Turffontein Tuesday

mr hawaii wrote:

chicken n chips wrote: At the races have the Turfontein meeting. Just a question. The jockey Strydom who has just ridden Icy Avanlanche, is he the same one who has had these 5000 winners?

If you believe in times you will see that Battle in Seattle ran 4s faster than this horse over the Vaal 1450m from a draw 3 while battle was draw 8(Very bad draw over that 1450). That recent Sand run ensured a super fit horse in Battle in Seattle

We NOT on the sand Mr H... you cannot compare apples with grapes...Also Battle in Seattle had a jockey on and Icy Avalanche was clearly not well "Not Striding out losing 12,85 lengths over the last 400 mtr with a Parachute ( SB Duma) on it's back ... furthermore Icy Avalanche was in a variant "Q" and Battle in Seattle a variant I which is so so much quicker that a Q... surely you cannot even think or begin to compare those 2 with one another those Vaal Sand runs has no relevance

Loopy, he wasn't comparing the two surfaces he simply said that due to his run on sand, he would be super fit for this race......

I loved Shakespearian going to post.

Ultimate Tiger has shown enough to go close here

Oxford union e/w this c & d

Chris van Buuren wrote: Loopy, he wasn't comparing the two surfaces he simply said that due to his run on sand, he would be super fit for this race......

I loved Shakespearian going to post.

Apologies if I misunderstood that quote Chris:

"If you believe in times you will see that Battle in Seattle ran 4s faster than this horse over the Vaal 1450m from a draw 3 while battle was draw 8"

That run referred to is on the sand... Will leave it at that

Of course he is on the loose FML

Tim wrote: Oxford union e/w this c & d

backed this horse this morning, the drift is very worrying

Loopy Logic wrote:

mr hawaii wrote:

chicken n chips wrote: At the races have the Turfontein meeting. Just a question. The jockey Strydom who has just ridden Icy Avanlanche, is he the same one who has had these 5000 winners?

If you believe in times you will see that Battle in Seattle ran 4s faster than this horse over the Vaal 1450m from a draw 3 while battle was draw 8(Very bad draw over that 1450). That recent Sand run ensured a super fit horse in Battle in Seattle

We NOT on the sand Mr H... you cannot compare apples with grapes...Also Battle in Seattle had a jockey on and Icy Avalanche was clearly not well "Not Striding out losing 12,85 lengths over the last 400 mtr with a Parachute ( SB Duma) on it's back ... furthermore Icy Avalanche was in a variant "Q" and Battle in Seattle a variant I which is so so much quicker that a Q... surely you cannot even think or begin to compare those 2 with one another those Vaal Sand runs has no relevance

What did PS do wrong? Did he have the horse placed at the back of the field? Did he have the horse baulked? The way I saw the race is that the horse found no extra over the final 400m(was traveling well) now either not fit enough(because of rain maybe) not good enough or feeling something but he was placed to win in my opinion!!

Loopy Logic wrote:

Chris van Buuren wrote: Loopy, he wasn't comparing the two surfaces he simply said that due to his run on sand, he would be super fit for this race......

I loved Shakespearian going to post.

Apologies if I misunderstood that quote Chris:

"If you believe in times you will see that Battle in Seattle ran 4s faster than this horse over the Vaal 1450m from a draw 3 while battle was draw 8"

That run referred to is on the sand... Will leave it at that

you were right, I misread

bayern wrote: Good call Mr H

Good call Mr H - well done

What did PS do wrong? Did he have the horse placed at the back of the field? Did he have the horse baulked? The way I saw the race is that the horse found no extra over the final 400m(was traveling well) now either not fit enough(because of rain maybe) not good enough or feeling something but he was placed to win in my opinion!![/quote]

Please go look at the reply Mr H ... as stated earlier it looked like he lost the irons or was looking for his whip or something around the 600 mark.

Looking at the Oxford Union run as well clearly Striker is not up to it tonight none of his horses are even remotely where they should be... he needs a break imo

But that was not the point I wanted to make... the point was not comparing previous sand runs of runners to Turf ...

Loopy Logic wrote: What did PS do wrong? Did he have the horse placed at the back of the field? Did he have the horse baulked? The way I saw the race is that the horse found no extra over the final 400m(was traveling well) now either not fit enough(because of rain maybe) not good enough or feeling something but he was placed to win in my opinion!!

Please go look at the reply Mr H ... as stated earlier it looked like he lost the irons or was looking for his whip or something around the 600 mark.

Looking at the Oxford Union run as well clearly Striker is not up to it tonight none of his horses are even remotely where they should be... he needs a break imo[/quote]

Loopy, horses and jocks are not machines. The horses could perhaps been feeling something and therefore they didn't perform. How can you blame Pierre?
Just wait for the stipes report and live to fight another day.