Rip Van Winkle (Racing Post)

Sometimes the horse you most admire is the one that has worked hardest to win you over. When an animal you perceive as unworthy of hype shows his class and flair time and again, you suddenly find yourself president of his fan club, perhaps to compensate for your own flawed dogma in the first place.

When Rip van Winkle strung together a “promising” seventh in last year’s Dewhurst, a “pleasing” fourth in the 2000 Guineas, and a “not quite get the run of things” fourth in the Derby, many had him pegged as a poseur: Here was an attractive colt without the application to match his looks or his reputation. Furthermore, he seemed perfectly named, “loathing profitable labor” and tending to nod off at the crucially competitive period of the race, irrespective of the distance.

Then he finished second to Sea the Stars in the Eclipse in July, and never was a horse’s reputation so enhanced by defeat. Whilst tempting to suggest he lacked the heart of the winner, it appeared more accurate to say that he ran into the best and showed he could run hard for ten consecutive furlongs.

Dropped to a mile, he dominated the Sussex Stakes, bossing a good older horse in Paco Boy and a top-notch filly in Ghanaati, in spite of suffering from his well-documented foot problems in the immediate run-up to the race. Last Saturday, off his first uninterrupted preparation of the season, he took a four-runner Queen Elizabeth II Stakes at Ascot stylishly enough en route to the Breeders’ Cup Classic, a race for which he is a best-priced 7/2 with British bookmakers.

The ball’s really rolling again, hype-wise. As my colleague James Willoughby wrote in the Racing Post, “one wonders what Rip van Winkle would have been able to do had Aidan O’Brien had a clear run with him throughout his career.” And anyone can see that the pattern of defeats followed by victories, all at top level, bears a striking resemblance to the progressive campaign enjoyed by Raven’s Pass in 2008.

Cards on the table now, though, and I reckon 7/2 is a pretty rancid price for the Classic — and that’s a standout; most firms are betting 9/4 or 5/2. On the plus side, soundness prevailing, you’re guaranteed a run with a horse of abundant talent, brilliantly trained.

Against that, consider the way this horse has been aggressively ridden the last twice, setting or sitting close to strong fractions before keeping on stoutly. Consensus of opinion is that this has been a sensible policy in order to negate the possibility of a steadily run mile with a horse that has proven stamina over further.

I wonder, however, whether Johnny Murtagh gave the game away after Ascot when he said that O’Brien had instructed him to have the horse engaged in top gear fully three furlongs from home, before the entrance to the short Ascot stretch. In such circumstances, the horse ran tremendously well to win, digging in to fend off the persistent late charge of Zacinto, an outsider ridden much more conservatively.

I want to mark up the performance in terms of form, but fear that connections believe that Rip van Winkle is an animal that requires a dynamic, galvanizing ride in order to motivate him fully through a race. Perhaps, over 10 furlongs in the BC Classic, the tactics will be more circumspect? Then again, will O’Brien have John Velazquez’s words regarding over-patience on Henrythenavigator in 2008 ringing in his ears?

I believe his trainer is right when he says that Rip van Winkle is a cruiser that stays well. If the horse is to succeed in the Classic, however, he will need to be ridden with commensurate confidence, else he will end up the proverbial sitting duck for Zenyatta, Sea The Stars et al.