'Obliterated', absolutely not Mr. Forristal. 'Great Champion', absolutely, Monsieur Graffard. There was only a smidge over 10-lengths between first and last in the Arc, so Richard Forristal's proclamation that Darys obliterated his rivals yesterday was well over the top. It has be said, though, that in winning two Arcs in succession, Darys has proved himself to be a rare beast, worthy of his trainer's belief that he is a great champion.
As you may know I am afflicted with cynocism and I struggle to accept hyperbole when it comes to annoiting racehorses with superlatives such as 'one of the greats'. For Richard Forristal to suggest Darys obliterated the opposition is to put yesterday's performance on a par with Frankel's 2,000-guineas, Nijinsky's King George & Queen Elisabeth victory or even Mill Reef's Arc win. Darys for all his superiority did not win with his head in his chest, he won all-out - he could not have gone a mile-an-hour faster. As I have said time and time again, truly great horses beat other horses with a claim to greatness. Darys has not achieved such a scalp. But that does not preclude him from being described as a great champion.
So if Darys is a great champion, how should we describe Bay City Roller, narrowly vanquished yesterday. Or Diamond Necklace who, as with the runner-up started from an outside draw and came as close as close in winning from what is considered something akin to a coffin draw. Bay City Roller was given a brilliant ride by Oisin, using tactics Frankie used when winning on Golden Horn. It takes confidence to be the odd one out and yesterday showed that Oisin is worthy of one the top stable jockey positions.
I am an inconsistent xenophobe. On the whole, over my lifetime, in concordance with my lack of deference towards the French nation, I have never warmly applauded success by French trainers. Francis Graffard, though, is another exception to my xenophobic condition. Even up to now, through the period of Andre Fabre's domination, I have always thought French trainers to be like the English trainers of the past who considered the people who worked for them as mere staff, easily replaceable and above themselves if they should ever dare to suggest to them an opinion of their own. Graffard, perhaps because he was an assistant trainer in this country, is cut from a different cloth. He interacts with his staff as if they are as much friends as they are staff. And as if to prove me wrong on this subject, yesterday every member of Jean-Claude Rouget's staff volunteered to travel to Longchamp to witness their long-time employer be inducted into the French Hall of Fame. Only truly great human champions achieve this sort of respect from their 'staff'.
Something that both amuse and confuse me is when a jockey or trainer will say their horse was not suited by the slow pace or could have done with a faster pace. Firstly, why, when the pace is too slow, do jockeys just accept the situation rather than kick-on and set the speed of the race that suits them? And, yesterday, when the above excuses were given for beaten horses, why was the time of the race the fastest since Treve in 2014? Although Darys was the only one to show deadly speed in the final furlong, there was only a smidge over 10-lengths back to the last horse to finish, which, to me, suggests the whole field must have quickened off the 'slow pace', which seems highly unlikely.
Finally, what is wonderful about our sport is that we all can have our own opinions both before and after a race. Neither Adele nor Richie found the winner of the Arc, yet afterwards they were both in awe of the winner. Adele went for Maltese Cross and she was proved wrong. I was of the opinion that Maltese Cross had no form to suggest he was as good as Darys or Kalpana and in that I was proved right. Of my three for the race, I had two of the first four, Darys and Friendly Soul. So does that make me their equal as a tipster? No need to reply with your answer, as valid as your opinion may be.