- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
One of the topics I discuss with Dave Edwards on a regular basis is the Irish advertised race distances.
This hit home last season when Galway prior to their festival, had a private company in to re-measure their race distances, and found to their astonishment that the 2m1f(C) distance was in fact 2m2f.
Looking back to the meeting held at Clonmel on Thurs 19th, every time they race, the race distances alter, and what you end up with is races that do not have any linear time comparison to each other.
There were 4 x 2m3½f hurdle races run on the card, the first 2 were run over an advertised distance of 2m3f100yds and the last 2 2m3f110yds (ref Racing Post), how many people picked up on this.
You have racecourses like Tramore where you end up with the same standard times for both the hurdles and chase race distances, I tried to correct this by looking back at the data from the last 5 years, and still ended up with the same figures.
I look forward to the day when Irish Turf club re-measure the 2m4f(C) distance at Navan, looking at my linear time calculations the race distance is 20.0s out.
The majority of the other Gaff racecourses in Ireland advertise race distances that are works of pure fiction, the clerks of the courses are free to do what they want.
This is one of my main frustrations compiling speed figures, who can I discuss these issues with, the majority of the racing pundits wouldn’t even know what I was on about.
Mike.
Both in Ireland and UK the appalling errors in advertised race distances have been discussed for over 40 years.
Basically the racecourses and the regulators do not give a damn as it is never threatened to take their licences away or even suggest a fine might be in order. This is despite races being run under the advertised distances as being null and void under the very racing rules they are supposed to enforce.
So all you are left with is the extreme minority of Clerks who take their course responsibilities seriously and media embarrassment when Timeform point the finger directly at the racecourse mismanagement when the most glaring of errors are found.
UK has refused to follow up the re-measuring of Flat courses as “they have already been done in 1991”. They did not remeasure the NH courses then but introduced the weasel word “about” which lasted until the forced 2015 remeasurement, when they pretended it was only due to a change in how they measured the courses, not that anyone had ever bothered before. Every UK course has built up errors since 1991, even when the rails are not moved as on AW, and the furlong markers have never been positioned accurately. Newcastle AW opened to media fanfare only to find that every race was run over the wrong distances (as avertised) and some electrical timings were out. They had done no independent checks and the BHA course Inspector had somehow passed the new layouts as compliant.It really is an in-bred, self -serving Mickey Mouse sport run purely for the Levy junky “trainers” and bookies with the punter and integrity largely ignored.
I wish they could also get the going correct and not just at the Irish meetings.
What chance do punters have when the Racing Post website shows the going at last weekend’s Deauville meeting as “Good”, when the At The Races website gives it as “Soft”
On a separate point to Blues Brother:-
Aidan O’Brien claimed that Caravaggio’s time in winning the Marble Hill on Saturday, on what he described as “soft to heavy” ground, was exceptional for the Curragh 5F track.
Is he correct in believing this Mike?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Aidan O’Brien claimed that Caravaggio’s time in winning the Marble Hill on Saturday, on what he described as “soft to heavy” ground, was exceptional for the Curragh 5F track.
Is he correct in believing this Mike?No he was wrong, the 5f and 6f races were run on -0.37s/f (good to soft) and the 1m and 1m4f races on -0.77s/f (soft).
Dave Edwards had the going at -0.46s/f (good to soft) for the 5f and 6f races and -0.96s/f (soft) for the 1m and 1m 4f races.
Invariably on most racecourses you end up with 2 going allowances when it has been raining, and it is not uncommon to have 3 going allowances on rare occasions.
Mike.
Both in Ireland and UK the appalling errors in advertised race distances have been discussed for over 40 years.
Basically the racecourses and the regulators do not give a damn as it is never threatened to take their licences away or even suggest a fine might be in order. This is despite races being run under the advertised distances as being null and void under the very racing rules they are supposed to enforce.Regarding the race distances in this country, the biggest problem is the rail movements, before I compile my speed figures I go to the BHA results page that has the information regarding the rail movements, and make the necessary adjustments.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/race-info/fixtures/results/
Someone asked me recently why I was using different standard times for the last Chester meeting, I explained that every day they move the rails and I adjust for this, nobody else does this…
Mike.
Aidan O’Brien claimed that Caravaggio’s time in winning the Marble Hill on Saturday, on what he described as “soft to heavy” ground, was exceptional for the Curragh 5F track.
Is he correct in believing this Mike?No he was wrong, the 5f and 6f races were run on -0.37s/f (good to soft) and the 1m and 1m4f races on -0.77s/f (soft).
Dave Edwards had the going at -0.46s/f (good to soft) for the 5f and 6f races and -0.96s/f (soft) for the 1m and 1m 4f races.
Invariably on most racecourses you end up with 2 going allowances when it has been raining, and it is not uncommon to have 3 going allowances on rare occasions.
Mike.
Thanks very much for this information Mike.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
From whereabouts on the course are these distances measured or should I say supposed to be measured? The inner rail? With the gadgetry today surely this can be measured as accurate as possible to the nearest yard. It isn’t as though you have to wheel one of those measuring instruments around like they had when I was at school. I believe mobile phones now have apps to show distances travelled. All it needs is someone to walk around the track before a meeting
Although it isn’t quite as bad as the 2015 Bangkok half marathon which was measured just short of a staggering 17 miles
Kevin Blake blogged about this issue last summer, Mike.
http://www.attheraces.com/blogs/kevin-blake/29-June-2015
Maybe you can discuss it with him.
@kevinblake2011 on Twitter
It was the turn of Down Royal yesterday to stick it to the punters, I calculated that the 2m(H) and 2m(NHF) races were run over 15.25f, you had Fighting Days with an OR of 91 running fast by 6.20s.
They need to get their piece of string they use to measure distances re-calibrated….
Mike.
What did you make of the ground at Bangor on Thursday (26th), Mike?
I have a reason for asking which I’ll get back to later.
What did you make of the ground at Bangor on Thursday (26th), Mike?
I have a reason for asking which I’ll get back to later.This was a strange meeting to the say the least, with the chase distances being on the minus side, and the hurdles on the plus side.
Calculating the speed figures I used a going allowance of -0.56s/f (soft), I have no doubt that the true going was no worst than good to soft, the problem I expect was the actual advertised race distances.
Mike.
Aidan O’Brien claimed that Caravaggio’s time in winning the Marble Hill on Saturday, on what he described as “soft to heavy” ground, was exceptional for the Curragh 5F track.
Is he correct in believing this Mike?No he was wrong, the 5f and 6f races were run on -0.37s/f (good to soft) and the 1m and 1m4f races on -0.77s/f (soft).
Mike.
I was watching channel 4 today and the team reviewed Caravaggio’s win.
They mentioned that Timeform had given a speed figure of 115 to Caravaggio, which Jimbo said was high for this time of year.
I am a bit confused as to how there is a difference of opinion on the worth of the figure clocked?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Aidan O’Brien claimed that Caravaggio’s time in winning the Marble Hill on Saturday, on what he described as “soft to heavy” ground, was exceptional for the Curragh 5F track.
Is he correct in believing this Mike?No he was wrong, the 5f and 6f races were run on -0.37s/f (good to soft) and the 1m and 1m4f races on -0.77s/f (soft).
Mike.
I was watching channel 4 today and the team reviewed Caravaggio’s win.
They mentioned that Timeform had given a speed figure of 115 to Caravaggio, which Jimbo said was high for this time of year.
I am a bit confused as to how there is a difference of opinion on the worth of the figure clocked? Have you got a figure for the horse I can compare to Mike?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I was watching channel 4 today and the team reviewed Caravaggio’s win.
They mentioned that Timeform had given a speed figure of 115 to Caravaggio, which Jimbo said was high for this time of year.
I am a bit confused as to how there is a difference of opinion on the worth of the figure clocked?I have to agree with Jim here, looking at the information available and ref my class par chart, the Timeform boys have over estimated Caravaggio rating by at least 16lbs.
Mike.
Dr. Blues Brother, you are a very interesting human and I am happy to be in your orbit.
If you find a discrepancy between advertised race distances and reality, do you not have a small edge over the rest of the punting world? How come you’re always so keen to share?
Don’t get me wrong – I always learn something from your posts and I’m very happy you’re here.
Maybe it reflects badly on me as a person, but I’d probably rathole these little nuggets for myself!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.