Because as Andre Fabre pointed out, a horse who can be let off ahead because he is useless is not a pacemaker. He is a useless horse running freely.
A horse can only be used as a pacemaker if he is too good to be given a soft lead. Think Scorpion.
I didn;t say she wouldn't.
However the fact that she ran the fastest time ever points out an anomaly, that anomaly being, in my opinion, fast ground.
The sun was splitting the stones in Paris in the week before.
I think that is his point. If AOB used a mediocre horse as pacemaker he would be totally ineffective as nobody would chase knowing he will eventually come back to them.
The point of using TB as pacemaker was to ensure he was chased as he would be too dangerous to give a big enough lead. (I'm not saying I believe this is true just clarifying meriweather's point.)
Ultimately it didn't matter as TB was sent off at a ridiculous pace and any jockey worth his salt knew not to chase.
So genuinely good ground she would finish where?
Anomoly? Very harsh on Danedream, plus ignoring the fact she has won on good, good to soft and very soft is irrelevant?
Interesting article in the racing post this week on her sire, Lomitas - he was a wild un and got banned from racecourses for violent conduct so they had to get Monty Roberts to sort him out.
Firstly, lets be clear that you asked me why the filly wouldn't win again under similar conditions.
I replied that I never said she wouldn't.
Now you are asking me where she would finish if conditions changed. I don't know.
I am making the point however that conditions, in my opinion, contributed to the result, the result being the fastest time ever run in the Arc, and a number of fancied horses running badly. The main condition being fast ground.
If you don't believe that altering conditions, especially ground, can alter results, thats fine. I do.
I do, but altering the conditions slightly, will alter the result slightly. I cant remember too many more conclusive winners of the Arc.
And there are many trying to excuse their incorrect suppositions before the Arc with the result after, by downgrading the winner.
I wouldn't see a slight change in conditions altering the result, but I could see the course record not being achieved.
The course record is the real sticking point for me.
I dont think anyone is claiming Danedream is the greatest arc winner because of the course record. I dont think it was a great arc, but I think that it was very conclusive who the best horse was, and she might even be a very good winner of a poorish arc.
The course record does prove that it was a strong pace on good/quick ground, but course records are often held by inferior animals.
It's just possible that last years race wasn't all it was cracked up to be and this years 3y olds are simply a very good crop of horses. Nathaniel put the older horses in their place in the King George, Frankel did the same in the Sussex, Excelebration in the Moulin, Dream ahead did the same in the sprint division and took Goldikovas scalp over 7f in the Foret for good measure. Immortal Verse beat Goldikova in the Jaques le Marois, Moonlight cloud took the Daurice de Gheest and Misty for me thrashed Midday in the Pretty Polly .
This year has seen an outstanding crop of 3y olds and one of them was entitled to beat the older horses in the Arc, it's just a pity it wasn't one that the punters were on.
It wasn't a great Arc this year, before it I was expected big things from the fillys as the colts didn't look that great on paper. Can't dispute Danedreams performance, if she stays in training she will be a great horse next year in my opinion.
As for last years race, I don' think it was cracked up to be anything, it was quite a poor renewal and save for Workforce(after his Derby) there wasn't a really good horse in it.
Fair point, but Workforce was hyped for this years Arc based on his win in it last year. The same with Sarafina whose unlucky 3rd place last year was enough to make her favourite this year despite being much worse off at the weights.