Saturday, August 17, 2019

Don't say you weren't warned!

I should have been at Bath this afternoon/evening as Hope Is High was declared to run there.  Ironically, I began the week hoping that there would be some rain so that the track wouldn't be too hard, notwithstanding that she likes fast ground.  As it was, there was a lot of rain, so much so that we declared on Thursday morning on 'good to soft, good in places'.  That would have been fine, particularly if the good places were plentiful.  However, they had another 20mm yesterday so that this morning it is 'good to soft, soft in places'.  I'd run her on that if I had to, but in this case I don't: there's another (more or less) suitable race there for her on Wednesday, when the racing surface is almost certain to be significantly sounder, so it was a fairly easy decision to scratch (on the basis of 'going') and wait four days.

That meant that Roy on Sunday was our only runner of the week.  He ran well: second in a big-field amateurs' race - well ridden by Ross Birkett, as ever - at Windsor, the first time that he's ever come close to winning a race away from Brighton.  That brought to an end a five-day period in which we had five runners, for two seconds, two thirds and one unplaced (who finished last).  It's very rare for me to have a bet, but I did have one bet in that period.  Yes, you've guessed it: I backed Hidden Pearl, who finished last at Brighton!

We'd only had her for four weeks so I'm still learning about her, but she was going nicely in her home-work, nicely enough to suggest that 9/1 in a five-runner race which had very little depth was well over the odds.  Fortunately, I had been told that her work when Ed Walker had trained her had been good, despite the fact that she was running poorly.  Thankfully, this cautionary note, this salutary reminder that the fact that she was working well might turn out not to have meant very much, instilled an element of caution into my strategy, meaning that I didn't have as much on as I might have done.

The observation that Hidden Pearl was the one horse whom I backed in a period in which she was the only horse to run poorly provides a suitable opening to give a plug (which, as you'll see, isn't really much of a plug) to a new website www.newmarkettrainers.com.  It is the website of the Newmarket Trainers' Federation.  On it (I believe - I've never actually looked at it) there is a section in which Newmarket trainers (or some of us, anyway - and again I haven't looked to see who does and who doesn't, which might be interesting) each give a preview of our runners, just as the Lambourn trainers do on their site.

Anyway, the point of this so-called plug is to provide a cautionary note.  Don't be disappointed if the previews aren't very enlightening.  No trainer with any common sense would ever say that his horse is going to win; no trainer with any common sense would ever say that his horse is not going to win (unless, obviously, the horse's owner is planning to have a bet).  It is possibly worth recalling that the one time that the Lambourn previews have ever made the news was when Charlie Mann was outspokenly disparaging about a horse and his chances.  Shrewd punters might taken that as their cue to have a bet, which would have been a good move as, needless to say, the horse won.

Anyway, don't be too disappointed if you keep reading re-worded versions of a statement that the horse is fit and well (which ought to go without saying, because if he was unfit or unwell he wouldn't be running, or ought not to be anyway) and that he is in running in a suitable race (which again ought to go without saying, as the horse wouldn't be in it if it wasn't suitable, or ought not to be in it anyway).  And that's not my being difficult, as my Hidden Pearl bet highlights.  The truth is that nobody knows.  All the horses are in the race because they're ready to run well and the race looks suitable.  One of them will win and the rest won't.  And we won't know which one that is until the race has been run.  No horse is guaranteed to win, and no horse is guaranteed not to win.  Don't say you weren't warned!

Oh yes, good stalls and Shergar Cup thoughts after the last chapter, Neil and Glenn.  Thank you.  Re the fields for the six Shergar Cup races being 10 rather than 12, ie each of the twelve jockeys having five rides rather than six, I would guess that the reason for this is to ensure that there won't be any non-runners if a jockey (or two) is injured.  Normally an injured jockey shouldn't mean a non-runner as someone else could ride the horse, but the 12 jockeys present at Ascot on Shergar Cup Day will be the only 12 jockeys on the course (unless any apprentices were leading up).  Consequently, if there are only 10 runners in each race, one or two jockeys getting hurt (which is unlikely to happen - I can't remember any falls at the meeting - but it could) wouldn't disrupt things.  It might mean a kind of 'Duckworth Lewis' method would be required to decide the winning team, but at least no horses would have to be scratched.

No comments: