|
By:
Who was the group 1 horse ??
|
|
By:
werent a great chesham either
|
|
By:
Chesham rarely is a good race pre Ascot, full of a number of unknown unexposed horses, however often the winner is decent.
The winner is now a 2 times Group 2 winner and easy Group 2 winner at that, and was a decent 2nd in the St Ledger, that would suggest he is a Group 1 horse. |
|
By:
quite a few races this week have had a thin look to them imo
|
|
By:
Multiple group 1 winning Cracksman should have instead run in a group 2 as an alternative to the premier race of the week for which he was long odds on for
![]() |
|
By:
He's not a 10f horse ideally though is he Cider, he looks like he wants 12f these days. One could argue would upgrading the Hardwicke to Group 1 make it attract better horses. Given there is no older horse 12f Group 1 at the meeting, it seems strange, given it's the premium trip in horse racing.
|
|
By:
There's zero value in running him in that under a penalty, unless they were desperate for a RA win. 10F is preferable for the breeding sheds. They would have expected to have won the PoW comfortably anyway, hindsight is a wonderful thing!
|
|
By:
I agree in many ways, but he is already 2 times Group 1 winner at 10f, and his Group 1 win at Epsom over 12f was far from impressive. A runaway winner at Royal Ascot over 12f would have boosted his L'Arc and King George claims and increased his value.
|
|
By:
Cracksman would have been considered the best middle distance colt in training in Europe (probably still is). Opting for a group 2 in the middle of the season at the most prestigious meeting just wasn't ever going to happen!
|
|
By:
I personally wouldn't have looked at it as a negative myself. I just don't get why there isn't a Group 1 12f race at the meeting.
|