Droopys Loner’s quest for Golden Sprint success difficult to ignore
Emerging talent Farloe Barracuda and the consistent Ayamzaman dominate the ante-post betting for The Millennium Stand Bookmakers Golden Sprint. However, it’s Oaks finalist Droopys Loner who represents better value at 7/1.
Dean Childs’ bitch has a lively chance of upsetting the two market leaders and she’ll be tough to contain in Friday’s semi-final at Romford.
The aforementioned Ayamzaman is likely to be the chief threat to her qualifying ambitions although recent performances suggest she can do enough to get through and then aim to pull off the big gamble.
Her rival’s heats-fastest 23.85sec (later calculated to 23.65sec) victory certainly outlines his own credentials but there are valid reasons to oppose Mark Wallis’ contender and side with Loner instead.
Having failed to last the pace in December’s Oaks decider, March’s game runner-up place behind Hove heroine Your a Champ was followed by a 13¼ length romp on her course and distance return to Romford.
Last week’s second at the London Road track was by no means a vintage performance but Childs’ 2009 daughter of Timor Blue had enough in hand to progress.
This could be the case again on Friday night, with an advantageous trap draw potentially her trump card.
While Ayamzaman runs out of trap six instead of one of his preferred middle berths, Droopys Loner will don the red jacket, the colour she’s worn for 7 of her 16 open wins.
Providing she doesn’t miss her break, an early trip to the rails and a lightning run in-front to the first bend could follow.
A host of rapid inside runners, including heats winner Mottos Impact, have the potential to make life very difficult for the 7/2 outright fancy, Ayamzaman.
The 13/8 priced Farloe Barracuda also makes plenty of appeal given his displays of raw power around Romford’s 400m.
However, Droopys Loner’s top-level exploits are still fresh enough in the memory to suggest that the Northern Oaks champion isn’t easily discounted from landing another big prize.
All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing