I am thinking of renaming this series "Myth-proving", as rather a lot of the "myths" that I set out to "bust" prove not to be myths at all. The latest is that you should "avoid last-time fallers in chases".
Okay, "avoid" is too strong a word - each instance should be judged on its own merits - but in general terms there is something to be said for treating last-time fallers in chases with suspicion.
The issue came up at Aintree, where Silviniaco Conti failed to make amends at even money for his fall in the Cheltenham Gold Cup, and it came up again last weekend, when Rival d'Estruval flopped as favourite for the Scottish Grand National at Ayr, also on the back of a fall at the Cheltenham Festival.
It will be coming up again this very evening, when Boston Bob turns out on the first day of the Punchestown Festival having fallen last time at Cheltenham.
General points are not proved by cherry-picked examples - much as some will try to convince you otherwise - and Silviniaco Conti did not exactly run poorly in any case. But a wider look at the data confirms the anecdotal impression that there is something to the "myth".
Taking all chases in 2009 to 2012 inclusive, Ireland and UK, horses that had fallen on their most recent starts underperformed against Timeform rating by a median of 5 lbs.
There were plenty of good efforts in there on the back of a fall. For instance, 11.9% of such horses won next time and 34.9% finished in the first three. But that is against wider figures of 12.9% and 37.8%, so represents a downturn in performance as judged by finishing position.
Interestingly, the percentage of horses following a fall with another fall increased hardly at all, from 5.1% to 5.2%. Every bit as interestingly, perhaps, the percentage of horses following a fall with being pulled up went up from 13.1% to 16.1%.
One explanation - a valid one I would suggest - is that horses which fall tend to take care of themselves the next time, possibly making mistakes and jumping cautiously, resulting in a greater incidence of poor efforts, but not falling with greater regularity than could be expected more widely. This, for what it is worth, seemed to be the case with Rival d'Estruval.
That being so, you might expect horses making a quick return after a fall to fare worse than those that have had a longer absence, during which time schooling may have restored their jumping aptitude and confidence.
There seems to be something in this, with horses returning from a fall in less than two weeks performing a further 2 lbs worse on median against expectation as expressed in Timeform Master Ratings. Horses turning round in a time period of between two and four weeks perform 1 lb better (that is, 3lbs better than those returning in under a fortnight).
Thereafter, the picture is less clear. Some horses that have been off for more than a month following a fall will have been absent due to an injury or some other problem. As a group, they fare less well.
Last-time fallers also do worse than par against market expectation, with a return on investment of minus 8.2% before commission judged by Betfair SP and minus 27.6% against Industry SP (those figures are 2.1% and 22.2% more widely).
In summary, you can tip the odds in your favour by discriminating between fallers under different circumstances, but the gist of the opening statement is true even if its precise wording is not: it makes sense to treat last-time fallers in chases with caution.
