On C4 they said they had timed the distance between 2nd and 3rd and wasn't the 10 lengths recorded it was 17 lengths. Willie was always off the bridle on Gold Rod and Lester never missed Rheingold.
It is still an enigma.

Of course I mean by time, weight carried (Brigadier Gerard gave Roberto more weight than he would have today at wfa) and race distance. The race was 1m 2f 100yds then and now it is 1m 2f and 88yards.

I have to admit I have never been a time person but they are the facts.

Still if you compare the Juddmonte Roberto won in 1972 with the one Frankel won in 2012 then Roberto wins by 8 lengths. Not bad eh? The pundits won't want to discuss that though.

Sorry guys, here are the facts

The 3 year old Roberto carried 8-11 and the time was 2.07.10

The 4 year old Frankel carried 9-5 and the time was 2.06.59

Apologies Brigust, I posted without reading yours. I wasn't aware the distance had been changed

Thar's OK Andrew. The race was a tenth of a furlong longer at 1m 2f 110 yards. The equates to approx 1.35 seconds or 8 lengths. BG carried 2lb more than Frankel and was at a 3lb disadvantage compared with today's wfa. Even allowing for Frankel being 0.11 sec faster on good to firm ground I think you will find there is only one winner.

And I don't know if you read Joe Mercer's account of the race recently where BG was a sick horse after the race it was still pretty good. Personally I think 6 races in 12 weeks was too much with the Eclipse on heavy going, then 2 weeks later the King George in near record time on rain softened ground then the Juddmonte 2 weeks and 3 days later.

I think top horses were given a much harder schedule then now brigust1

but yes his overall record is much better than Frankel's

Frankel's 5 races a season, at 3 and 4, well it is a cake walk by comparison

My argument is where we disagree Brigust1...because I feel Frankel had to go abroad at least once

and he had a choice of races

that will always be my biggest disappointment with Frankel

His schedule was masterpiece in placement and training...but I feel utterly soulless

it is not what champions are made of

and lets face it, who outside this country thinks he was that great, they never saw him

Plus, I don't know if you saw it but on RUK the Clerk of the Course went around the course to explain how and when they had carried out their extensive course management works and they moved the inside rail in the back straight for 2009 and added 10 metres on the inside to race on new ground with a sandy based construction more freer draining than the traditional racing surface. The home straight surface after the drainage works is dead level, dead flat and is traditional rye grass with red fescue added. Some people, especially this year, say the surface now is too fast with little grass cover.
And, of course, Sea the Stars broke the course record the first year it opened. A few course record went that week if I remember correctly.

Side Glance, the subject of this thread, totally demolished by Frankel

can go half way round the world and bring a group race back to this country

Frankel never left our shores, they would not even take him to Ireland for the Irish champion stakes

gutless is the only word I can think off, it is crap, I can never forgive that, sorry

Sorry Ebul but I can't blame Henry for that. We have possibly the best racing in the world except for the Arc and I am convinced that was never on the agenda. So the dye was cast.

I thought as a 4 year old he should go Lockinge, Eclipse, King George, Juddmonte and Champion Stakes. Now I do think he could possibly have won them. But with KA sponsoring the Juddmonte and the publicity surrounding his first 10 furlong race I can understand the course of action they took.

It's the press, pundits and ratings agencies I blame. The clues are there and they choose to ignore them.

irreconcilable difference there I am afraid brigust1

fair enough

if you think he should have gone the King George then why not Arc

I believe it was what the country expected and hoped for

if you believe he would not have stayed 12f, then of course he could not go for the King George

if you see my point

imagoose..i wont bother the usual reply to you made up crap


your a sectional time expert? ....pmsl

comes from a guy caught out lying and states stallions dont race


you wouldnt even know what the common cause for a trainer to strap banages on his horses hind legs.


quick now, go google it, you will probably get it wrong and swear black and blue differently

fckin goose

banages = bandages

ohhh and thank you for your 1000+ word essay, total crap, as usual didnt bother to read it, glad im always on your mind taking up space



my very own stalker

for the non experts on australian racing...that includes you imagoose


the Mackinnon was touted as the weakest Macinnon in anyones living memory, the only 2 group 1 horses in the race were a miler trying at the distance the first time and ran last and a 8yr old who was looking for 2 miles of the melbourne cup 3 day later and now retired to a pony club .

even the 2nd horse was crying out for further ground and ran 3 days later in the melbourne cup.

and you poms get excited comparing frankel to the winner....PLEASEEEEEEE


and if imagoose reckons frankel would have won the mackinnon by 10 lens eased up, stick by it, i thought So you Think who had previously won the race would have beaten that week bunch by 15 lens.

even the class of horses So you think beat in the High Chaparral European Breeders Fund Mooresbridge Stakes (Group 3)  were a stronger lot than the Mackinnon and he won by 10 lens in a stroll.

Nov 5, 2013 -- 5:30PM, Marcce wrote:

Firstly, as has been pointed out to you before, nobody knows when that injury actually happened during the race. Maybe Nolan's easing down just before the line was when he felt something. Whatever the case anyone trying to claim she was injured for the whole 6 furlongs of that race is severely clutching at straws.Secondly, those splits weren't meant to show Frankel can run faster than Black Caviar. They were an example of him comparing to a Group 1 sprinter. I could have used the 5 furlong Group 1 immediately after the Queen Anne which compare equally as well. Plus showing an example of a race she won on what is clearly a fast 6 furlongs means nothing in this particular comparison. It would be like me digging out one of our 6 furlong winners at Chester and comparing that time with Black Caviar at Ascot.Thirdly, you are making no sense with this under his own steam stuff. The last furlong of a race is invariably slower than the 2 furlongs before it even though jockey's are usually applying maximum pressure. You do realise that just because a jockey isn't pushing the ears off something it doesn't mean he's not asking don't you? For example the 11.26 to 10.58 acceleration at a time when Queally appeared to be motionless at Ascot.I've told you this before but the aim of any jockey is to try and keep a horse's sectionals as even as possible to ensure as much energy is kept for the latter part of the race as possible. I've compared it with a world record attempt in athletics previously where a pacemaker is asked to maintain a steady string of laps at similar pace to give the best possible chance of breaking a record time. What Frankel had was an acceleration that other horses aren't capable of producing whilst being able to maintain it for longer than they can sustain their maximum speed. That's not based on one race, that was shown over and over and over again.Of course he was feeling it in the final furlong because he was doing something exceptional for a mile horse during the 3 furlongs before that. That's what killed the opposition. They could have held onto him longer and achieved better times but why do that when they knew he was going to blow the opposition away from the 3 pole? The aim of any race, whether human or equine, is to make it hurt as much as possible for your rivals for as long as possible. That doesn't mean that you're not going to be going through a considerable amount of pain yourself whilst doing so.The other thing about this horse is that a lot of people were convinced he could win the Arc. That's a a winning miler running 3/8 of mile races at sprinters pace. It was remarkable a horse of that profile was even winning over 10 furlongs.

I've compared it with a world record attempt in athletics previously where a pacemaker is asked to maintain a steady string of laps at similar pace to give the best possible chance of breaking a record time.
You would think Frankel using a pacemaker every time, and being easily the best racehorse in the history of the world, may have broken a record or two then, now wouldn't you.... 

Nov 6, 2013 -- 9:44PM, brigust1 wrote:

Andrew maybe if another miler comes along but not if a Derby/Arc winner comes along. These are no direct comparisons. There are few tangible methods to use. At least BG won at 12f so a cross comparison can be made there. But I don't even think Frankel achieved at a mile what BG achieved anyway. And in the future there will be more hype and pretty in depth analysis. You see the pundits and press are not interested because who wants to confess the past was better? No-one. How many times have you seen the pundits directly comparing Frankel openly with BG for example or even Sea Bird 11? I could give you umpteen reasons why BG was better than Frankel yet none were mentioned by the press or TV pundits. The nearest it got was when Jim McGrath compared what BG won throughout his career and how much STS won by winning the Arc.I wrote a booklet over 100 pages listing all the important points including the 10 possible areas for comparison between the two. From prize money to form lines. In the list of ten Frankel never won even a single category. So if another great horse comes along Frankel will be fighting alone without all the hype and that will be interesting then. The thing is he should have won at least 50% but he never even won one. From all the copies I have given to the people in the know I have only had positive responses mainly because it is all fact and fully supported. Nothing hypothetical. No 'I think' or 'in my opinion' only bare, hard facts. Many of which I have posted on here at one time and another.  Henry actually wrote to me saying he would love to see a copy so I sent him one. I hope it made him smile.

Brigust could your email me a copy of your booklet please?I am on Twitter if you want to post a link!

ima_mazed66
Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 Add contact | Send message When: 06 Nov 13 15:45 Joined: Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 | Topic/replies: 6,112 | Blogger: ima_mazed66's blog


It's irrelevant how long sectionals have been used in the UK mugsy because unlike you I actually understand them and if they are in use for so long in Australia then what's your excuse for laughably denying the final furlong time in races is usually slower that the couple or so before? Your childlike logic was quite cute in one way by thinking they quicken up in the latter stages of races but by the final furlong the exertions of that and/or easing when winnings means the final furlong time is slower.


now before i kick you in you C...

are you suggesting even frankel tired out in front crossing the finish line each time he was ridden out??

again a lie changing words to attempt to impress, i remember the thread quiet clearly and it was regarding ortensia flying home to win covering her last 200m nearly a second faster than her rivals, you wouldnt have a bar with what ortensia's jockey said and was quoted after the race, you replied, i only deal in FACTS ...lol,lol


ive noticed you added "usually", and "eased up" to attempt to cover your claim, hoping not to look totally a goose ....pmsl

please explain this race meeting on a city track in australia.

they certaintly didnt looked slower at the end to me


   Field Sectional Times                         56.49    45.30    34.30    23.02    11.13
Finish Split Times           800m            600m            400m            finish
1    3     Catkins                                            55.02    [  7]    44.72    [  3]    33.87    [  3]    22.66    [  2]    11.12
2    1     Miss Spoken                                            55.72    [  3]    44.68    [  5]    33.62    [  5]    22.15    [  4]    11.26
3    8     Caprossa                                            56.66    [  1]    45.47    [  1]    34.47    [  1]    23.19    [  1]    10.77
4    7     Servante                                            55.80    [  4]    44.90    [  4]    33.98    [  4]    22.26    [  5]    11.31
5    6     Trick Shot                                            56.16    [  2]    45.30    [  2]    34.20    [  2]    22.58    [  3]    11.37
6    4     Miss Milanese                                            55.70    [  5]    44.61    [  7]    33.60    [  6]    22.21    [  7]    11.10
7    2     Bonzerina                                            55.93    [  6]    44.93    [  6]    33.84    [  7]    22.52    [  6]    11.55




Masterstroke                                                      12.60    [  2]    10.55    [  5]    11.36    [  5]    11.18           11.05 Esprit Lad                                                      12.71    [  4]    10.08    [  2]    11.15    [  1]    11.23    [  1]    11.58
Sir John                                                      12.61    [  3]    10.35    [  3]    11.21    [  2]    11.27    [  3]    11.32
Party Dress                                                      12.79    [  5]    10.39    [  6]    11.16    [  3]    11.24    [  4]    11.44
Gold Bender                                                      12.57    [  1]    10.17    [  1]    11.62    [  4]    10.91    [  2]    11.91
Balzac                                                             
  12.99    [  7]    10.43    [  7]    11.61    [  6]    10.66    [  6]    11.91 
Devil's Watch                                                      12.93    [  6]    10.13    [  4]    13.23    [  7]    10.24    [  7]    12.13


Medusa's Miss                                            13.45    [  5]    10.80    [  4]    11.32    [  5]    11.72    [  4]    12.64    [  7]    11.38    [  2]    11.42
Maluti                                            13.57    [  8]    10.98    [10]    11.16    [  9]    11.79    [  7]    12.45    [  8]    11.56    [  3]    11.32
Games                                            13.48    [  7]    10.96    [  6]    11.07    [  4]    11.87    [  5]    12.50    [  6]    11.63    [  5]    11.61
Berna                                            13.32    [  4]    10.26    [  2]    11.53    [  1]    11.54    [  1]    12.27    [  1]    12.26    [  1]    11.99
Xandretta                                            13.26    [  2]    10.72    [  3]    11.25    [  2]    11.94    [  3]    12.13    [  3]    12.18    [  4]    11.79
Fulminate                                            13.32    [  3]    11.16    [  7]    11.21    [  8]    11.89    [  8]    12.57    [  9]    11.57    [  8]    11.63
Rosscarbery                                            13.84    [10]    10.67    [  8]    11.36    [10]    11.78    [10]    12.79    [11]    11.17    [  6]    11.88
Amarachi                                            13.70    [  9]    10.84    [  9]    11.09    [  6]    11.83    [  6]    12.38    [  5]    11.77    [  7]    12.44
Recoinage                                            13.25    [  1]    10.03    [  1]    12.06    [  3]    11.41    [  2]    12.48    [  2]    12.50    [  9]    12.62
Champawi                                            13.88    [11]    10.87    [11]    11.13    [11]    11.78    [11]    12.58    [10]    12.91    [11]    11.45
Merciless                                            13.46    [  6]    10.86    [  5]    11.31    [  7]    11.96    [  9]    12.06    [  4]    12.35    [10]    13.46



would you like more FACT !!!!! from the same race meeting?

like i said i again have to kick you right in your C... bi@tch

If only the Turf races in the UK could be run on a firm surface all the while,without changing tactics,and spencer on board

Why does the field slow up 4f out? And even more so 3f out please megsy?

In fact the whole field in the last race there go progressively slower in furlongs 3,4 and 5

Are they not allowed to ride a finish until 2f out

It is all irrelevant tbh since stuckinamaze has made this point himself in response to my pointing out Frankel going progressively slower when urged by the jockey.  I never said the final furlong, I said under the urgings of the jockey.  Meaning from about 3 furlongs out all get progressively slower.
This was in response to the belief from him that Frankel would have won every race by much further if he had have wanted.  The times don't lie.


The other thing that hasn't really been followed up on, is the Timeform explanation, showing that their ratings are based on the race name.

Instead, a race is tackled statistically according to historical measures (race standards) and information about the achievements of the individual runners themselves (prior-rating standards).
This is how you get so many early G1 winners with an automatic rating, based on which race they won, not how they won it or who they beat.  From there, things just get out of control.

I certainly never made the comment that his last sectional was always slower.  I said the jockey riding all out, was all about keeping as much momentum as possible, certainly not some magical burst of speed.

Like I said mugsy, every time you post you only succeed in making a total tw@t of yourself.

Yes I used the word "usually" but sorry for overestimating your capabilities of knowing what that word actually means, so then what do you do, search high and low for a few examples of times when a a horse might have had a faster final furlong than the couple before, despite the fact there are also examples of the complete opposite too in those very same examples? Er, you do actually know what usually means don't you?

I noticed you bolded only a few examples but didn't bother with some of the others there, any particular reason for that?

And I haven't even touched on the patently obvious to anyone else that if we are talking about Frankel's sectionals and the style of racing in the UK, wouldn't it be better to analyse the subject we are actually on about instead of a totally irrelevant one from races halfway around the world under totally different circumstances, or would that be too much like common sense? Why stop there though, why not do the sectionals for French races too seeing as their style of racing is exactly like it is in the UK isn't it?

I look forward to your deeply thought out analysis on apples and oranges next time you total **** butler!

Oh and the abbreviated version of you are is still "you're" and not "your" btw, damn those information retaining problems eh?

As for your (pay attention there) moronic use of the word biatch, not only should that be used by Americans only but 12 year old Americans at that, but then again that's about right for your level of intellect and it really wouldn't surprise me if you thought the Bermuda Triangle was where Barry Manilow lives!

Why does the field slow up 4f out? And even more so 3f out please megsy?

I know the answer to this. I honestly can't believe he thought he'd get away with it.

I always knew Megsy wasn't the brightest but he's surpassed himself this time lol.

The above sectionals are taken from a meeting at Warwick Farm racecourse. You'll notice something from the course map.

http://www.sportsbettingaust.com/warwickfarm.html

A dog track ............ and a flapping one at that

BJT 07 Nov 13 12:03 
I certainly never made the comment that his last sectional was always slower.  I said the jockey riding all out, was all about keeping as much momentum as possible, certainly not some magical burst of speed.

Another one who seems a bit confused about what is and isn't being said.

In this country (and seeing as though Frankel ran in this country that's always a good starting point) as I've already said on numerous occasions, the final furlong in races usually tends to be timed slower that the couple before it, caused by either or both of the winner (and placed horses too) having exerted itself during the previous furlongs that make up the rest of the race plus easing down if winning comfortably.

It certainly doesn't mean just because the final furlong time is a bit slower than the couple before it that the horse is dead on its feet or whatever total nonsense way you and musgy have described it previously. Moonlight Cloud's sectionals for the final 3f of the Diamond Jubilee Stakes were 11.5secs, 11.12secs and 13.01secs so that tells me she started to quicken significantly from 3f out and was able to go even fast for the penultimate furlong but then her time slowed from the 1f pole to the winning line during that final furlong, but I hardly think she was treading water and had nothing left at the finish do you?

Once again I am only talking about UK racing but if there is any "magic burst" it doesn't tend to be the final furlong, as in say a mile race the first furlong tends to be the slowest of all just as you would expect going from a standing start, the next up to usually a maximum of 4 or so are spent initially trying to get a position and then into a rhythm to race at a decent pace but within the horse's limits to basically tick off each furlong pole until somewhere between the final 3f they will begin to quicken up from 3f or 2f out, so that is where any significant change of pace takes place when getting into top gear and from then on the jockeys will try to maintain that pace as best they can to the line, but rarely stay at it all the way to the line for the reasons I've previously mentioned.

You can't realistically expect a miler to be as strong and fresh going into the last furlong of a race once it has already run 7f previously.

Ima sectionals is not my bag but a lot of courses finish uphill. Plus a lot of horses, being herd animals, start to pull themselves up when the go ahead and start leaving the pack. And of course some courses have the finish near a bend in the course. Some of these points must be reflected in the sectionals. Don't you think?

ima_mazed66
Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 Add contact | Send message When: 06 Nov 13 15:45 Joined: Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 | Topic/replies: 6,115 | Blogger: ima_mazed66's blog


It's irrelevant how long sectionals have been used in the UK mugsy because unlike you I actually understand them and if they are in use for so long in Australia then what's your excuse for laughably denying the final furlong time in races is usually slower that the couple or so before?

after i proved him wrong as usual, he wrote.

ima_mazed66
Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 Add contact | Send message When: 07 Nov 13 19:28 Joined: Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 | Topic/replies: 6,115 | Blogger: ima_mazed66's blog


Once again I am only talking about UK racing


pmsl....love how you look for excuses, gawd i love kicking you in the C...

ima_mazed66
Date Joined: 12 Oct 09
Add contact | Send message When: 07 Nov 13 19:28 Joined: Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 | Topic/replies: 6,115 | Blogger: ima_mazed66's blog


You can't realistically expect a miler to be as strong and fresh going into the last furlong of a race once it has already run 7f previously.


yes you can realistically expect a miler to be as strong.bit of education for you imagoose, it depends how the race is run....but hey imagoose, you know everything

one mile race sectionals as i put up previously.


Medusa's Miss                                                                       13.45    [  5]    10.80    [  4]    11.32    [  5]    11.72    [  4]    12.64    [  7]    11.38    [  2]    11.42
Maluti                                                                              13.57    [  8]    10.98    [10]    11.16    [  9]    11.79    [  7]    12.45    [  8]    11.56    [  3]    11.32 Games                                                                               13.48    [  7]    10.96    [  6]    11.07    [  4]    11.87    [  5]    12.50    [  6]    11.63    [  5]    11.61
Berna                                                                                    13.32    [  4]    10.26    [  2]    11.53    [  1]    11.54    [  1]    12.27    [  1]    12.26    [  1]    11.99 Xandretta                                                                               13.26    [  2]    10.72    [  3]    11.25    [  2]    11.94    [  3]    12.13    [  3]    12.18    [  4]    11.79 Fulminate                                                                           13.32    [  3]    11.16    [  7]    11.21    [  8]    11.89    [  8]    12.57    [  9]    11.57    [  8]    11.63
Rosscarbery                                                                         13.84    [10]    10.67    [  8]    11.36    [10]    11.78    [10]    12.79    [11]    11.17    [  6]    11.88
Amarachi                                                                             13.70    [  9]    10.84    [  9]    11.09    [  6]    11.83    [  6]    12.38    [  5]    11.77    [  7]    12.44
Recoinage                                                                           13.25    [  1]    10.03    [  1]    12.06    [  3]    11.41    [  2]    12.48    [  2]    12.50    [  9]    12.62
Champawi                                                                               13.88    [11]    10.87    [11]    11.13    [11]    11.78    [11]    12.58    [10]    12.91    [11]    11.45 Merciless                                                                          13.46    [  6]    10.86    [  5]    11.31    [  7]    11.96    [  9]    12.06    [  4]    12.35    [10]    13.46

yes you can realistically expect a miler to be as strong.bit of education for you imagoose, it depends how the race is run....but hey imagoose, you know everything Laugh

one mile race sectionals as i put up previously.


Little bit of education for you. A horse can't run as fast going around a bend as it can going straight. Just as in a 100 metre relay the 3rd leg is invariable the slowest of the 3 with standing starts if the runners are equally matched.

Those sectionals are taken from Warwick Farm where a large part of the 3rd furlong from home is run around a bend. As is about 60/70 yards of the furlong after that. On your sectionals the final furlong is slower than the second furlong so no that miler wasn't as strong in the final furlong.

I used to ask you to please stop typing mugsy as I cringed at you embarrassing yourself but now I'm asking please don't stop because you do it all for me regarding making yourself look a utter tw@t and then you reckon you kick me around.....There's nothing funnier than someone as thick as sh1t thinking they are mocking others and your lack of self awareness is hilarious.

You won't get a response Marcee as he will be doing his ostrich impression and pretending he hasn't seen anything wherever somebody points out something that didn't occur to him......and I wouldn't be too surprised if he even repeated it all over again at a later stage too. Once again only bolding a few carefully chosen sectional examples despite being in the minority each time anyway shows he clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "usually" which is also evidenced by his continuous use of a specific type course as an example and not even a UK one either, proving his geography is as p1ss poor as his command of the English language.

brigust1 07 Nov 13 20:03 
Ima sectionals is not my bag but a lot of courses finish uphill. Plus a lot of horses, being herd animals, start to pull themselves up when the go ahead and start leaving the pack. And of course some courses have the finish near a bend in the course. Some of these points must be reflected in the sectionals. Don't you think?

Certainly brigust1 but this sectionals subject started when mugsy claimed that horses run their fastest furlongs during the final one and I disagreed. Then BJT came out with the classic that Frankel was all out and dying a death every time he crossed the wining line or words to that effect and used the final furlong time as apparent proof of that if it was slower than the couple before.

ima_mazed66
Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 Add contact | Send message When: 07 Nov 13 23:56 Joined: Date Joined: 12 Oct 09 | Topic/replies: 6,116 | Blogger: ima_mazed66's blog


Certainly brigust1 but this sectionals subject started when mugsy claimed that horses run their fastest furlongs during the final one and I disagreed


there you go again imagoose, more fcuking lies., proved you wrong again and now im supposed to have said all horses run their fastest furlong during the final one . pleaseeeeeeeeee

you must have a sore C... the amount of times ive kicked it.


now your a sectional time expert a race horse guru

ladies and gentlemen , you have finally met the john mccririck look alike. the english sites Mr Squiggle, writes 5,000 word reply posts in his pissed stain Y front underwear, a big girl, famously well known  as Mrs Racing Post and Mrs Wikipedia



pssst still awaiting your answer to horses wearing bandages on the hind legs ohhh mr guru, or should i say imagoose

Marcee....your arguement means zilch, imagoose states horses cant run faster in their last 200m than their previous 200m...i proved differently and as i stated, l'll educate you too....it depends on the racing pattern of each race.

imagooses excuse now is, Once again I am only talking about UK racing.


the topic that started this all, which imagoose has tried to avoid was regarding the australian horse ortensia and as ive found many times imagoose tell huge pork pies to make someone look silly and himself the guru ...its why i love playing this guy up for what he really is

Marcee, lets take your reasoning into the equation, read below and the FACTS destroy your reasoning. all place getters still ran a slower 200m before the bend than at the finish.

as i said sectional times where horses run home faster is due to the racing pattern of that race. im trying to educate imagoose that not all races a horse runs at its slowest, because he is tiring.


Medusa's Miss                                                                       13.45    [  5]    10.80    [  4]    11.32    [  5]    11.72    [  4]   before the turn 12.64    [  7]    11.38    [  2]   finish 11.42

Maluti                                                                              13.57    [  8]    10.98    [10]    11.16    [  9]    11.79    [  7]   before the turn 12.45    [  8]    11.56    [  3]   finish  11.32


Games                                                                               13.48    [  7]    10.96    [  6]    11.07    [  4]    11.87    [  5]   before the turn 12.50    [  6]    11.63    [  5]   finish 11.61

even frankel once only ran faster the last furlong in the sussex 2001

From 4F out to 1F out he ran 33.2, and he covered his final furlong in 10.7
dont forget it was downhill to the finsh

and the reason he ran fastest in his last furlong was because the race was a walk, trot, canter and sprint home.


so imagoose, stick that where the sunshine dont shine


and admire the mighty mare who ran a sub 10 sec whilst reeling off 31 sec 600m

Megsy I think the last furlong at Goodwood is downhill whereas at most courses it is on the rise or, at best, level. York is pretty level but they change course just after the winning post that is why quite a few horses go across the course from the near rail.

So before sectionals are to be accepted all of these racecourse nuances should be explained.
 
With such inconsistencies how can sectionals be worthwhile?

Nov 7, 2013 -- 11:56PM, ima_mazed66 wrote:

I used to ask you to please stop typing mugsy as I cringed at you embarrassing yourself but now I'm asking please don't stop because you do it all for me regarding making yourself look a utter tw@t and then you reckon you kick me around.....There's nothing funnier than someone as thick as sh1t thinking they are mocking others and your lack of self awareness is hilarious. You won't get a response Marcee as he will be doing his ostrich impression and pretending he hasn't seen anything wherever somebody points out something that didn't occur to him......and I wouldn't be too surprised if he even repeated it all over again at a later stage too. Once again only bolding a few carefully chosen sectional examples despite being in the minority each time anyway shows he clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "usually" which is also evidenced by his continuous use of a specific type course as an example and not even a UK one either, proving his geography is as p1ss poor as his command of the English language.brigust1 07 Nov 13 20:03  Ima sectionals is not my bag but a lot of courses finish uphill. Plus a lot of horses, being herd animals, start to pull themselves up when the go ahead and start leaving the pack. And of course some courses have the finish near a bend in the course. Some of these points must be reflected in the sectionals. Don't you think?Certainly brigust1 but this sectionals subject started when mugsy claimed that horses run their fastest furlongs during the final one and I disagreed. Then BJT came out with the classic that Frankel was all out and dying a death every time he crossed the wining line or words to that effect and used the final furlong time as apparent proof of that if it was slower than the couple before.

Then BJT came out with the classic that Frankel was all out and dying a death every time he crossed the wining line or words to that effect and used the final furlong time as apparent proof of that if it was slower than the couple before.

Instead of simply saying I said it, would you care to quote it to show where I said it?

What I actually said, was that once the jockey had to ask him to go, he went slower than when under his own steam because the jockey urging him on was more about keeping as much momentum as possible rather than some magical burst.

There's nothing funnier than someone as thick as sh1t thinking they are mocking others and your lack of self awareness is hilarious. Laugh
Priceless....

Marcee, lets take your reasoning into the equation, read below and the FACTS destroy your reasoning. all place getters still ran a slower 200m before the bend than at the finish.

Please try and read what I say, take it on board and then respond. I know it's difficult for you but please just concentrate really hard.

For the second time the bend at Warwick Farm comes just less than 3 furlongs from the finish and ends about 370 yards from the line.

The 12.64 furlong was from the 3 pole to the 2 pole and therefore run for the majority around a bend. Just to help you out as it seems very much needed:

12.64 3 furlongs to 2 (around a bend), 11.38 2 furlongs to 1, 11.42 1 furlong to winning post.

Plus you have no idea if Frankel ran faster in the final furlong in the Sussex 2011 (I presume that's what you mean) because the timings before are for a 3 furlong split time. The figures also aren't official timings.

Brigust the sectionals are meant to be used to get a picture of a particular race. Therefore the difference in course layouts doesn't come into it.

As an example, when I looked at Megsy's sectionals above it was immediately obvious that 3 furlongs from the finish was either run uphill or around a bend because you just don't see a drop off in pace like that at a later stage of a race in normal circumstances. The time was much slower than the furlongs before and after so it was obvious what the reason was. It then became easy to work out which course those races were run at.

As another example returning to that infamous SJP of 2011. From the naked eye it always looked as if Queally had gone too fast too early. I mentioned the 34.3 split between the 5 pole and the 3 pole before. In this year's race, also run on good ground, Dawn Approach went through that section in 37.05 and Toronado in 37.21. In the Coronation Stakes this year Sky Lantern went through in 36.37 when the going had changed to good to firm. From that we can see that there is no doubt that Frankel went far too quickly early on in the race. I don't for one second think he was idling as was suggested by trainer and jockey after the race. Frankel was at the end of his tether though he had every right to be having gone that sort of pace.

Sectionals allow you not to have to guess, however educated that guess may be, what's happened in a race and give you factual evidence.

yes in the USA maybe!

Like blokes looking for markers on the video - tv evidence ,patchy at best!

Marcce I know sectionals are there to use as a guide but they cannot be treated too seriously without a huge amount of information to compare them to. A few weeks ago I compared a race over the same course and distance with one run the next day and the 'time' guys suitably chastised me.
Maybe at the time you selected Frankel was asked to quicken to get up a momentum whereas Dawn Approach and Toronado had already achieved that momentum from a faster early pace and were steadied back to prepare for the home straight. There are so many possibilities. Too many to take individual sectionals too seriously.
For goodness sake it is almost impossible to get an accurate 'going' report. In the Queen Anne Stakes the going in the morning was good to soft. I don't know what the going stick was.
At what time was that going decided? Eight o'clock? Ten o'clock? Twelve o'clock?

After the third race the going was changed to good? How did they decide? By going stick?

So to determine exactly what the going was in the Queen Anne we need at least that information. At least.

Fine if you think they can't be taken too seriously Brigust but I and plenty of others know just how valuable they can be.

The other thing I'd say is, once again when information is there which appears to be favourable to Frankel all these question marks about ground conditions are thrown up. Yet many times previously you've derided Frankel for not breaking course records whilst horses of the past did. So where does the different ground conditions apply there then?

Couple of other comparisons for you. The 2012 Coronation Stakes winner Fallen For You went through there in 36.98.

So there's 3 championship races for you where the eventual winner went through the section in times over 2 seconds slower than Frankel in the SJP. Maybe you're correct and they had eased back readying themselves for final efforts and he had moved forward from a very slow early pace. Except that the last 3 furlongs for Dawn Approach were 35.45, Toronado 34.93, Sky Lantern 37.2 and Fallen For You 37.15. Frankel's last 3 furlongs in the SJP were around 38.3. When he won the Royal Lodge as a 2 year old his last 3 furlongs were around 35.3 seconds.

Now I wonder why on earth it could be that a horse considerably better than the other 4 named finished the SJP much slower than they finished their respective races? Why did he run the last 3 furlongs a full 3 seconds slower than he had as a younger horse 9 months previously?

Above all what sectionals do is to take away the need to try and invent reasons why something has seemingly run below form.

LOL....I think I might just have popped a rib laughing at your stupidity mugsy and surely you are on a wind up and it can't all be natural?

We've already established you don't know the meaning of the word usually and you then come out with the cracker that the final part of Goodwood is downhill (I'll also add there's an uphill section too) but then can't see how that makes it a somewhat unique case, thereby possibly excluding it from the use of usually in its summing up.

Despite all of that though, can you give us a source for your times of "From 4F out to 1F out he ran 33.2, and he covered his final furlong in 10.7" please because I'm guessing they aren't from anyone in an official capacity. It's also totally pointless to lump a 3f time together but then give an individual time for the final furlong and please don't tell me just divided by 3 to get an average and then took that as gospel?

Here are Frankel's times for the Sussex the following year:

http://www.britishchampionsseries.com/assets/files/Suusex.pdf

where you can clearly see his final 4f times are 11.08, 10.75, 10.42 and 12.15 and also shows the speeds he was travelling at in the table below on that link and I'll leave you to try to work it all out for yourself. Now of course there might be unusual circumstances in races that have an effect on sectionals like a 3-4 runner slowly run tactical affair that turns into a 3f sprint, but funnily enough that probably won't come under the description of usually and since Frankel had to make his own pace in the first Sussex where his main rival was happy to sit in behind, yet had the pace set for him in the second....... now do your best to finish that for me so that I don't have to spoon feed you this stuff every time.

The only c**t kicking you ever do is to the face that stares you in the shaving mirror and usually (that word again) after you have posted total b0ll0cks and then been slapped down and put in your place in response with the mere use of a touch of logic.

Typical mugsy logic at work:

Me: The British Prime Minster is usually a man.

Mugsy: Oh no but your (deliberate) wrong there see because Margaret Thatcher was a woman.......and anyway what do you know about the price of peanuts in South Africa?

Or some other non-related subject!

And in that race stuck, the jockey rode him out from 1.5 furlongs left to try and keep as much speed up as possible, certainly not for some magic acceleration.

Now I wonder why on earth it could be that a horse considerably better than the other 4 named finished the SJP much slower than they finished their respective races? Why did he run the last 3 furlongs a full 3 seconds slower than he had as a younger horse 9 months previously?
Your opinion that he was considerably better.


Using the sectional times, can you point out what he did wrong and why he never ran a decent time?  Did he need a different pacemaker?

Marcce please? First you tell me Frankel moved at the wrong time to chase the leader then you compare his time with horses who never moved at the wrong time, but waited until the right time. Then you fall back on the fact that Frankel was better than Dawn Approach, Toronado and Fallen For You. Well shoot me down. He was better than them ffs. So I would expect his times to be better. Do I need unproven sectionals for that? No I don't.

And you think the minute number of sectionals are valuable to you. Tell me more. I'm all ears. Show me.

Were there sectionals for the Royal Lodge? Check your race times and the going at the time.

In the St James Palace Frankel beat Dubawi Gold by 13.5 lengths. In the 3 other meetings  with Dubawi Gold he beat him by an average of 7.5 lengths so in the St James Palace he ran 6 lengths better than other races against Dubawi Gold.

In the St James Palace Excelebration beat Dubawi Gold by 11.5 lengths. In 4 other meetings he beat Dubawi Gold by an average of 4.5 lengths. Given lack of pressure in these races compared with the fact that Excelebration had to run through the line in the St James Palace then it is not inconceivable he also ran 6 lengths better than on other occasions against Dubawi Gold.

Did Excelebration suffer from the same fate as Frankel?

Whatttt? no comeback, just insults??

my your a goose imagoose


pssst, 3rd time, tell me why some horses wear bandages on their hind legs, surely, 4 days is enough for you to google the answer

has anyone measured the extra distance the injured canford cliffs ran when 2nd to frankel?

makes frankels effort not as good as the rediculous rating he was given for a walk trot, canter, sprint home.

extra 5 lens at least? or am i being too generous?

marcee, you trying to say running around a bend a horse runs slower?


please explain why sandowns 1000m around a bend is faster than flemingtons straight 1000m ?


you seem to know nearly as much as imagoose, he stated all australian prestige group 1 sprint races are held around a bend at moonee valley and that is why english sprinters dont venture to australia 

LOL...did you just mention insults there mugsy? Your lack of self awareness is astounding.

Here are the past two years sectional times for the British Champions Series of racing and please feel free to tell me how many have the winner covering the final furlong in a faster time compared to the couple before. Even in the 5f ones that are basically point and shoot and involve very few tactics and where you would expect a much more level time for each furlong it still usually (key word there) has the final furlong as slower.

http://www.britishchampionsseries.com/stats-results/sectional-timing.html

You clearly missed my reference then to you often pointlessly asking a totally irrelevant off-subject question and remind me of the kid in school who can't get his hand up fast enough to answer teacher's question and then when he gets it wrong and some other kid give puts him right, he then has a strop after feeling like he's made a d1ck of himself so asks "yeah but what about blah blah blah, I bet you don't know the answer to that one do you so ner-ner-ner?"

It's also taken you 4 days to work out that even if I didn't know the answers to you irrelevant questions I could Google it anyway, just as seeing as I have worked in stables before and know a bit about horses having done everything from plaiting manes and bandaging legs to schooling over jumps (I've even had to do sheaf cleaning too which probably gets your excited) I could just as easily ask you if you know what over reach boots are, but then again seeing as I'm not as th1ck as you I'm aware that you could also Google that too so would er, be a pretty pointless exercise!

As for Canford Cliffs, the extra distance he ran matters not a jot as he was beaten anyway and it was the pressure put on him by Frankel that caused him to drift when being asked to change gear, something the horse had a history of when beaten before and there was no injury for sure anyway, they just said post-race that there might have been so were retiring it anyway, probably before any more damage was done to the horse's reputation and Coolmore didn't want to risk that......I've told you all of this numerous times before when previously giving you lessons but you have probably forgotten it all as it didn't fit in with what you wanted to hear. Only mugs like you lapped that up and do you still believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy too?

As for this below:

you seem to know nearly as much as imagoose, he stated all australian prestige group 1 sprint races are held around a bend at moonee valley and that is why english sprinters dont venture to australia.

I was about to say you know full well that I said no such thing but I somehow doubt that now that you do actually know, as we are well aware of your difficulties both with basic English and to read and retain information and despite having put you right many times on what I actually said on this and numerous other subjects, there's not really much point doing so again because as is you limited intellect, you will still repeat the same bullsh1t over and over again due to how you read something and then how it gets process in that vacuum of napper of yours.

If we are going to laugh though at what someone has actually said then how about your claim that Black Caviar would be inconvenienced going right handed around a bend at Royal Ascot when it was a straight 6f race, or what about referring to the mare Moonlight Cloud as a male when telling us she had won numerous 6f races when in fact she hasn't won any?

so says the goose who claims english horses are disadvantage more than australian horses travelling to each other countries


ohhh and stallions never raced

all australia's prestige sprints are run around a corner at monee valley

horses always go slower in the last furlong because they are tired

scenic blast won 2 australian horse of the year, swore black n blue


doesnt even know how a group 1 statying race is set up, but the goose pretends he does, and fcuk its humorous when giving its expert opinion on australian racing

wont acknowledge england champion 10 f horse was SYT in 2011 and unbeaten by any uk horse, except rewinding, but we all know why he got beat

imagoose tells the biggest pork pies on betfair, been caught out so many times.

the list goes on and on.


awaits your 1000 word reply, come on be the goose and reply