BC Mile - George Washington

[blackthroatedwind]

Let's not leave out Kieran Fallon's ride on Borgia in the initial F&M BC Turf....that was an all-timer.

Who was the guy on Indian Skimmer? I think Jim Carrey played him in the movie.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Let's not leave out Kieran Fallon's ride on Borgia in the initial F&M BC Turf....that was an all-timer.

Who was the guy on Indian Skimmer? I think Jim Carrey played him in the movie.

Oh I forgot Indian Skimmer. He should have been arrested.

And Bid, lets call a spade a spade shall we?
If you are trying to delude us into thinking that horsemanship is superior because only superwealthy own horses over there and the trainers don't have the financial pressure that many of their American counterparts do to perform, thats nonsense as well.
Those "broke trainers" rise each day and have to return cash to non sheikh and non Aga Kahn owners as well as themselves.
The don't have the luxury of being able to just gallop around for months at a time aiming for three races a year.
Which makes the job they do all the more impressive.
You're right, I suppose at "yards" where the wealthy owner is paying the payroll and you can hire the finest of all all help, that is an advantage they have.
That doesn't make them better horsemen, it makes them trainers with wealthier owners. They don't have to pay a free lancer named Franky 15 bucks to breeze one as soon as hes done breezing one for another barn.
Despite this advantage to the Euros, they regularly get disgraced and thumped in dirt races, their horses never break from the gate, and they have even given up trying to win the Derby.
Give me on of those "broke" trainers from over here when I'm trying to win a Derby or Classic any day of the week.

[my miss storm cat]

Sadly, Iffraaj is out (but Librettist back in).....
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...2558#post62558

[Hwjb]

I've read this thread with interest.
Personally I think its a little childish saying "we've got better horses than you," etc etc. But ultimately the racing scenes that have developed either side of the Atlantic have done so pretty much in complete isolation of one another. That's not to say Europeans don't buy American bred horses at the sales...they tend to be the fastest, and we know that these days the race is to the quick. That's also not to say that Americans don't purchase proven top European performers to go and compete over there. Why not? And then there's the occasional raid made on an American race by a European-trained horse, largely because of the money that can be won over there.

Oracle repeatedly stated that money was the be all and end all. In this regard there are parallels with the Ryder Cup. Perhaps its the case that the American psyche covets the almighty dollar above all else, and cannot find motivation for anything so trivial as prestige. That said, we know the same isn't the case of Sheikh Mohammed, but that's only because he was born as one of the richest men on the planet!

I prefer European racing because of the variety, the fact that speed hasn't become (as much) so critical, and at the expense of stamina. That you can watch racing at courses as diverse as Newmarket, Epsom, Chester, Goodwood, Longchamp or Leopardstown from one day to the next without getting the impression that you could be at any other track. That said, the uniformity of US tracks must surely help those looking to make a profit from their punting.

I also like the fact that the authorities haven't bowed to pressure and felt obliged to legalise the use of those drugs that have become an integral part of the sport in the US.

Most of all, however, I like the fact that Flat racing dies a death in October/early November and jump racing takes over until late April. I wouldn't have my winters any other way!

[King Glorious]

Apparently, nobody paid attention to me on the other thread so I'll post this again over here. The record of horses that come to the BC Mile directly from the QE II:

1985-(1st) Shadeed.......4th at 5/1 (moved to third by dq)

1987-(1st) Milligram......13th at 7/1
1987-(2nd) Miesque......won the BC
1987-(3rd) Sonic Lady....3rd in BC

1988-(1st) Warning........11th at 9/5 (favorite)

1989-(1st) Zilzal............6th at even money (favorite)
1989-(4th) Green Line Express......11th in BC

1990-(1st) Markofdistinction.........7th at 7/1

1991-(2nd) Kooyonga..........13th in BC
1991-(3rd) Shadayid..............7th in BC
1991-(4th) Second Set...........12th in BC

1992-(2nd) Brief Truce..........3rd in BC

1993-(1st) Bigstone.........6th at 12/1
1993-(2nd) Barathea........5th in BC

1994-(2nd) Barathea........won the BC
1994-(5th) Distant View......7th in BC
1994-(7th) East of the Moon.......12th in BC

1995-(2nd) Ridgewood Pearl.........won the BC

1996-(1st) Mark of Esteem.......7th at 6/5 (favorite)

1998-(1st) Desert Prince........14th at 3/1
1998-(3rd) Second Empire........6th in BC
1998-(4th) Cape Cross..........9th in BC
1998-(5th) Among Men.........11th in BC

2001-(2nd) Noverre...........7th in BC
2001-(4th) Bach...............3rd in BC

2004-(8th) Diamond Green........8th in BC
2004-(9th) Antonius Pius......2nd in BC

So u can see here that there have been eight QE II winners that have come over and run in the BC Mile as their next start. All eight have lost. Three of them have been favored and one was a second choice. The average price they've gone off at is $4.88/1 The BEST finish by any of the eight is a THIRD (by dq). This list doesn't even include Selkirk, the 1992 QE II winner that ran in another race before the BC then came over and lost the Mile (5th as the 7/2 second choice.

My point here is that winning the QE II has been a virtual kiss of death when it comes to the BC Mile. U have a much better chance of cashing a winning ticket with a horse that is coming out of the race that DIDN'T win it. Three QE II losers have come back to win the Mile. Ironically, all three of those horses were coming off of second place finishes in the QE II.

Overall, there have been 27 horses that have run in the BC Mile after making their last start in the QE II. They have an overall record of 3-1-4.

Play George Washington at your own risk. I'll be playing Araafa, who by the way, has already beaten George Washington this year once. And the price will be much better.

[Hwjb]

I think freshness is very important in the BC Mile, and generally those QEII winners you mention have run there at the end of a busy European season. In George's favour is the fact that he has run just four times, with an extended mid-summer break. This will be just his third outing off the back of that break.
Araafa beat George in the Irish 2,000 where they encountered heavy ground and, yes, if those conditions came up at CD (unlikely in the extreme) I'd consider playing Araafa. But George has beaten that horse twice, both times in the style of an exceptional miler. There are questions over his temperament, although I think they're receding as the season goes on, luck in running always plays a huge part around the frying pan-tight US courses and 2/1 (the best price on offer, as short as 5/4) doesn't offer value. However, he has put up the 2 best miling performances in the world this year, and, whichever way you look at it is by some way the most likely winner of the race.
Put simply it's illogical to say that Araafa has a better chance in the BCM just because he didn't win at Ascot, when the winner beat him senseless.

[Pointg5]

That's all well and good, but no horse with a RAN in the Dam Sire line has won the Derby, no horse with a 5 week layoff had won the Derby in a bunch of years, until Barbaro...I wouldn't use one race as a reason why they can't win another race, it's coincidence, not because of running in that race...Some horse will eventually win the BCJ and Derby, it's going to happen...

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Hwjb

I think freshness is very important in the BC Mile, and generally those QEII winners you mention have run there at the end of a busy European season. In George's favour is the fact that he has run just four times, with an extended mid-summer break. This will be just his third outing off the back of that break.
Araafa beat George in the Irish 2,000 where they encountered heavy ground and, yes, if those conditions came up at CD (unlikely in the extreme) I'd consider playing Araafa. But George has beaten that horse twice, both times in the style of an exceptional miler. There are questions over his temperament, although I think they're receding as the season goes on, luck in running always plays a huge part around the frying pan-tight US courses and 2/1 (the best price on offer, as short as 5/4) doesn't offer value. However, he has put up the 2 best miling performances in the world this year, and, whichever way you look at it is by some way the most likely winner of the race.
Put simply it's illogical to say that Araafa has a better chance in the BCM just because he didn't win at Ascot, when the winner beat him senseless.

U may say it's illogical but I don't know about that. I mean, facts are facts and so far, the fact is that eight times the QE II winner has come over and eight times they've been soundly defeated. By contrast, seven times the QE II runner-up has come over and they have three wins and a third. This kind of record sounds eerily similar to that of the Arc. No winner of that race has ever come over and won the BC Turf but six Arc losers have won the race. Are either of these things coincidences? Maybe. Maybe not. I think the most compelling reason for why George Washington can be the one to break the trend is the one u gave about him not having had a long and tiring season. It's my opinion that u have to be in top shape to handle a course and race like Ascot's QE II and asking a horse to reproduce such an effort so soon in today's game is perhaps asking too much. I also think that because of the course layout at Ascot, the winners of this race are usually horses that are probably better suited to 9-10f in American races. Notice the names of Giant's Causeway (2nd by a neck in BC Classic) and Falbrav (3rd by a head in BC Turf) as well as Rakti, Starcraft, and Dubai Millennium. I think all of those horses were better at longer distances than at 8f. I think that the mile at Ascot is more of a test of stamina than it is here where speed is king.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Apparently, nobody paid attention to me on the other thread so I'll post this again over here. The record of horses that come to the BC Mile directly from the QE II:

1985-(1st) Shadeed.......4th at 5/1 (moved to third by dq)

1987-(1st) Milligram......13th at 7/1
1987-(2nd) Miesque......won the BC
1987-(3rd) Sonic Lady....3rd in BC

1988-(1st) Warning........11th at 9/5 (favorite)

1989-(1st) Zilzal............6th at even money (favorite)
1989-(4th) Green Line Express......11th in BC

1990-(1st) Markofdistinction.........7th at 7/1

1991-(2nd) Kooyonga..........13th in BC
1991-(3rd) Shadayid..............7th in BC
1991-(4th) Second Set...........12th in BC

1992-(2nd) Brief Truce..........3rd in BC

1993-(1st) Bigstone.........6th at 12/1
1993-(2nd) Barathea........5th in BC

1994-(2nd) Barathea........won the BC
1994-(5th) Distant View......7th in BC
1994-(7th) East of the Moon.......12th in BC

1995-(2nd) Ridgewood Pearl.........won the BC

1996-(1st) Mark of Esteem.......7th at 6/5 (favorite)

1998-(1st) Desert Prince........14th at 3/1
1998-(3rd) Second Empire........6th in BC
1998-(4th) Cape Cross..........9th in BC
1998-(5th) Among Men.........11th in BC

2001-(2nd) Noverre...........7th in BC
2001-(4th) Bach...............3rd in BC

2004-(8th) Diamond Green........8th in BC
2004-(9th) Antonius Pius......2nd in BC

So u can see here that there have been eight QE II winners that have come over and run in the BC Mile as their next start. All eight have lost. Three of them have been favored and one was a second choice. The average price they've gone off at is $4.88/1 The BEST finish by any of the eight is a THIRD (by dq). This list doesn't even include Selkirk, the 1992 QE II winner that ran in another race before the BC then came over and lost the Mile (5th as the 7/2 second choice.

My point here is that winning the QE II has been a virtual kiss of death when it comes to the BC Mile. U have a much better chance of cashing a winning ticket with a horse that is coming out of the race that DIDN'T win it. Three QE II losers have come back to win the Mile. Ironically, all three of those horses were coming off of second place finishes in the QE II.

Overall, there have been 27 horses that have run in the BC Mile after making their last start in the QE II. They have an overall record of 3-1-4.

Play George Washington at your own risk. I'll be playing Araafa, who by the way, has already beaten George Washington this year once. And the price will be much better.

Thanks for posting this King Glorious. This is very, very helpful. I'll most likely play against him now too.

[The Bid]

How about everyone that wants to play against him, Ill book the bet.

[Hwjb]

At the finish Ascot is pretty level, although is uphill for the first 1.5f of its short 2.5f straight. In soft ground it can get quite testing, and compared to US races, I'm sure more stamina is required to win over a mile there.

However, as I've said before George is certainly not lacking in speed, he was a blisteringly quick 2yo, and it is merely to his credit that he won over a mile in dead ground there. I imagine he would be capable of winning G1s from 6f to 1m.

[Hwjb]

Originally Posted by Hwjb

I've read this thread with interest.
Personally I think its a little childish saying "we've got better horses than you," etc etc. But ultimately the racing scenes that have developed either side of the Atlantic have done so pretty much in complete isolation of one another. That's not to say Europeans don't buy American bred horses at the sales...they tend to be the fastest, and we know that these days the race is to the quick. That's also not to say that Americans don't purchase proven top European performers to go and compete over there. Why not? And then there's the occasional raid made on an American race by a European-trained horse, largely because of the money that can be won over there.

Oracle repeatedly stated that money was the be all and end all. In this regard there are parallels with the Ryder Cup. Perhaps its the case that the American psyche covets the almighty dollar above all else, and cannot find motivation for anything so trivial as prestige. That said, we know the same isn't the case of Sheikh Mohammed, but that's only because he was born as one of the richest men on the planet!

I prefer European racing because of the variety, the fact that speed hasn't become (as much) so critical, and at the expense of stamina. That you can watch racing at courses as diverse as Newmarket, Epsom, Chester, Goodwood, Longchamp or Leopardstown from one day to the next without getting the impression that you could be at any other track. That said, the uniformity of US tracks must surely help those looking to make a profit from their punting.

I also like the fact that the authorities haven't bowed to pressure and felt obliged to legalise the use of those drugs that have become an integral part of the sport in the US.

Most of all, however, I like the fact that Flat racing dies a death in October/early November and jump racing takes over until late April. I wouldn't have my winters any other way!

I think in this regard we should reserve praise for Deep Impact's connections. For all that I don't think their horse will finish in the first 3 on Sunday, I applaud the fact that they came to win the world's biggest turf race, rather than be lured by the prospect of winning more money in the BC Turf, where (I believe) their charge would have had a better chance.