- Total Posts 17716
I was watching Brough Scott’s piece on Racing Post video.
Brough argues that Sea The Stars is the ‘completest’ horse he’s ever seen (he’s seen a few one assumes) and makes a good case for the argument.
One suggestion he made during the video was that races like the King George and the Arc should be run without any age allowance for three year olds. That way the fastest/best horse on the day would win.
Intriguing idea and one that would perhaps see a few more four year olds stay in training. Giving the three year olds an allowance does, in a way, turn these races into a sort of handicap does it not?
However wouldn’t the three year olds simply duck those races if there was no age allowance and thus make the races less competitive and less prestigious than they are now, making such an initiative counter-productive?
I was also wondering, but haven’t had the time to work out yet, how the roll of honour for the Arc would have been different for, say, the last ten years had there been no age allowance.
He never mentioned it but presumably the fillies allowance would go too.
Corm
1. Never trust any journo who invents his own language (completist?).
2 Never trust any journo that still has to work for a living when he is well past the age when most have their feet up.
3. Never trust any journo that thinks they know better than someone (Admiral Rous) whose ideas were around long before he was born, and will be long after he’s dead.
Apart from that, it was a pretty good article? 