I was watching Channel 4’s coverage of the racing from Longchamp at the weekend and Mick Fitzgerald made the comment to the effect that “the last horse off the bridle wins the race”. His comment brought to my mind a great race that was a definite exception to the statement. But first a little explanation of what the statement means.
One of the pleasures of watching horseracing is trying to ‘read’ a race, seeing which horse is travelling the best and trying to pick out the likely winner a few furlongs from home.
An indicator as to how well as horse is running can be to look at the jockey. As a general principle the horse of a jockey who is sat still in the saddle could be considered to travelling better than a horse whose jockey is having either to fight to restrain the horse from running away with him or who has to roust his mount along to keep him in the race.
You might often hear a commentator say excitedly that a particular jockey is “sat motionless” aboard his horse while his rivals are urging their horses along "asking them questions" and “getting animated in the saddle”. These statements link back to Mick Fitzgerald’s comment above.
The horse of the ‘motionless’ jockey is still on the bridle and, in theory, is travelling within himself. The horse of the ‘animated’ jockey is ‘off the bridle’ and being asked for every effort by his jockey.
Racing wisdom would suggest that, if you have two horses side by side in the final furlongs of a race, the most likely winner is the one still on the bridle with the less animated jockey.
But, of course, it is not always so simple. A number of scenarios could play out to contradict the perceived wisdom:
•
When asked for his final effort the horse ‘on the bridle’ might not actually find much more energy or speed to see off his rival – often called ‘just a bridle horse’
•
His jockey might also have left his effort too late and not given his mount enough time to get up to top speed before the winning post arrives.
•
Some horses stop running when they get in front (or ‘pull themselves up’), thinking their work is done, allowing a beaten rival to get past them again
•
Alternatively, the horse already being urged along might find even more speed and ‘heart’ when his rival quickens and battle back to win.
There is an interesting take on this topic on the Betfair website
here.
The Champion Hurdle, Cheltenham Festival 2005
The Champion Hurdle at the Cheltenham Festival in 2005 was a great race and provides a dramatic exception to the statement that the “the last horse off the bridle wins the race”.
Paul Carberry was the jockey aboard Harchibald and in the pre-race parade Channel 4 presenter Alastair Down said “he won’t be able to sit on the bridle all day here” (at 35 seconds in the video below). As it turned out, that was a very prescient statement as a dramatic race unfolded.
If you pick up the video at 9min 45s the finals stages are a textbook example of the topics discussed above and commentator Simon Holt’s comments explain it all.
Hardy Eustace (the eventual winner, 7/2jf) was being ridden hard by jockey Conor O’Dwyer, whilst Paul Carberry is sat still on Harchibald (7/1).
It looks for all the world like Harchibald will cruise past Hardy Eustace for the win based on the two jockeys’ body language. But Carberry leaves his effort very late, seemingly concerned that his mount will not quicken when asked. Indeed, there was little response from the horse.
As well as being a great race it sticks in my mind for another reason. I was working in the race room of a bookmakers at the time and the racing manager had clearly had a large ante-post bet on Harchibald to win.
After the final flight he was ecstatic, convinced Harchibald was going to win easily and already mentally counting his, no doubt, sizeable winnings. But with every stride from that point on he became increasingly agitated as Carberry continues not to ask Harchibald for a final effort up the Cheltenham hill.
Indeed, the racing manager becomes more animated than the jockey, screaming at the television for the jockey to ‘HIT IT!’
After the horses pass the winning post and Harchibald is beaten there was a moment of deathly, disbelieving silence before the racing manager explodes into a fury of invective at the injustice of what has just unfolded.
I nearly chewed my tongue off trying not to burst out laughing, not at the misfortune of someone having a large bet go wrong – there but for the grace of the racing gods go all of us – but more at the ability of racehorses and 200 metres of turf to bring about such a swing of human emotions in little less than 60 seconds.
As long as you have the betting ammunition for another day, that is what makes horseracing so compelling.
