October
NovemberNo argument
Here is the logic of Dominic Beirne’s "argument" in favour of Pierro being a relatively short-priced favourite for the Cox Plate.
Step 1: The last 13 winners of the Caulfield Guineas who tried to win the Cox Plate all failed, running an average eighth.
Step 2: Some horses who didn’t win the Guineas have won or run well in the Plate (e.g. Viscount, So You Think).
Step 3: The explanation for 1 and 2 is that the winners peaked for the Guineas, left everything on the track that day, and were therefore "over the top" for the Plate.
Step 4: Pierro didn’t win the Guineas, therefore didn’t have a "gut-buster", and would therefore peak for the Plate. (Of course the reverse would apply to All Too Hard.)
What do you think? Well, the obvious huge hole in the logic is to assume that just because a horse doesn’t actually win the Guineas that it doesn’t peak on that day, and avoids a tough run.
Nadia Horne did actually put this to Beirne on Winners, pointing out the obvious fact that Pierro indeed appeared to have had a tough run in the Guineas. And what was Beirne’s reply? Hold your breath for this one if you didn’t listen at the time: Pierro is a champion, and is smart enough to have "rested" in the last bit of the Guineas when he knew he was beaten. (Not a direct quote, but a faithful paraphrase.)
Now quite apart from the fact that one of the often-cited traits of champions is that they never give up (or in), is there any evidence to say that Pierro took it easy in the last bit of the Guineas, or — more to the point — that he didn’t have a tough run?
At the very most you could say that Rawiller eased just a touch with, say, 25 metres to go. Pierro worked up the hill early, kicked on the turn (too early, some say) and was absolutely flat till at least the shadows of the post.
Therefore, to make the distinction that Beirne implied was applicable to the runs of Pierro and All Too Hard in the Guineas — soft versus gut-buster — is highly contestable if not outright laughable. (It must be said that Beirne is a constant source of humour!)
Of course statistics are useful things, but on this occasion Beirne seems to be blinded by an overly simplistic interpretation, one based upon an insufficient sample size, where just one or two tweaks (many think Viscount was unlucky, and of course All Too Hard could easily have won last Saturday) would radically change the overall picture.
Throw into the mix a rather quaint anthropomorphism (champions are smart and know when to rest), and you get an argument almost totally lacking in rigour.
Parkville (Vic)