Thomas has a lovely clock in his head...

How on earth has he got that beat

Won pulling a cart last time,drifted in the betting from a yard who would normally hammer one if it was winning

the jockey defender has woken from his slumber...

Meh, poast ya lay...

Stunning lack of logic from you there GEORGE.B if you don't mind me saying.

I'm off to bed now, so all that's left to do is to thank you for coming on after the race to explain the result. Ta muchly.

Spouting more shyte I see, this time about the horse's penalty. Well for your information as you are clearly not in full possession of the facts, the horse was officially 4lb well in as it is due to go up 10lb. According to the BHA's handicapper, the 6lb penalty should not have been enough to stop this evening.

Whatever, keep posting after the event, at least then you'll always be on 'safe ground'...

I don't care if the horse was meant to go up 110lb, if it has a 6lb penalty then it has a 6lb penalty, which oddly enough presumably means it has to carry 6lbs more than if it er didn't have a 6lb penalty. If the horse then gets beaten a head, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that 6lb penalty maybe made the difference.

Did it or did it not have a 6lb penalty? If so and I state that then how exactly in your world you live in is that me "Spouting more shyte?" Like I said before, you're trying just a little to hard to find fault. What I actually said in my initial post in this thread was:

Going from a 0-55 last time to a 0-60 this race and with a 6lb penalty from last time too and in fairness, he wasn't far wrong.

So nowhere either way did I say the 6lb was without doubt the reason for the defeat, but in your eagerness to find fault you have clearly overlooked that part.

Of course Brown didn't time the run perfectly or he wouldn't have finished 2nd but if you bothered to watch the race again you would see he was bumping along in the saddle quite a way out and seemed to hit a flat spot and was one of the first to come under, before staying on at the finish and a race isn't just about what happens in the final 100 yards or so when looking to weigh it up. Maybe you can explain please why the result also wasn't a 9-way dead head if you have so much faith in the handicapper, if you naively think it's an exact science.

For the record the horse has only won once in 10 start now and from getting its initial mark of 65 and being beaten, it then went on to lose off of 62, 60, 57 and 55 before winning its only ever race the time before this one under Thomas Brown off of 53. It then got put up to 59 again and lost this race.

And what part of me explaining to you in child size bites didn't you quite understand when I freely stated I was making my comments after the event? Everything happens for a reason and so when the horse didn't win, I look for possible reasons, I don't have to predict them in advance for them to still possibly be valid reasons though and I even gave you the football analogy too which you seem to have ignored because it doesn't suit your argument.

Adamant approach would have won if never fell at the last -

My opinion is that there was not much pace on last night as opposed to its last race -  I had outlaw torn as the definite leader before the race but Mandria decided to take it up with torn in second . The rest of the field seemed to let them get on with it .
A faster pace and the favourite would have won by 2

Take the blinkers off when you read what people say GEORGE.B and that way you might actually see their words and not the ones you attribute to them, as at no stage did I ever say the 6lbs was what cost the horse the race. That way you might see a bit more that "nothing" too and just because the handicapper puts a horse up 10lbs, that doesn't mean it's merited and do you honestly think it would have done better the other day with an extra 4lbs?

Poor effort easygold (no surprise there then) and put Murphy on Brown's rides and vice versa and you will have Brown riding the winners and that's without you even taking into account that he (Brown) is a little heavy now for a 3lb claimer and so his available mounts will be limited. Oddly enough kids can grow and get heavier as the get older.

At the risk of repeating myself yet again, it's far more about the horses than the jockeys but that seemingly goes way over your head. You only have to look at how joint Champion Apprentices Buick and Probert have got on since losing their claims or how many Gr1 winners Buick won before and since getting the Gosden job and post-Gosden with Jimmy Fortune too. Racing is no more an individual sport than football is, so any success for a jockey is is not dependant on individual ability alone.

It's also looking increasingly like Murphy in his first full season without his claim will be down numerically on rides and winners compared to last season and I could have sworn that was the point I was suggesting might well happen.

ima_mazed66
     25 Oct 15 00:55 

Take the blinkers off when you read what people say GEORGE.B and that way you might actually see their words and not the ones you attribute to them, as at no stage did I ever say the 6lbs was what cost the horse the race.



ima_mazed66
     23 Oct 15 22:35 

I think you will find the word you are looking for is logic.

Horse gets beaten a head, horse is carrying a 6lb penalty from winning last time.....What could the connection be there I wonder?

^ what's this, Scotch mist?

I know you have problems retaining information easygold, even when it's something you yourself have said, so let me remind you that you specifically stated Oisin Murphy was a future Champion Jockey and I merely said it remains to be seen how he gets on once he loses his claim as he is likely to be down numerically on rides and winners initially after losing his claim and it will also depend on getting the right job. Nothing has changed since I said that and also said the Qatar 2nd jockey job won't be enough to make him that and I very much doubt being their #1 will either.

You read all of that and somehow process it as me saying he's no good.

Like I said GEORGE.B, nowhere did I say the 6lbs was the reason for the defeat.

I did hint that it might have been and was possibly significant but made no definite claims to it being the case.

Which was why I also used phrases like:

"Going from a 0-55 last time to a 0-60 this race and with a 6lb penalty from last time too and in fairness, he wasn't far wrong" which was my initial post in the thread, followed by:

"Horse gets beaten a head, horse is carrying a 6lb penalty from winning last time.....What could the connection be there I wonder?" Meaning I was suggesting it was a logic possible reason in response to be labelled a jockey defender, followed by:

"but feel free to explain to me how that changes anything regarding the 6lbs penalty making the difference, assuming it has?"

and

"...in which case I would have been wrong that the 6lbs wasn't a factor if we assume it did actually make the difference.

I even stated in an earlier post in the thread:

"So nowhere either way did I say the 6lb was without doubt the reason for the defeat, but in your eagerness to find fault you have clearly overlooked that part."

It's also looking increasingly like Murphy in his first full season without his claim will be down numerically on rides and winners compared to last season and I could have sworn that was the point I was suggesting might well happen.

Can you tell me how many winners and rides Atzeni is down on last season please? And could you tell me if he lost a claim last year too? To use your phrase I wonder what the connection is between the 2 of them seeing as it's not the loss of a claim.

While you're at it could you also tell me what Murphy has been able to offer the 100 plus different trainers he's ridden for this year seeing as you told us that the lack of a claim and big race riding experience would make him him a less attractive option to trainers at the time he lost the claim. Oh and don't stop there because you can also tell me how De Sousa has won the jockeys title this season given his lack of a top job?

You really would make yourself look less of a dope if you didn't keep using the most tenuous of examples to try and make out that you were right.

Ima's favourite hobby is having an arguement with his toes in lonely hotel rooms....

I was fully expecting to read somewhere on this forum several paragraphs from him defending Dettori's ride in the RP Trophy, but praise the Lord, we've been spared!

I remember that other rider Tart you said was as good as Murphy.......... yeah 5 wins this year.....

Thomas, once again has his mount too far back......... he stays further so you have him further back over a shorter trip. If Oisin has a few mins he win explain how to ride.

You have to laugh at being called a clown by someone like easygold who depsite being told numerous times that I merely took issue with his specific (key word there) claim that Oisin Murphy was a certain future Champion Jockey that it all depended on how he got on once he lost his claim and whether he got the right job to allow for that. So then the real clown here is you saying "If you can`t see that he is going to be a top jock"....Give me strength, nowhere in me stating the proviso needed for him to become a future Champion Jockey does that translate to a person of normal intelligence as me saying he isn't going to be a top jockey.

The point I was making but it still clearly going way over your head despite me again having made it numerous times is that once an apprentice loses their claim they lose an edge that made their booking a positive to trainers, in that the trainer can get some weight off the horse's back which is offset by a lack of experience that a fully-fledged jockey an offer. Once that claim has gone, why bother to book an inexperienced fully-fledged jockey when your other choices are to book the experienced one or another claimer who can still give you the weight concession.

If some of these other claimers like Brown, Hardie, Hart, Tart and so on start to find it difficult once they aren't claiming as much weight as before or not at all, then that only serves to prove my point. As does getting a decent job once the claim has gone because if Murphy wasn't at Qatar and still at Andrew Balding's, he's be competing for rides off levels with more experienced jockeys like Andrea Atzeni, Jim Crowley, Jimmy Fortune, Liam Keniry and David Probert, as well as apprentices like Thomas Brown and Rob Hornby who can offer Balding that weight concession and I've even noticed him booking Tom Marquand occasionally too, presumably for the very reason that he can still offer something Murphy can't.

So Robert Tart's had 6 winners this season from 88 rides now that he's lost his claim compared to 32 winners last season from 273 rides when he was still claiming 3lbs? Do I really have to spell it out for you once again? Remember that thing I said about apprentices likely to be down on winners and rides once they lose their claim? Ta-da!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you really needed to think more before asking those questions Marcce.

Atzeni obviously has to go where Qatar have runners and then will look to pick up spares at those meetings. He's also their (for want of a better expression) complete #1 and so rides theirs outside of the UK too, so if he has had to go to Ireland or France for a single ride then that might very well mean he missed a possible 6 rides at a meeting in the UK. Of course that will apply to Oisin Murphy too regarding going where their #2 runners are but you would think that less likely due to not always having runners every day at alternative meetings.

Nobody said trainers would never use Murphy once he lost his claim but by losing it obvious took away an advantage he had to offer them. What with the amount of racing there is though and the rule about the number of meetings jockeys can ride each week, there are still plenty of rides available and plenty of trainers needing to book jockeys. Add to that the 100 trainer things means very little unless you also list the number who booked him in a season when he still had his claim, plus Qatar don't have all of their horses with a single trainer and so he will have ridden for some trainers this season that he wouldn't have done before. Previously if Balding had 4 runners at a meeting and Murphy rode them and also picked up 2 outside spares for different trainers then that will total 3 trainers he rode for that day, whereas now he could go to a meeting and ride for 6 different trainers yet still have the same number of rides.

I never said you had to get a top job to become Champion Jockey, I said you had to get the right job but that's OK as I'm used to being misquoted on here. So anyway regarding De Sousa, 41 of his winners have come from Mark Johnston from 184 rides, which is in the top 7 of jockey/trainer combinations this season. Ryan Moore also missed a large chunk of the season via injury as Richard Hughes did via retirement, so I would have said there was a connection there wouldn't you? So far this season De Sousa has ridden 154 winners compared to Hughes last 3 seasons being 166, 208 and 177 winners and not only that, I expect De Sousa went all out for the title once it looked on in Hughes's and Moore's absence.

Failing to get a run in a big field GEORGE.B and/or in a race with a bend is part of racing and I wouldn't really put too much blame on the jockey there. Failing to do so in a 7 runner field in a straight race as Dettori did is another matter, especially when he dropped his horse out from the start and could easily have moved from his 6 draw to the outer where he would have only needed to pull around one runner at the most to get a run.

Which leads me nicely on to another point I've often made where Dettori stuck to the rules and so lost the race and yet had he barged his way out like Atzeni did in the St Leger and won, you would get the tired lazy cliché that the best horse won and so he should keep the race despite breaking the rules. Yet with Foundation, arguably the best horse didn't win because the jockey didn't break the rules, which only encourages them to do so now.

Oisin........ right on CUE again.............