Epsom Handicap


I have had a look at Saturday's Epsom field and put together a few thoughts. Suggestions welcome.

Boban: For - Group One winner, Waller factor, Jockey OK, Barrier trial winner Friday 26th. Against: Hasn't won for a while; recent form ordinary, 58 kgs.

Royal Descent: For - Group One winner; Waller factor, H Bowman, form consistent. Against - Hasn't won since the Oaks 18 months ago, 55.5 kgs for a mare.

Toydini: For - Trainer, Jockey. Against - Form ordinary, weight, 1 win from 11 at track, hasn't won for a while.

Laser Hawk: For - Trainer, jockey, good last start and big weight drop. Against - a 6 year old with only 12 starts - is he right to win a tough Randwick mile?

Star Rolling: For - only 53 kgs, can run a mile. Against - Flogged at his last two starts - overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

He's Your Man: For - Waller factor, Moreira, no weight, distance no worries, form excellent.
Against - back from 2000 metres.

Honorius: For - Trainer OK, distance no worry.
Against - Jockey promising but inexperienced, form poor, one win from 10 at track, overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

Hooked: For - Last start winner, minimum weight. Against - Overall record poor, inexperienced jockey, one third from 6 starts at Randwick.

Ninth Legion: For - Trainer, jockey, minimum weight, form reasonable. Against - suspect at 1600 metres, no placings from 4 starts at track, overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

Lucky Chappy: For - Waller factor, jockey OK, minimum weight, form fair. Against - won only to 1500 metres, back from 2000 metres, won only 2 races, overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

Jetset Lad: For - No distance worries, minimum weight. Against - recent form ordinary, won 7 from 52, overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

Liberty's Choice: For - Waterhouse factor, jockey excellent, minimum weight, form fair.
Against - only one win from 17 and that was at
1250 metres, overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

Pheidon: For - Waterhouse factor, minimum weight, no distance worries. Against - form average, jockey inexperienced, overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

Woodbine: For - Waterhouse factor, jockey good, minimum weight, recent form good. Against - only won to 1350 metres, up from a BM84 win last start to a Group 1, overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

Spy Decoder: For - Trainer, minimum weight. Against - form and overall record ordinary, only won to 1400 metres, overall record suggests he may not be good enough.

I discount barriers in Randwick miles as they seem to win from anywhere.

My chances - 1,2,4,6.
Rough chances to 5,8,9,10,13,14.


1. Royal Descent
2. Laser Hawk
3. He's Your Man.
4. Boban

Now try analysing the Turnbull.....what a race!
Credibility disappears quickly on a post with poor spelling, grammar or punctuation. Many of the posts on this site are inane enough without compounding the issue. Conversely, complete gibberish can sometimes pass muster simply because it is competently expressed. Just some of the more common mistakes are discussed below. Now pay attention class.

Your and You’re:
This seems to be the most common error. “Your” is a possessive pronoun and is used in cases such as: “Is that your form-guide or mine;” “Please take your hand off my knee,” and so on.

“You’re” is an abbreviation of “You are”. “You are a goose” can be shortened to “You’re a goose.” The apostrophe signifies that it is an abbreviation. The recent post titled “Your an embarrassment” has confused the two. So when about to write your or you’re, just ask yourself the question, “Am I saying “you are” or “your – something belonging to you”?”

“To” and “Too”.” To” is a preposition indicating motion or direction while “too” is an adverb meaning “in addition”, “very” or “to an excessive extent”. “I am going to the pub”, is an example of the former, while “That is too ridiculous for words” is an example of “too” indicating emphasis.

“X” and “Y” are one of the same.” No,” X” and “Y” are one and the same!

"Definite" and "definitely" are correct, not "definate" or "definately". Definate was a good horse who came from Queensland as I recall.

The classic “fo par”! The words are “faux pas”, a French phrase literally meaning “false step”, the English meaning extending to a social blunder.

Abissimal – the word is abysmal.

Remeadial – should be remedial.

Dissapointing – should be disappointing – one “s” and two “p’s”.

“Must of” rather than “must have”: “He must of gone to the races;” should be “He must have gone to the races.” “He would of won the race” should be “He would have won the race.”

“Here here” – no, it is “hear hear”!

The grocer’s apostrophe! When saying something like “I’m going to the races,” we do not use an apostrophe and spell it “race’s”. The word “races” is a simple plural, made plural by the addition of the letter “s”. We use the apostrophe when indicating possession or an abbreviation. Possession as in “the dog’s breakfast”, indicating the breakfast belongs to the dog; abbreviation as for example in “you’re” for “you are”, as mentioned earlier.

I hope these comments are useful. Additional posts which may help lift the standard of expression I’m sure will be welcomed by the moderator. Detentions will be considered for repeat offenders.



Not sure what has happened to Karnage but for those who want to post - here you go.

Me: Black Caviar

Talkback Forum

Racing And Sports offers our users the chance to get involved with spirited discussion about major racing issues on your Talkback Forum. They may include chatter about racing matters, issues relating to the website, sporting conversation, betting matters and more. Please be aware that Racing And Sports now moderates Talkback to ensure posting guidelines are adhered to. The views expressed on Talkback are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Racing And Sports. You must be a registered user to write postings or send messages to other users.

Latest Posts