Vicarage had reacted badly to all his previous tops, and his intervening pattern was getting worse. We compare tops to tops (in that regard he was good, his last was better than his previous tops), but also bad efforts to bad efforts, and time between good efforts in the cycles. His last cycle was not good, and took a long time, and he had less time than usual off this top-- all of which meant that he was almost certain to react badly. On top of which, he had a post and running style that pretty much guaranteed ground loss-- with the prospective trip, he had only one race in his life that even made him a strong contender.

This is the third question like this recently (the others were about SFTF in the Whitney and Nick's bomb in the 3yo grass stake), and in general, I want to encourage it. When it's a horse we have expressed an opinion about, in the analysis, ROTW, or discussion group, we're more than happy to explain, regardless of whether we came out looking good or bad-- I'll just delete it if we looked bad. Joke.

If we've already taken a position, it's not redboarding. By us, anyhow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2005 02:47PM by TGJB.