It's All About Black Caviar

After Frankel's scintillating 11 length win in the first race of the meeting, the Queen Anne Stakes on Tuesday, many were expecting the Australian superstar Black Caviar to provide a similar conclusion in Saturday's Diamond Jubilee Stakes. In the end, the great mare won but not in the manner or style that we had anticipated.

There are numerous possible reasons to explain her disappointing performance. She won, which is what she came to do, but her actual performance was significantly inferior to both the performance we were expecting and the performance she is capable of. Perhaps it was the journey, the long season, the track, the ground, her minor injury, or perhaps she is not the horse she was. Whatever the explanation, there can be little doubt that the racegoers who flocked to Ascot on Saturday did not get to see her at her peak. I would be hugely surprised if there were not some validity in some of the reasons offered for her below par showing, but I cannot help but be puzzled by some comments. 

Before the race, my impression was that all was well in the Black Caviar camp, if not better than it had ever been. Her trainer, Peter Moody, commented: "When I saw her when I got here, I saw the same horse as the one that left. She's done really well, in fact so well that she may have to have a serious workout before Saturday", and that "Physically she is the fittest I've had her for two years. I can't fault her". It appears that Moody was as happy as he could be with the condition and fitness of his horse heading into the race. He was also confident about the result: "Facts and figures tell you that any opposition in the world would struggle to measure up to her", "she has this aura of invincibility" and "I would feel brave enough and cocky enough to suggest Black Caviar would have given them a good towelling in the King's Stand." Furthermore, her jockey, Luke Nolen, said "I'm feeling good and probably the reason for my confidence is that she is going so well", "we're enjoying it and I know the mare is going well". Connections were well aware of the risks attached in bringing her over but all the evidence suggests that they were delighted with her condition heading into the race.

After the race, the tone was a little different. I had only the pleasure of watching her on TV but, to my eye, connections, in particular Peter Moody, looked shell-shocked at what they had witnessed. No doubt many will point to Luke Nolen's "brain fade", but I suspect that Moody might have worn a similar expression without it. He was not expecting such a battle and it showed. Afterwards he said "she never travelled as strongly as she normally does and I had concerns half a mile out. She's had lots of niggles and she's carried us for a long time both a 10,000 mile journey into the equation and this was always going to be the greatest risk of her career" and "She's had a long season followed by a long trip and the owners are to be congratulated". All true and all valid points but if the travel was a problem, if the long season was a problem, if past niggles were a problem, why were the pre-race noises so overwhelmingly positive? The pre-race comments were so positive as to place a question mark over the explanations.

Nolen said "I think it was just due to the fact that she'd had a gruelling run", "I let her idle, that big engine shut down and I shit myself duly. I thought she'd coast but when I relaxed she came right back under me. It took me by surprise. She nearly carted me in Newmarket earlier in the week but she didn't bring that to the races with her". Nolen often eases up on the mare close home in Australia and did the same thing at Ascot and very nearly paid the ultimate price. Firstly, far too much has been made of the ride. In the context of the whole race it was minimal and was the difference between a length win and the rather uncomfortable head verdict. It was a glaring error and, therefore, and easy target but it should not be used to explain the performance. I thought the margin would have been less than a length regardless and that is still a long way short of what many were expecting. Nolen deserves great credit for his honesty about his mistake but I find his explanations more interesting. He was expecting her to cruise through the line as she does in Australia but she did nothing of the sort. It also hints to the idea that Nolen assumed he had the race won, that he must be sufficiently clear already, and he need not ride her out fully. Was this a result of underestimating the ability of the opposition or a result of the reasons offered above for her disappointing performance? I have read that he eased up because he wanted to go easy on her given that she was not herself. That is possible but I find myself tending towards the opposite explanation, that Nolen eased up because he had a good feeling from the mare and, therefore, must have had the race won. 

Perhaps my cynicism is getting the better of me and, as I say, I am sure there is validity in some explanations. What I find hard to accept is the huge swing from pre-race confidence to post-race explanations. 

However, let that not detract from what she achieved. In unfavourable circumstances she stretched her unbeaten record to 22 races, an astonishing feat. This was not the silky smooth Black Caviar that I have watched before; she did not travel with the same elan, she did not power clear of her rivals with her customary turn of foot, she did not saunter through the line with plenty left in the locker. We already knew that she had all those qualities but in winning the Diamond Jubilee she displayed attributes very different to those we normally see: she was tenacious and brave. I have never seen her required to display such virtues before, and let that be an indication of just how good she is. To beat the likes of Hay List on the bridle, without the need to battle, is a testament to her ability.

I had all but bought my tickets when it was announced that Saturday had sold out. In the morning I was beginning to think that I had made a terrible mistake. I am told that the atmosphere was unlike anything before experienced on a British racecourse and there was a real sense that something special was in the offing. This is both brilliant and worrying all at the same time. It is brilliant for obvious reasons but it is worrying because it took an Australian Champion, the second best horse in the World, to create it. I understand that her coming over was special and unique but was it, or should it, have been the highlight of the five day meeting? Ryan Moore commented beforehand that he felt the Black Caviar story had strayed into overkill. I think, to some extent, he has a point but, on the other hand, he is as wrong as wrong can be. We, the British racing public, can learn something from the Australians. They celebrate Champions far better than we do and it is phenomenal that their horse was the highlight of our meeting when our horse is the best in the World. I mean that in the best possible way. It was their excitement, their enthusiasm for their Champion which was so infectious. It is a travesty that the brilliance of Frankel, (arguably?) the best horse we have ever seen, was lost in the Black Caviar circus. And this is where Ryan is right. The Black Caviar story was overdone, but not in a negative way because it just filled the gaping chasm that we appear unable to fill. Ryan should have been commenting on how fed up he was of reading about Frankel. The mainstream media took to the Black Caviar story, and understandably so, but the horse they should have been writing about is Frankel. They came, they saw and they conquered, but, more importantly, they conquered our media. British racing can learn a lot from that.

She did not indulge us with her best, but let us be thankful that she came and thankful for what she brought with her. She brought unprecedented media interest and it is now our job to ensure that we generate the same level of coverage for our own stars. I have written far more about Black Caviar than I have about Frankel's Queen Anne so I am as guilty as any but be in no doubt that Frankel was the highlight of the meeting, and rightfully so. He is the best in the World, the best we have ever seen, an equine phenomenon. Now let us celebrate him like we are Australian.

Frankel In The Queen Anne

I expected Frankel to win by 4 or 5 lengths. I thought there was a chance it might be more, but that it was more likely to be less. I am pleased to report that I have never been happier to be so wrong. The margin was 11 lengths which left me with a fair amount of egg on my face and plenty of humble pie to munch. Neverthless, I am only too happy to swallow my pride to witness a performance of such utter brilliance. He is without doubt the best flat horse that I have ever seen even if my memory stretches back only so far. The arguments about who is the greatest will continue but I am in little doubt that it is Frankel who has the most ability. Timeform's new master rating of 147, the best in its 64 year history, confirms that. He is devastatingly good.

His 11 length winning margin was three lengths greater than any distance achieved in the past ten Royal Ascot meetings, a total of 300 races. What makes it all the more incredible is the fact that Excelebration, the 3rd best horse in the World according to Timeform behind Frankel and Black Caviar, was the horse who trailed in 11 lengths behind. If Frankel did not exist then Excelebration's form would read 411112111111 rather than 411213112122. Be in no doubt that he is a good deal better than Frankel makes him look. I said beforehand that Excelebration had not really tried to beat Frankel in the Lockinge but he certainly gave it his best shot in this, and ultimately paid the price. He was unable to live with Frankel when Queally put his foot to the floor and was a weary horse close home as Side Glance and Indomito closed him down. I only hope that he gets the opportunity to prove what he is capable of when Frankel takes on new challenges at 10f later in the year.

On the subject of Frankel and new challenges, it was pleasing to see Sir Henry giving the Coral Eclipse consideration after this performance. He looks more than ready for the step up to 10f now, and, scary as it may sound, I am convinced that he is going to be at least as good at the trip. He is so strong at the finish over 8f and has such a fast cruising speed that it is all but impossible to envisage anything challenging him, let alone lowering his colours. Nevertheless, new horizons will add still further to his burgeoning reputation and legacy. The antipodean monster that is So You Think successfully avenged his close defeat in the Prince Of Wales' Stakes 12 months ago. He is not the horse that we were told he was going to be but let that not detract from his achievements. He has been boldly campaigned and has produced consistent top class efforts. He is not in the same league as Frankel but is thoroughly likeable and would be an excellent 10f yardstick to measure Frankel's ability should they meet in the Eclipse. I already have my tickets for Sandown so hope that the time has come for Frankel to confirm his place at the top of the tree. 

Frankel also provided something of a body blow to the total winning distance bet (40.75 to 54.75 lengths at 7/4 with Stan James). The highest two-day total in the previous ten years was 30.55, recorded in 2003, which contributed to a final total of 56.05. Interestingly, the highest overall total (66.6 in 2004) was achieved with a relatively modest two-day total of 17.55. It is clear that all is not lost, even if it is now an uphill climb to the finish line. 

When a horse produces a performance of such brilliance, a few quid lost suddenly pales into insignificance. And so it should. It will be years, perhaps decades or even longer, until we see another like him. He is nothing short of exceptional. Enjoy him whilst you still can.

Royal Ascot Winning Distance

Now I am on the subject of winning distances I might as well carry on. The next one that caught my eye was Blue Square offering 3/1 about Frankel to be the widest margin winner of the week. I thought that looked a reasonable price considering I expect him to win by 4 or 5 lengths and I thought that 5 lengths might be sufficient to ensure a return. I was wrong.

The table above shows all the winning distances for the past five Royal Ascot meetings.

The longest winning distance has been 6, 5, 6, 7 and 6 lengths with a mean of 6 lengths. It is immediately clear that Frankel winning by 4 or 5 lengths is approaching or at the required level. If Frankel were to win by 5 lengths, then there is a chance that that would be enough, but, the data from the last 5 years would suggest that another length is required. 

However, the total winning distance offers some more interesting opportunities. The two bookmakers playing in this market are Stan James and Ladbrokes and the best prices and combinations available are:

• Under 42 lengths - Ladbrokes - 13/8
• 40.75-54.75 Lengths - Stan James - 7/4
• Over 54 - Ladbrokes 7/4
• Overround - 110.80%

The data from the past 5 years gives total winning distances of 47.4, 36.7, 50.75, 44.85 and 43 lengths. All bar the 36.7 falls within the middle category. A bet at 7/4 which would be made 4/5 times? Excellent, but more research required.

Above is an extended version of the previous table to include the last ten Royal Ascot meetings, including the one staged at York in 2005. 

The winning distance totals in ascending order are: 29.15, 36.7, 38.80, 42.25, 43, 44.85, 47.40, 50.75, 56.05, 66.6. At the past ten Royal Ascot meetings 5/10 have fallen within the range 40.75-54.75 offered by Stan James at 7/4. A bet at 7/4 on an even money chance it would appear. If York is excluded then 4/9 totals fall within the required range, or 44.4%. 7/4 represents a percentage chance of 36.63% so there is still a comfortable margin in hand. 

3/10 (30%) results fall into the under 42 category but odds of 13/8 represents a percentage chance of 38.10%. 2/10 (20%) results fall into the over 54 category but odds of 7/4 represents a percentage chance of 36.63%. If York is excluded then the figures are 3/9 ( 33.3%) and 2/9 (22.2%) respectively. Regardless of whether York is included or excluded, both the under 42 and over 54 categories represent poor value based on data from the past 10 years because there is a smaller chance of the total distance falling into either category than their odds imply. However, the opposite is true for the middle range between 40.75 and 54.75 lengths. Therefore, the 7/4 with Stan James rates a value bet.

1pt 40.75-54.75 Total Winning Distance at Royal Ascot with Stan James at 7/4

Distance Double

Coral have priced up a market for the combined winning distance of Frankel in the Queen Anne Stakes on Tuesday and Black Caviar in the Diamond Jubilee Stakes on Saturday at Royal Ascot. The market is as follows:

• 4/5 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 6 lengths or more
• 7/4 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 8 lengths or more
• 7/2 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 10 lengths or more
• 7/1 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 12 lengths or more
• 12/1 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 14 lengths or more

When I first saw the market I commented that the 12/1 for a combined distance of 14 lengths or more was a "truly terrible bet". Here is why.

When determining winning distance bets Coral use (30.10):

• Nose - 0.05
• Short-Head - 0.1
• Head - 0.2
• Neck - 0.3

Queen Anne Stakes

The winning distances in the last 10 renewals were:

• 2011 - Canford Cliffs - 1
• 2010 - Goldikova - 0.3
• 2009 - Paco Boy - 1.5
• 2008 - Haradasun - 0.2
• 2007 - Ramonti - 0.1
• 2006 - Ad Valorem - 1.5
• 2005 - Valixir - 1.5
• 2004 - Refuse To Bend - 0.3
• 2003 - Dubai Destination - 4
• 2002 - No Excuse Needed - 0.1

• Total - 10.5
• Mean - 1.05

Diamond Jubilee Stakes

The winning distances in the last 10 renewals were:

• 2011 - Society Rock - 0.5
• 2010 - Starspangledbanner - 1.75
• 2009 - Art Connoisseur - 0.3
• 2008 - Kingsgate Native - 1.25
• 2007 - Soldier's Tale - 0.2
• 2006 - Les Arcs - 0.3
• 2005 - Cape Of Good Hope - 0.2
• 2004 - Fayr Jag - 0.2
• 2003 - Choisir - 0.5
• 2002 - Malhub - 1.5

• Total - 6.7
• Mean - 0.67

Frankel

Group 1 Races

• Dewhurst - 2.25
• 2000 Guineas - 6
• St James' Palace - 0.75
• Sussex - 5
• Queen Elizabeth II - 4
• Lockinge - 5

• Total - 23
• Mean - 3.83

Black Caviar

Group 1 Races

• Patinack Farm Classic - 4
• Lightning - 3.25
• Newmarket - 3
• William Reid - 1.75
• T J Smith - 2.75
• BTC Cup - 2
• Patinack Farm Classic - 2.75
• C F Orr - 3.25
• Lightning - 1.75
• Robert Sangster - 4.5
• Goodwood - 1.25

• Total - 30.25
• Mean - 2.75

Royal Ascot

According to the BHA Detailed Guide to Handicapping, "In Flat races one length is typically reckoned to be worth three pounds in sprint races, two pounds in mile races and one pound in staying races". 

Frankel has an official rating of 138 with Excelebration next best on 125, then Strong Suit on 123, followed by Helmet on 119 and Worthadd on 118. If it is assumed that all horses run to their official ratings:

1. Frankel
2. Excelebration 6.5
3. Strong Suit 7.5
4. Helmet 9.5
5. Worthadd 10

Black Caviar has an official rating of 130, Krypton Factor on 124 (achieved on Tapeta), Moonlight Cloud is next on 118 and Society Rock on 117. If they all run to their marks (with sex allowance applied):

1. Black Caviar
2. Krypton Factor 3
3. Moonlight Cloud 4
4. Society Rock 5.33

Assuming that all horses run to their marks then the combined winning distance would be 9.5 lengths.

However, there are a few reasons why this might not happen. The first is that horses do not run to their marks. Everything would be very easy if they did. Secondly, Frankel and Black Caviar's mean winning distances are 3.83 and 2.75 lengths respectively. Is it reasonable to expect their combined winning distances at Royal Ascot to exceed their combined mean winning distances in their Group 1 wins by nearly 3 lengths? I would argue not. Furthermore, Frankel has raced Excelebration on four occasions, beating him by 4, 2.25, 4 and 5 lengths. I can see no obvious reason to expect this margin (mean 3.8) to increase so dramatically to 6.5 lengths as their official ratings would imply. I would also suggest that it is unlikely that either Frankel or Black Caviar will be ridden out to maximise the winning distance.

Expectations

Longest winning distances in the past 10 renewals of the Queen Anne and Diamond Jubilee combined - 5.75.

Mean winning distances of the past 10 renewals of the Queen Anne and Diamond Jubilee combined - 1.72.

Longest winning distances in Frankel and Black Caviar's Group 1 races combined - 10.

Shortest winning distances in Frankel and Black Caviar's Group 1 races combined - 2.

Mean winning distances of Frankel and Black Caviar's Group 1 races combined - 6.58.

Expected winning distances of Frankel and Black Caviar in the Queen Anne and Diamond Jubilee as implied by their official ratings combined - 9.5.

Narrowing The Range

The above combinations give a range between 1.72 lengths to 9.5 lengths. 

I think the historical data from the Queen Anne and Diamond Jubilee can be safely ignored. Over the past 10 renewals the mean career high official rating for Queen Anne winners was 123 and for Diamond Jubilee winners was 117.9. Frankel and Black Caviar, at 138 and 130 respectively, are far superior to an average winner. 

Range between 2 lengths and 9.5 lengths. 

Frankel's superiority over Excelebration is confirmed at around 4 lengths from 4 separate meetings. The smallest winning margin between the two of them (2.25), added to Black Caviar's smallest winning margin in Group 1s (1.25) is 3.5 lengths. 

Range between 3.5 lengths and 9.5 lengths.

Using the previous point but for the opposite purpose, Frankel has never beaten Excelebration by further than 5 lengths in 4 races. If this distance is added to Black Caviar's expected winning distance as implied by official ratings that results in a combined distance of 9 lengths.

Range between 3.5 lengths and 9 lengths. 

Frankel's 2.25 length beating of Excelebration in last year's St James' Palace Stakes was achieved recording an official rating of just 122, 8lbs below his peak figure at the time. Therefore, the three other races against Excelebration can be considered a more accurate reflection of his superiority (4, 4 and 5 lengths with a mean of 4.33). 4 lengths added to Black Caviar's smallest winning margin in Group 1s (1.25) is 5.25 lengths.

Range between 5.25 and 9 lengths. 

It is hard to chip away at either end with any great confidence but I do think it is possible to arrive at a more definite conclusion. I think Frankel's winning distance can be determined by his form with Excelebration who will once again be his main opponent. Black Caviar's is more difficult to determine given that she has never faced any of her rivals with the exception of Ortensia. Her mean winning distance is 2.75 lengths and that, added to Frankel's 4.33 beating of Excelebration would give a combined winning distance of approximately 7 lengths. 

Final estimate - 7 lengths. 

Conclusion

The odds quoted by Coral are as follows:

• 4/5 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 6 lengths or more
• 7/4 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 8 lengths or more
• 7/2 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 10 lengths or more
• 7/1 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 12 lengths or more
• 12/1 Frankel and Black Caviar to win by a combined distance of 14 lengths or more

I think the 12/1 for 14 lengths or more is a "truly terrible price" as I said at first. I think the 7/1 for 12 lengths or more is possibly even worse and the 7/2 for 10 lengths or more not much better either. If Frankel's superiority over Excelebration is fairly well established at no more than 5 lengths, for either bet to come good would require Black Caviar to win by 7 lengths and 9 lengths respectively. At a scale of 3lbs per length for sprint trips, that equates to a superiority of 21lbs and 28lbs. If she does not exceed her official rating (130) then 2nd place can run to a mark of no higher than 109 or 102. There are numerous horses capable of exceeding that mark. If the likes of Krypton Factor, Moonlight Cloud and Society Rock run to their marks then Black Caviar will need to run to a figure something like 142 or 149 to win by the required margin. I cannot see that happening. Of course the above assumes that Frankel and Excelebration will run to their form which is no certainty. Moreover, all of the above makes the assumption that both Frankel and Black Caviar are going to win. Their prices of 1/5 and 1/3 respectively imply that there is a 37.5% chance that the double does not come off.

The prices I said were terrible are terrible and the others offer little in the way of value to tempt me into a bet. However, one positive is the fact that such a market is even available emphasises the extraordinary ability of these two unbeaten champions. Savour them whilst you still can.

Solving A Problem Like Sanctuaire

Posted 01/05/12 - CUHRS Blog

Sprinter Sacre has looked nothing short of exceptional this season with 5 wins from 5 starts and has barely been off the bridle doing so. He is rightly rated as one of the best (if not the best) novice chaser for a very long time. From the impression he has created it is very hard to argue with that. I, therefore, find the very suggestion that another novice could possibly be rated higher tricky to accept but that is the dilemma that Sanctuaire's scintillating win on Saturday poses.

For all his apparent brilliance, Sprinter Sacre's reputation relies to a large extent on the impression he has created and the manner in which he has beaten his rivals rather than who those rivals were. Sanctuaire had beaten nothing in his first two starts but had done it in breathtaking fashion. I can honestly say that his three starts this season would rank very highly in my list of favourite races for the campaign. However, in the Celebration he went from being an exciting novice chaser to a potential champion and in no uncertain terms.

I have backed him at 66/1 EW for the Champion Chase and I am the first to admit that it was a speculative wager that was far more likely to be written off before the end of the season than it was to have any realistic chance of being a winner. My main reason was that the other challengers looked so weak and so few and far between that a speculative bet on a 66/1 shot who just might make up into a contender was worth a stab.

I backed him in the Celebration as well at 11/2 but was concerned by the ground and the absence of Ruby from the saddle who, until Saturday, was the only person to have won on him. I was hopeful of a return but not in my wildest dreams did expect him to pull out a performance of that quality. His jumping was absolutely superb, he travelled strongly without pulling as he has done in the past, and he never stopped in front and galloped right to the line. The thing which impressed me most was the way that the others just could not make significant inroads into his lead. Whether they cut him too much slack I do not know. However, I watched the replay and Richard Johnson (and others) are niggling along down the back straight long before the railway fences suggesting they were fully aware of the situation. When their urgings became more serious they still failed to close him down at anything other than a steady rate. They had got his lead down to about 15 lengths at the last but when Daryl Jacob asked him to put the race to bed after the last he drew away from them again by a couple of lengths. This was what really struck me as being quite remarkable: to jump, travel and finish as well as he did on ground as bad as that was deeply impressive.

I will admit to having a soft spot for the horse. Even over hurdles he has always been one that I have kept a close eye on. For some reason I seem to be drawn to flawed brilliance. I have always thought he had the talent but his temperament was that (significant) flaw in his make-up. It is pleasing that fences (and/or front-running tactics) have (touch wood) put those problems to bed. He had looked sulky over hurdles but has appeared to relish every yard of his three starts over fences. 

It is also important to establish some perspective here as well. He did not make his chasing debut until 31st January this year. In those two starts he had beaten only 7 rivals none of whom were rated higher than 130. On just his third start, three months after his chasing debut, he tackles the Celebration. Of the 7 opponents, only Dan Breen (148) was rated lower than 153, and Somersby, Wishfull Thinking and French Opera were all rated 160+. It was a very good solid field but with nothing that was tip-top class. I hoped Sanctuaire might be which was why I was prepared to give him a chance. He fairly destroyed them from the front.

He was impressive but that is of little benefit if the value of the form is not known. Sanctuaire's Celebration performance is hard to rate because there were no horses anywhere near him for most of the race. It is difficult but not impossible. If we crudely assume 1lb per length (roughly correct and good enough for this purpose) then his rating would come out as follows:

Somersby (166) beaten 17 lengths conceding 4lbs - 179

Dan Breen (148) beaten 19 (to the nearest length) lengths - 167

French Opera (162) beaten 23 lengths - 185

Wishfull Thinking (164) beaten 28 lengths - 192

West With The Wind (154) beaten 31 lengths - 185

Woolcombe Folly (155) beaten 36 lengths - 191

Ignored Cornas (203 for anybody interested!)

A literal interpretation of the form means that he can only be rated lower than Sprinter Sacre by assuming that Dan Breen has run to his mark of 148 and that everything else has run well below form. 

This is the view taken by the BHA Handicappers who have allotted him a revised mark of 167 by using the hellishly inconsistent Dan Breen as their yardstick. That might be the case but it does seem a little convenient in that it drops him nicely 2lbs below Sprinter Sacre. That is understandable because I can imagine there would be a few astonished faces if Sprinter Sacre were to be superceded at the top of the novice chase division. However, I am  far from comfortable with the use of Dan Breen as the marker in this race. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is laughable. If Dan Breen has run to his mark of 148 then that would have the rest of the field running to:

Somersby (166) - Beat him 2 lengths giving 4lbs which puts him on 154 - 12lbs below form

French Opera (162) - Beaten 4 lengths puts him on 144 - 18lbs below form

Wishfull Thinking (164) - Beaten 9 lengths puts him on 139 - 25lbs below form

West With The Wind (154) - Beaten 12 lengths puts him on 136 - 18lbs below form

Woolcombe Folly (155) - Beaten 17 lengths puts him on 131 - 24lbs below form

Cornas ignored

I think both Somersby and French Opera could be regarded as 'solid yardsticks' but the last named was beaten at an early stage in the Celebration. The same cannot be said of many of the others, Dan Breen included. If Somersby and French Opera have run to form then they should finish level with Somersby conceding 4lbs. Somersby beat French Opera by nearly 6 lengths. For Somersby to have run below form, French Opera would have had to be a lot below his mark which is not impossible.

If Somersby has run to his mark of 166 (previous best performances have been at Ascot, another stiff right handed track) then French Opera has run to 156. Both of those figures put Sanctuaire onto 179. Dan Breen is the anomaly in the race and the above interpretation of Somersby and French Opera's performances would put him up 12lbs to 160. Is Dan Breen a 160 horse? I do not think so on what we have seen so far. He is rated 148 and I would find a mark of 155 believable but no more than that. Dropping them all 5lbs to put Dan Breen on 155 puts Somersby to 161 (I have long held the view that he is a consistent 160ish horse anyway) and French Opera to 151 (well below form, but he was beaten a long way out). Those ratings put Sanctuaire onto 174. That compares to the Arkle winner Sprinter Sacre on 169  and the Champion Chase winner Finian's Rainbow on 173. That rating is arrived at using a fairly pessimistic view of the form (which I am not totally convinced is justified). That gives him 5lbs in hand over Sprinter Sacre and you need to keep chipping away to bring Sanctuaire back down below him, unless, of course, you feel confident that the use of Dan Breen as a marker is justifiable. 

I find 174 as hard to believe as you do, not least because of my apparent shrewdness in taking the 66/1 for the Champion Chase a month or so ago. The above is only my view and my interpretation of what appears the most likely scenario. I could be wrong, I could be very wrong but there is a small chance I could be right. The last time I did this exercise was with the Arkle and I consistently found that Cue Card was 2nd best in the race. I could not have him at all for numerous reasons but, needless to say, he finished a clear 2nd. 

I am sure some will argue that he was given too much slack on the front end but his jumping was so quick and slick that I am not sure the rest had much choice. I am positive that the other jockeys were aware of what was going on early in the race in that Richard Johnson (and others) are noticeably niggling their mounts along after the water jump (if not earlier). They knew what was going on and could do nothing about it. Going down the back it is noticeable how much faster Sanctuaire is at his fences compared to anything else.

There you have it, Sprinter Sacre, unbeaten in 5, the best winner of the Arkle and the best novice chaser for decades, and then up pops the mercurial Sanctuaire from out of the blue to beat him to the title of champion novice (in my opinion at least). I should qualify that by saying that I have not looked at Sprinter Sacre and have assumed that his official rating is correct. It might easily be the case that his rating does not reflect his achievements and it is almost certainly the case that his rating does not reflect his ability.

Now the prices: Sprinter Sacre is 5/4 and Sanctuaire is 12/1 for the 2013 Champion Chase. Which do I prefer? I think the 5/4 is horrific compared to the 12/1 you can get on Sanctuaire. I am certain that Sprinter Sacre has more in the locker but I think Sanctuaire does too. I also think it can at least be argued that his Celebration form is stronger than anything Sprinter Sacre has achieved. Both are unbeaten over fences, both have been immensely impressive in all their starts and I for one cannot wait for the Tingle Creek 2013 when we will find out where they stand. I was finding it very hard to resist taking a bit of the 12/1 and having done this analysis it is even harder. The one thing stopping me is that I already have him at 66/1. If I did not have that tasty ticket I would certainly be 'investing' a little. His performance has come from so far out of the blue that it could be being underrated. I think he is at least a serious challenger to Sprinter Sacre and I do not think it is anything like the formality that the odds suggest that the Henderson superstar will come out on top when they do meet. What is a certainty is that clash will be something to savour.

Sanctuaire A Champion Bet

Posted on 23/03/12 - CUHRS Blog


I mentioned a fancy for a horse in the Champion Chase at 50/1 when I wrote my Cheltenham Review. I see that others are looking along the same lines, and, with 66/1 now available in a place, the time looks right to take advantage. This does come with a health warning and is undoubtedly a bet fraught with risk. It is just as likely (if not more) to be down the drain before the start of the season than it is to be a winner. 66/1 shots without question marks don't exist and, all things considered, this one is worth a chance.

The 2m division is widely regarded as weak, but that could all change next season when potential superstar Sprinter Sacre steps into open company. He has already proven himself up to the task with facile wins in the Game Spirit and the Arkle, and is a warm order to follow up in the Champion Chase in 2013. However, odds of no bigger than 11/8 are hardly tempting at this stage, especially as so many things can go wrong and so quickly. The clear favourite aside, the division lacks strength in depth but an alternative that I like at this stage is Sanctuaire. He is the last name quoted with both Coral and Stan James, and can be backed at 66/1 with the latter. Of those above him in the market (the favourite aside), there are reasons to oppose them.

Finian's Rainbow - Reigning Champion but may step up in trip with yard preference for Sprinter Sacre. He'll be 10 next season too.

Sizing Europe - He will be 11 and whilst he can still go well, age might start catching up with him.

Peddlers Cross - He will be going back over hurdles according to trainer Donald McCain.

Flemenstar - He has shown his best form on soft ground and his future surely lies over further. He'll be 'Gold Cuppin' according to his infamous trainer Peter Casey.

Cue Card - No match for Sprinter Sacre in the Arkle and another who looks set to step up in trip.

Al Ferof - Same comments apply as for Cue Card with targets such as the King George looking more likely.

Somersby - A possible but appears tripless and tends to get outpaced down the hill at the minimum.

Big Zeb - Too old this year and will definitely be too old next year. Also unlikely to travel.

Wishfull Thinking - Form has deteriorated since a brilliant novice season. He might get back on track but has questions.

Menorah - Miles behind in the Arkle and needs to improve considerably.

Kauto Stone - Another possible but probably lacks a gear to win such a race, but may have place prospects. Possible that his future is over further as well.

Sanctuaire himself is hardly devoid of question marks but at 66/1 that is factored into his price. He was a high class hurdler (rated 150), he has Festival form (bolted up in the Fred Winter, albeit off a lenient mark), and, most importantly, looks to have taken to fences very well indeed. On his fencing debut at Taunton he went off like a scalded cat in front, never saw another rival, and stormed home in a fair time. It was the same story at Sandown next time where he had the 130 rated Gracchus a legless 41 lengths behind, with the 120 rated Prince Buster another 16 lengths in arrears. It is difficult and dangerous to read to much into the bare form but it would be impossible to argue with the manner of vicotry especially as, on both occasions, he has impressed greatly with his exuberant jumping. He is a good looking animal, very classy and very speedy. His downfall is his temperament which has posed Champion Trainer Paul Nicholls a number of headaches through his career. He has been very strong (and still is), has virtually refused to race, and so on. However, he has looked a happier horse since going chasing and it could be that fences are the making of him. 

He is due to contest the Maghull Novices' Chase at Aintree next month where he will likely face Sprinter Sacre. If he were to do the unthinkable and beat that one then his price would collapse. If that one didn't turn up and he won in his absence then his price would collapse. If that one did turn up and he ran him close then his price would collapse. You get the picture.

He isn't there yet but he just could be better than anything else that Sprinter Sacre will have to face next season. He might flop in the Maghull but he might line up at Cheltenham in March 2013 as the 5/1 second favourite as well. It is a risky proposition but one I am prepared to take a chance on at the price.

0.5pts EW Sanctuaire at 66/1 with Stan James

A National Nightmare?

Since the terrific but tragic 2012 Grand National I have heard plenty about what should be done and what should not be done to make the race safer, if it needs to be made safer at all. I have always thought that this or that might be the problem, and that this or that might be a solution, but I have not really had an  in depth understanding about exactly what happens, where it happens, why it happens and so on, only general theories. I would not say the Grand National is my favourite race, far from it in fact, but I appreciate both its positive and negative contribution, and its importance to the sport.

I have looked in detail at the 2012, 2011 and 2010 Grand Nationals to try and discover more. Time and resources limit me from looking further and I appreciate that the time period is small, and that the period I have looked at is not necessarily reflective of the overall picture. However, I am sure that useful and interesting conclusions have been reached which have enabled me to understand the race better. I hope they help you do the same.

What Happened - 2012

In the 2012 Grand National 15 horses completed the race and, of the 25 that failed to complete, 10 fell, 7 unseated riders, 4 pulled up, 3 were brought down and 1 refused.

Start.

Viking Blond - Fell 1st. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Junior - Fell 2nd. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

West End Rocker - Fell 2nd. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

State Of Play - Unseated rider 5th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Rare Bob - Brought down 5th. Interfered with when Noel Fehily fell into his path.

Chicago Grey - Brought down 5th. Interfered with when Rare Bob fell into his path.

Synchronised - Fell 6th (Becher's Brook). Relatively clear view of the fence with no interference.

Alfa Beat - Fell 7th. Relatively clear view of the fence with no interference.

Killyglen - Unseated rider 8th (Canal Turn). On the inside with a lot of horses around him but no interference.

Black Apalachi - Fell 8th (Canal Turn). Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Organised Confusion - Unseated rider 8th (Canal Turn). Direct result of interference.

Tatenen - Unseated rider 8th (Canal Turn). Direct result of interference.

Becauseicouldntsee - Unseated rider 8th (Canal Turn). Direct result of interference.

Treacle - Fell 9th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Arbor Supreme - Unseated rider 9th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Giles Cross - Pulled up before 10th.

Always Right - Unseated rider 15th (The Chair). Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Quiscover Fontaine - Fell 17th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Deep Purple - Pulled up before 19th. 

Vic Venturi - Refused 19th.

Mon Mome - Pulled up before 22nd (Becher's Brook).

Postmaster - Pulled up before 22nd (Becher's Brook).

On His Own - Fell 22nd (Becher's Brook). Interfered with by loose horse and unsighted.

According To Pete - Brought down 22nd (Becher's Brook). 

Weird Al - Fell 27th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Finish.

If the four horses that pulled up and the one refusal are eliminated then the twenty who failed to complete as a result of the fences remain. 

Total - All Fences

• 10 Fallers (10/20 = 50% of total)
• 7 Unseats (7/20 = 35% of total)
• 3 Brought Down (3/20 = 15% of total)
• 20 Total

To get an indication about where the problems are occurring the race can be split into three stages. The result is as follows:

Stage 1 - Fences 1 to 10

• 7 Fallers (7/10 = 70% of fallers)
• 6 Unseats (6/7 = 85.7% of unseats)
• 2 Brought Down (2/3 = 66.6% of those brought down)
• 15 Total (15/20 = 75% of total)

 Stage 2 - Fences 11 to 20

• 1 Faller (1/10 = 10% of fallers)
• 1 Unseat (1/7 = 14.2% of unseats)
• 0 Brought Down
• 2 Total (2/20 = 10% of total)

 Stage 3 - Fences 21 to 30

• 2 Fallers (2/10 = 20% of fallers)
• 0 Unseats
• 1 Brought Down (1/3 = 33.3% of those brought down)
• 3 Total (3/20 = 15% of total)

What Happened - 2011

In the 2011 Grand National 19 horses completed the race and, of the 21 that failed to complete, 11 fell, 3 unseated riders, 5 pulled up and 2 were brought down.

Start.

That's Rhythm - Fell 1st. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Becauseicouldntsee - Fell 2nd. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Vic Venturi - Brought Down 2nd.

Ornais - Fell 4th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Calgary Bay - Fell 4th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Dooney's Gate - Fell 6th (Becher's Brook). Clear view of the fence with no interference.

The Tother One - Fell 6th (Becher's Brook). Tight for room and interfered with.

Or Noir De Somoza - Fell 6th (Becher's Brook). Dooney's Gate falls in front of him.

West End Rocker - Brought Down 6th (Becher's Brook). Dooney's Gate falls in front of him.

Tidal Bay - Unseated Rider 10th. Relatively clear view of the fence with no interference.

Quolibet - Unseated Rider 11th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Grand Slam Hero - Fell 13th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Quinz - Pulled Up before 16th.

Can't Buy Time - Fell 18th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Majestic Concorde - Unseated Rider 24th (Canal Turn). Clear view of the fence with no interference.

What A Friend - Pulled Up before 27th.

Santa's Son - Pulled Up before 27th.

Killyglen - Fell 27th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Arbor Supreme - Fell 28th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Hello Bud - Pulled up before 29th.

Comply Or Die - Pulled Up before 29th.

Finish.

If the 5 horses who pulled up are eliminated then the 16 who failed to complete as a result of the fences remain. 

Total - All Fences

• 11 Fallers (11/16 = 68.8% of total)
• 3 Unseats (3/16 = 18.8% of total)
• 2 Brought Down (2/16 = 12.5% of total)
• 16 Total

If the race is split into three stages then the result is as follows:

Stage 1 - Fences 1 to 10

• 7 Fallers (7/11 = 63.4% of fallers)
• 1 Unseats (1/3 = 33.3% of unseats)
• 2 Brought Down (2/2 = 100% of those brought down)
• 10 Total (10/16 = 62.5% of total)

Stage 2 - Fences 11 to 20

• 2 Fallers (2/11 = 18.2% of fallers)
• 1 Unseat (1/3 = 33.3% of unseats)
• 0 Brought Down
• 3 Total (3/16 = 18.8% of total)

Stage 3 - Fences 21 to 30

• 2 Fallers (2/11 = 18.2% of fallers)
• 1 Unseat (1/3 = 33.3% of unseats)
• 0 Brought Down
• 3 Total (3/16 = 18.8% of total)

What Happened - 2010

In the 2010 Grand National 14 horses completed the race and, of the 26 that failed to complete, 10 fell, 8 unseated riders, 7 pulled up and 1 refused to race.

Start.

King Johns Castle - Refused To Race. 

Eric's Charm - Fell 1st. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Pablo Du Charmil - Fell 2nd. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

My Will - Fell 4th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Made In Taipan - Fell 5th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Can't Buy Time - Unseated Rider 8th (Canal Turn). Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Irish Raptor - Fell 14th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Royal Rosa - Unseated Rider 14th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Arbor Supreme - Unseated Rider 15th (The Chair). Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Beat The Boys - Pulled Up before 19th.

Madison Du Berlais - Fell 19th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

The Package - Unseated Rider 19th. Difficult to see but possibly slightly impeded though not significant.

Backstage - Unseated Rider 20th. Hampered after fence by falling loose horse. 

Vic Venturi - Fell 20th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Nozic - Unseated Rider 20th. Hampered by fall of Vic Venturi.

Flintoff - Pulled Up before 21st.

Maljimar - Fell 22nd (Becher's Brook). Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Ballyfitz - Fell 22nd (Becher's Brook). Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Ellerslie George - Unseated Rider 23rd. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Dream Alliance - Pulled up before 24th (Canal Turn).

Mon Mome - Fell 26th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Palypso De Creek - Unseated Rider 27th. Clear view of the fence with no interference.

Ballyholland - Pulled Up before 28th.

Niche Market - Pulled Up before 29th.

Conna Castle - Pulled Up before 29th.

Ollie Magern - Pulled Up before 29th.

Finish.

If the 7 horses who pulled up and the 1 who refused to race are eliminated then 18 remain. 

Total - All Fences

• 10 Fallers (10/18 = 55.6% of total)
• 8 Unseats (8/18 = 44.4% of total)
• 0 Brought Down
• 18 Total

If the race is split into three stages then the result is as follows:

Stage 1 - Fences 1 to 10

• 4 Fallers (4/10 = 40% of fallers)
• 1 Unseat (1/8 = 12.5% of unseats)
• 0 Brought Down
• 5 Total (5/18 = 27.8% of total)

Stage 2 - Fences 11 to 20

• 3 Fallers (3/10 = 33.3% of fallers)
• 5 Unseat (5/8 = 62.5% of unseats)
• 0 Brought Down
• 8 Total (8/18 = 44.4% of total)

Stage 3 - Fences 21 to 30

• 3 Fallers (3/10 = 33.3% of fallers)
• 2 Unseat (2/8 = 25% of unseats)
• 0 Brought Down
• 5 Total (5/18 = 27.8% of total)

What Happened - 2012, 2011 and 2010 Combined

Total - All Fences

• 31 Fallers (31/54 = 57.4% of total)
• 18 Unseats (18/54 = 33.3% of total)
• 5 Brought Down (5/54 = 9.3% of total)
• 54 Total

Stage 1 - Fences 1 to 10

• 18 Fallers (18/31 = 58.1% of fallers)
• 8 Unseats (8/18 = 44.4% of unseats)
• 4 Brought Down (4/5 = 80% of those brought down)
• 30 Total (30/54 = 55.6% of total)

Stage 2 - Fences 11 to 20

• 6 Fallers (6/31 = 19.4% of fallers)
• 7 Unseats (7/18 = 38.9% of unseats)
• 0 Brought Down
• 13 Total (13/54 = 24.1% of total

Stage 3 - Fence 21 to 30

• 7 Fallers (8/31 = 25.8% of fallers)
• 3 Unseats (2/18 = 11.1% of unseats)
• 1 Brought Down (1/5 = 20% of those brought down)
• 11 Total (11/54 = 20.4% of total)

Size Of The Field

If, on average over the past three renewals, 55.6% of incidents occur in the first third of the race then one plausible explanation would be that the size of the field is the problem. This might be because horses suffer interference or are unsighted at a fence when there are so many other horses around them. 

Using the descriptions of each incident outlined above:

2012

• 10 Fallers and 1 (On His Own) was a direct result of interference. 
• 7 Unseats and 3 (Becauseicouldntsee, Organised Confusion and Tatenen) were as a direct result of interference. 
• 3 Brought Down (Rare Bob, Chicago Grey and According To Pete)
• 7 of the 20 horses (35%) failed to complete as a result of direct interference with another horse.

2011

• 11 Fallers and 2 (The Tother One and Or Noir De Somoza) were a direct result of interference.
• 3 Unseats and 0 were a direct result of interference.
• 2 Brought Down (Vic Venturi and West End Rocker)
• 4 of the 16 horses (25%) failed to complete as a direct result of interference

2010

• 10 Fallers and 0 were a direct result of interference.
• 8 Unseats  and 2 (Backstage and Nozic) were a direct result of interference.
• 0 Brought Down
• 2 of the 18 horses (11.1%) failed to complete as a direct result of interference.

Combined

• 31 Fallers and 3  were a direct result of interference.  
• 18 Unseats and 5 were a direct result of interference.
• 5 Brought Down.
• 13 of the 54 horses (24.1%) failed to complete as a direct result of interference.

Over the last three renewals of the Grand National, nearly a quarter of those who fell, unseated or where brought down suffered interference which led directly to the incident. It is clear that interference is a problem but the argument for a reduced field size would be strengthened if cases were concentrated in the early part of the race when there are more horses around. If interference occurs regardless of the number of runners then there is little to support a reduced field size from the start and it must be other factors causing the problem.

Stage 1 - Fences 1 to 10

• 18 Fallers and 2 were a direct result of interference.
• 8 Unseats and 3 were a direct result of interference.
• 4 Brought Down
• 9 out of 30 (30%) incidents were a direct result of interference.

Stage 2 - Fences 11 to 20

• 6 Fallers and 0 were a direct result of interference.
• 7 Unseats and 2 were a direct result of interference.
• 0 Brought Down
• 2 out of 13 (15.4%) incidents were a direct result of interference.

Stage 3 - Fence 21 to 30

• 7 Fallers and 1 was a direct result of interference.
• 3 Unseats and 0 were a direct result of interference.
• 1 Brought Down
• 2 out of 11 (18.2%) incidents were a direct result of interference.

The above shows that interference is responsible for a higher percentage of incidents in the first third of the race when compared with the final two thirds. This would suggest that the number of runners is an important factor. 

If a field of 40 is too big, then what size would be more appropriate?

Over the past three years 40 runners have lined up on each occasion. Stage 1 has, on average, accounted for 10 horses (15 in 2012, 10 in 2011 and 5 in 2010). Therefore, by the start of stage 2 there were, on average, 30 horses still running. Stage 2 accounted for 4  horses (to the nearest horse), leaving 26 still running. The interference data shows that the number of cases of interference does not fall from stage 2 to 3. If, on average, there are 30 horses running at this stage, then 30 might be a more appropriate number with which to start the race. The above would suggest that cases of interference may be almost halved if the field was reduced to 30.

However, it is not that simple because interference can be caused by horses that are no longer in the race. There were 13 cases of interference and 3 (23.1%) of these were a result of loose horses. These three incidents occurred at Fence 20 (Backstage unseated after hampering by a falling loose horse) and Fence 22 (On His Own fell after interference from a loose horse and brought down According To Pete). 

There were 4 cases of interference in Stages 2 and 3 of the race, and 3 of these are the result of loose horses. Once the initial field is reduced to 30 runner (on average) by fence 10, the cases of interference from horses still in the race falls even more dramatically than the bare result would suggest.

Speed Of The Race

The speed of horses is often quoted as a reason for fallers, and a reason why falls can be fatal. It is difficult to be completely accurate with crude hand timing but it can at least provide an indication as to whether there is a significant pace difference between the first and second circuit. Times are for the leading horse, except where indicated, from take off to take off. MR = Melling Road, F1 = Fence 1 and so on.

Note 1: Where fences have been bypassed, averages are calculated using the figures available. 

Note 2: F1 to F2 on the 2nd circuit in 2012 I have used the time of the 3rd horse. Richard Johnson and Planet of Sound steadied the pace and it is noticeable that the field close up on him indicating that the leader's speed does not reflect that of the race. Shakalakaboomboom was hampered on landing in 2nd. The time for Planet Of Sound is 12.7 seconds.

Note 3: I have ignored Conna Castle in the 2010 renewal who set an erratic pace which was not reflective of the race.

The sample of three races is not ideal but the above table still provides a hugely interesting insight. The noticeable trend is that the pace is fast over the first three fences, particularly into fences 1 and 2, and then settles down. I have often heard the term "the race to Becher's", and, whilst I think the race to Becher's might be overstating the case, there is a pace problem over the first couple of fences. 

We now know that the early pace is fast before steadying towards the 3rd fence. The next question is why? Despite the build-up, I find it hard to believe that experienced jockeys will ride unnecessarily fast just because it is the Grand National. If they are going too quickly there must be a reason. Many riders say "I want to sit handy early", "get a position" and very few seem to want to "drop in" in the Grand National. The need for 'a position' is crucial and this could be the cause of the fast early pace. Why is 'a position' so important? When there are so many horses the best place to be is out the front with a clear view of the fence and some space, out of the way of possible interference. This could generate a vicious circle where jockeys need to travel too fast and risk a fall to get a good position in the race, so that they avoid the problems of being in behind. A catch 22 if you like. 

It is often stated that handy horses run well in the National and that it is difficult to make up ground from the rear. This fact (or myth) could be the problem. So is it fact or myth? In the last 5 Grand National the first 4 home have recorded the following in running comments:

2012

1. Mid division
2. Held up in mid division
3. Tracked leaders
4. Mid division

2011

1. With leaders
2. Tracked leaders
3. Mid division
4. Chased leaders

2010

1. Mid division
2. With leaders
3. Prominent
4. Tracked leaders

2009

1. Towards rear
2. Mid division
3. Mid division
4. Prominent

2008

1. Tracked leaders
2. Held up in mid division
3. Chased leaders
4. Held up in mid division

The above gives the theory that you need to be handy, or at least in mid division, some sort of credibility. By way of comparison, during those years a total of 81 horses were described as being in worse than mid division using Racing Post comments in running. There were 16 in 2012, 18 in 2011, 17 in 2010 (not including King Johns Castle who refused to race), 17 in 2009 and 13 in 2008. That is 40.5% of the 200 horses that took part and yet only one (Mon Mome in 2010) was able to make the first 4. It seems that being handy pays.

In the past three renewals, the pace has been relatively fast approaching the first and second fences. Does this fast early pace increase the chance of fallers?

Fence 1

• 2012 - 1 Faller
• 2011 - 1 Faller
• 2010 - 1 Faller

Fence 2

• 2012 - 2 Fallers
• 2011 - 1 Faller, 1 Brought Down
• 2010 - 1 Faller

The first two fences have claimed at least one casualty in each of the past three years. It is hard to say whether this is a direct result of the fast pace so when the pace begins to steady on the approach to the 3rd and 4th are there fewer fallers?

Fence 3

• 2012 - No Fallers
• 2011 - No Fallers
• 2010 - No Fallers

Fence 4

• 2012 - No Fallers
• 2011 - 2 Fallers
• 2010 - 1 Faller

So, since 2010, fences 1 and 2, when the pace is relatively fast, have claimed 8 horses. In the same period fences 3 and 4, when the pace begins to steady, have claimed 3 horses. Most interesting is the fact that fence 4 was the subject changes implemented after the Review because of its difficulty. The sample size is small, but the difference is noticeable. It seems the speed at the first couple of fences which steadies approaching the 3rd and 4th does have an impact.

If they are going too fast and the reason for this is the need for a position and the increased pace does have an impact, then what can be done? Again, if the field size was reduced then that might give horses more space, reduce the risk of interference and make it easier to move through the field, reducing the need to be out the front. It might not. 

Fences

ST1 = Stage 1 and so on, F = Fell, UR = Unseated Rider, BD = Brought Down, % of Totals.

The above table is a fence by fence account of what happened where, as already outlined previously. Having investigated the impact of field size and the pace of the race, the next factor to consider is whether any particular fences have had a significant impact over the last three years. 

7 fences (3, 13, 16, 21, 25, 29 and 30) have had no incidents in the past three years.

10 fences (7, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26 and 28) have had one incident.

4 fences (9, 14, 15 and 19) have had two incidents.

4 fences (1, 4, 20 and 27) have had three incidents.

2 fences (5 and 22) have had four incidents.

2 fences (2 and 6) have had five incidents.

1 fence (8) has had six incidents. 

There are nine fences that have averaged one incident per year or more over the last three renewals. In numerical order: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 20, 22 and 27.

Before looking at why these fences are more influential than others there are a few points that need to be made. The first is that Fence 20's appearance on that list could be (though may not be) an anomaly. All three incidents occurred in 2010 when a loose horse fell hampering and unseating one, and one horse fell, hampering a third horse who also unseated his rider. Only one of the three actually fell at the fence, the two others were as a result of interference. I am, therefore, going to eliminate it from the list of influential fences. The second fence that might appear like an anomaly is fence 27. However, it has claimed one horse for the past three years, each with no other reason, and so it remains.

Fence 1

• 3 Fallers (1 in 2012, 1 in 2011, 1 in 2010) 
• Interference responsible for 0

Fence 2

• 4 fallers (2 in 2012, 1 in 2011, 1 in 2010)
• 1 Brought Down (2011)
• Interference responsible for 1

Fence 4

• 3 Fallers (0 in 2012, 2 in 2011, 1 in 2010)
• Interference responsible for 0

Fence 5

• 1 Faller (2011)
• 1 Unseated Riders (2012)
• 2 Brought Down (2012)
• Interference responsible for 2

Fence 6

• 4 Fallers (1 in 2012, 3 in 2011, 0 in 2010)
• Interference responsible for 3

Fence 8

• 1 Faller (2012)
• 5 Unseated Riders (4 in 2012, 1 in 2010)
• Interference responsible for 3

Fence 22

• 3 Fallers (1 in 2012, 2 in 2010)
• 1 Brought Down (2012)
• Interference responsible for 2

Fence 27

• 2 Fallers (1 in 2012, 1 in 2011)
• 1 Unseated Rider (1 in 2010)
• Interference responsible for 0

The problem fences can now be split into two groups depending on whether it is the fence itself which is the issue, or whether interference is the problem. 

Fences with 3 or more incidents not explained by interference - 1, 2, 4, 8, 27.

Fences with less than 3 incidents not explained by interference - 5, 6, 22.

Using the speed analysis above, it would appear that fences 1 and 2 are problematic because of speed. The times from the past three renewals suggest that horse travel relatively fast into the first two fences before slowing. This could explain why fences 1 and 2 feature on this list and fence 3 does not. Fence 3 is the first open ditch so does this have anything to do with it? Perhaps the pace is quick over the first couple of fences because they are plain, 'easier' fences, but, the pace then steadies in preparation for the open ditch at fence 3. It is impossible to say with any certainty whether this is the case but it is a theory which the evidence could support.

Fence 4 was the first full height plain fence on the course and was found to be one of the most influential fences for fallers in the Grand National Review with 12.6% of all falls occurring here since 1990. Furthermore, of the 32 incidents at the fence, 4 were fatal, a much higher proportion than at any other fence. The Review concluded that the fence should be lowered by 2 inches. It is at this point that the omission of fence 20 from the list of problem fences may seem erroneous because, of course, fence 20 is fence 4 on the second circuit. Perhaps the fence has been a problem in the past but, whilst it is far too early to say whether the changes have been effective, there were no incidents at the fence in 2012 (after the changes) and in the previous two years there were 4 fallers and 2 unseated riders. Many of the changes as a result of the 2011 Review have been given short shrift but in this instance perhaps more credit is deserved. Time will tell.

As I am sure you are all aware, fences 6 and 22 are Becher's Brook on the 1st and 2nd circuit respectively. This would suggest that the major problem with Becher's Brook is not the fence itself but the frequency with which interference occurs. There were 3 incidents in 3 years at Becher's Brook (1 at fence 6 and 2 at fence 22) which could not be explained by interference. This means that of the 8 incidents at Becher's Brook, 5 were the result of interference rather than the fence itself. This is not what I expected, and probably not what you expected either. However, the unexpected is exactly what this is about. I want to know what actually happened rather than what people believe happened. Why have there been 5 cases of interference in the last 3 years? After this year's race, ex-jockey Mick Fitzgerald said:

"I spoke to Robbie Power (rider of Killyglen) after the race and he said normally when you got to Becher's there was a lot of room because the way the drop was before nobody, except the really brave men and the guys who were on horses they knew would he able to cope with the drop, went down the inside. It meant the whole field spread out when they got to Becher's whereas now the drop's been levelled off nobody moved off that inside. Because of that you had a bit of a pile-up situation and a knock-on effect almost. That's the danger. Suddenly no-one wants to go to the outside of the fence. They all piled up on the inner, hence the reason you get a faller and one being brought down."

The data from the last three renewals suggests that interference rather than the fence itself is the problem so could it be that Mick's argument is correct. Is Becher's now too easy? I somehow doubt that making Becher's harder, and, therefore, ensuring the horses are spread across the track is a suggestion that will find favour with those opposed to the race. However, I am not trying to appease, I am trying to find out what needs to be changed and the evidence suggests that interference is the major problem at Becher's and not the fence itself. 

Before getting too carried away it must be remembered that the fall of On His Own, who brought down According To Pete, was a result of interference from a loose horse, a horse without a rider choosing which path to take. In this instance, the 'riders choosing to come down the inner' argument does not hold sway. If that case (On His Own. Both On His Own and According To Pete's jockeys did choose where to be) is eliminated then that leaves 7 incidents at Becher's Brook in the past 3 years. Of which, 4 were the result of interference and 3 which were not. It is clear that, even if allowances are made, interference is the bigger problem over the past three renewals.

If interference is a bigger problem than the fence, then what is the solution? The obvious one is to have fewer runners. A smaller field means more space and less interference. Is this the right solutions? If it is, then more cases of interference would be expected at the first Becher's than the second. Over the past three renewals, there have been 3 cases of interference at the first Becher's and 2 at the second. The average field size over the past three years at the first Becher's is 35 (to the nearest horse) and at the second is 23 (to the nearest horse). On average, the field size is 2/3rds as large on the 2nd occasion, and there is only 2/3rds of the interference. This would suggest that fewer horses means less interference and support a smaller field. 

An alternative is the argument suggested by Mick Fitzgerald (and others) outlined above, the drop element of the fence could be reinstated to encourage (or force) jockeys to take a wider course, spreading the field across the track. However, given the evidence that appears to support the case for a smaller field it will be difficult to argue that the fence should be made more difficult in the face of so much criticism to the contrary.

Fence 8 is the first Canal Turn and is the most difficult fence to categorise in that of the 6 incidents that happened there in the past 3 years, 3 were as a result of interference and 3 were not. The incidents at fence 8 predominantly occurred in the 2012 renewal which could skew the results. Of the 6 incidents, 5 were in this year's renewal. Also of note is the 5 of the 6 incidents were unseated riders with only 1 fall. The 2nd Canal Turn (fence 24) has only been responsible for 1 unseated rider in the past three renewals. I think it is fair to say that it is congestion which is the problem at the first Canal Turn. As the runners swing in to angle the fence, some interference is inevitable. This is unlikely to ever be eliminated but it could be argued that it would be reduced with a smaller field.

Fence 27 is the 4th last fence and one horse has come to grief here in each of the past three seasons. Their comments in running are:

2012 Weird Al - Behind when hampered 2nd Becher's, fell 4 out.

2011 Killyglen - Disputing 3rd and staying on when fell next.

2010 Palypso De Creek - Behind well fell 4 out. He actually unseated.

So with the exception of Killyglen, the other two horses were in rear at the time. It could be tiredness that is responsible, but no other fences at this late stage have had such an impact. However, fence 27 is the last open ditch and, this, together with the tiredness factor, could be the explanation. The fence is 5ft high so perhaps it might be lowered should the high incidents trend continue.

Experience

Another theory put forward is that horses lack experience of the Grand National fences and that this leads to problems. In the past three renewals the first 4 horses home were:

2012

1. Neptune Collonges - No experience of the fences
2. Sunnyhillboy - No experience of the fences
3. Seabass - No experience of the fences
4. Cappa Bleu - No experience of the fences

2011

1. Ballabriggs - No experience of the fences
2. Oscar Time - No experience of the fences
3. Don't Push It - Previous experience
4. State Of Play - Previous experience

2010

1. Don't Push It - No experience of the fences
2. Black Apalachi - Previous experience
3. State Of Play - Previous experience
4. Big Fella Thanks - Previous experience

This shows that a lack of experience over the unique Aintree fences is no barrier to success. This is all well and good, but, unfortunately, the fallers and the unseats are those under consideration. You can win without experience of the fences but would a 'trial race' over the fences eliminate some of those who are unsuitable.

F = Fall, UR = Unseated Rider, F/UR = Fall or Unseated Rider Combined, BD = Brought Down, PU = Pulled Up, R = Refused, RR = Refused to Race.

None = No previous experience of the Grand National fences

% None = Percentage of those with no experience to fall etc.

Comp = Previously completed a race over the Grand National fences.

DNF = Previously experienced the Grand National fences but not completed a race.

LT10 = Less than 10 chase starts before running in the Grand National. These horses are included into the other categories as appropriate.

All = All starters.

What can be deduced from this? The list of placed horses in the past 3 renewals indicates that a lack of experience of the fences is no barrier to success. However, those lacking experience do fall or unseat more often than those that have previously negotiated the track. However, those without any experience of the track were roughly on a par with the average over the period. It was the inexperienced horses and those that had already failed to complete the track that fared worst of all.

This would suggest that a trial race might have some benefits. There is nothing to stop a horse running well on its first attempt at the fences but nearly 70% of horses that have tried and failed to complete the course either fell or unseated in the past three Grand Nationals. Therefore, a trial race could be used to eliminate those that are not suitable, rather than finding those that are. A general lack of experience was also a negative with 60% of horses with less than 10 chase starts either falling or unseating in the past three renewals. 

The completion percentages tell a similar story. The horses that had no experience of the fences fared slightly worse than average, the horses that had already completed the course fared best, inexperienced horses fared the same as those experienced but without experience of the fences, but, again, it was the horses that had tried and failed in the past that had the lowest completion rates (just 15.4%). 

Loose Horses

Using the figures above, on average over the past three renewals 45% (40.8% fell or unseated + 4.2% brought down) of the field can be expected to part company with their rider at some point in the race.  That means we can expect 18 loose horses per race.

The problem of loose horses is a major concern. 5 of the last 10 fatalities suffered in the Grand National were by horses running loose, as has been shown already, they can impede other runners.

In the past three renewals there have been 3 incidents that could be attributed to interference by a loose horse. 

How to catch loose horses is a difficult question. Often the loose horses follow their herd instinct and run with the field. It is likely that these will always be impossible to 'extract' from the field. These are the horses which cause interference with the rest of the field but I cannot see a way to prevent this.

However, it is noticeable that loose horses running with the field jump much better than those running alone in rear. Without any evidence or figures, I would suggest that the horses injured when running loose are those in rear who end up taking on the fences in a half hearted manner. This is certainly the fate that befell Synchronised. I have heard the idea of US style outriders put forward as a solution to the loose horse problem. It could be that they might be able to have a positive impact in catching loose horses in rear. 

Fatalities

As you can probably tell by the fact that it has taken me this long to address the most pressing question, I am uneasy with the complete focus on just those who died. To my mind there are plenty of others who were in similar situations but live to fight another day. 

By way of explanation, 3 horses were brought down in 2012, but only According To Pete was fatally injured and a total of 20 horses lost their jockeys (10 fallers, 7 unseated riders and 3 brought down) and yet it was only Synchronised that suffered a fatal injury when running loose. The reduction of fatalities is the ultimate aim but focussing on what led to their demise to the exclusion of everything else is short sighted in my opinion. It is more important to focus on the broader picture and reduce incidences which could have led to fatalities, and, obviously, eliminate to the best of our ability, the factors which have. 

Another example is how both fatalities in the 2012 Grand National fell at Becher's Brook. It might, therefore, seem that getting rid of Becher's Brook is the way to go. It might be, but these two horses cannot be used as statistics to support such an argument. As already stated, According To Pete was brought down, like 2 other horses, and yet was the only one to lose his life. It could so easily have been one of the others and the fact that it happened at Becher's is a coincidence. Similarly, Synchronised fell at Becher's but suffered his injury at Fence 11 when running loose. This could have happened to any of the 17 horses that lost their jockeys at other fences (9 other fallers On His Own also fell at Becher's). Whilst their importance is paramount, and their elimination the ultimate objective (though unachievable), they must not cloud our judgement.

Conclusion

In the immediate aftermath of the 2012 Grand National, Gavin Grant, Chief Executive of the RSPCA, said:

"As far as the Grand National is concerned there are lots of factors, Firstly, the scale of the field. Forty horses is a heck of a lot. Secondly, there are unique jumps there that horses aren't experienced in going over and I think we need to look at those jumps again. Becher's Brook has claimed another casualty [According To Pete] and perhaps it's time for that to go. We need to look at the landing areas. Some improvements have been made there, but when you've got a drop on the other side of the fence a horse isn't expecting that. And the going. The ground conditions are very important. Aintree has made a lot of progress making sure the going is softer because when it's hard the horses run faster. There is lots of work to be done to take the risks to horses out of this."

He outlines a number of concerns: the number of horses, the 'unique' fences, Becher's Brook, the going and the speed of the race. It could be argued that the number of horses does contribute to the number of fallers early in the race, the fast pace approaching the first and second fences and the incidences of interference. It can be shown that horses that have previously shown a liking for the unique fences do fare better than either those who have no experience or those with bad experience. However, a lack of experience is no barrier to success in the Grand National. Over the past three seasons, the major problem with Becher's Brook has been the number of cases of interference. These have outweighed the number of incidents not caused by interference. Therefore, it could be argued that the problem is not the fence itself but perhaps the size of the field, leading to crowding and other problems. I do not have the access or time to analyse any further back than the past three years but, if going was the major concern, then you would expect incidents to be spread around the track assuming that the going is similar all over. This has not been the case indicating that it is other factors that are causing the problems.

It is essential that no changes are implemented for the sake of changes. There must be a reason, and a valid explanation for what a particular change is designed to improve, and how. Just looking at the past three years is insufficient to come to such conclusions, but nevertheless, general themes can be discovered. Any changes that are made will most likely be irreversible so it is crucially important that a comprehensive review and understanding of the situation is first carried out.