- This topic has 24 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
I believe the Going Stick becomes mandatory for turf courses later this month, which should be a huge step forward. However, it seems that the official going, which we all read in the form book, will still be at the whim of the CotC’s, which rather defeats the object imo.
Looking at early cards for this week, we have the following going descriptions:Fakenham………………….Good,g/s in places……………………8.5
Leicester (Hdl)…………….Good to soft,sft in places…………..7.4
Folkestone (Chse)……….Good………………………………………6.2Is there any reasonably sane explanation for these discrepancies, or is it really that difficult to set a uniform scale we can all understand?
- Total Posts 17716
The bigger the number the further the stick is going into the ground.
- Total Posts 17716
Not at all, Mr W.
For example:
Leicester (Hdl)…………….Good to soft,sft in places…………..7.4
Leicester (Chse)………….Good, g/f in places…………………..8.1Which is also quite a difference in description, for what represents a 5% shift on the scale.
The Leicester readings reflect the fact that the hurdle races take place on the flat course, which is watered during the summer, whereas the chases are on a separate track that isn’t watered or used for any other purpose.
As I understand it, the going stick numbers are only of use for comparing different meetings at the same track, not for comparisons from course to course. In theory, over a period of years, a pattern will develop for each track that will enable us to set the scale for that track.
This is already possible for some tracks if you have the records. For example, the reading of 6.2 for Cheltenham on Friday morning told me it would be genuine soft ground. There hasn’t been a lower pre race reading in recent years on the Old Course.
Strikes me that these going-stick numbers will only be of any use once sufficient data has been collated, enabling a set of going ‘pars’ to be established for each course e.g Folkestone 6.0 = Good, Leicester 8.0 = Good
Valid point about the soil types. Fakenham is a light sandy-loam which raely rides soft and Folkestone is a heavier clay-loam frequently prone to riding heavy, which may explain the 8.5 and 6.2 discrepancy on what is walking-stick and size-10 boots Good
From what I’ve read the probe or bit that goes into the ground is 4 inches long. Would it be accurate if horses go in deeper than the length of the probe? How deep do horses go in on watered summer ground or heavy Winter ground? How accuratley does the force required to insert the probe and pull it back (shear measurement) replicate the hoof of a 1 tonne animal travelling at 35mph?
"………..the hoof of a 1 tonne animal travelling at 35mph?"
Now, that’s a ‘BIG’ORSE’!!!!
Colin
- Total Posts 17716
I can understand the difference between the 2 courses at Leicester, and that different courses have different soil.
What I fail to understand is why there is only 5% difference on the reading – at the same course – for one track with ground bordering on g/f, and the other with it bordering on soft?
Also, although the soil may differ from course to course, surely the going stick is designed to give a uniform reading, so that all courses with a reading of; say 7.5, should give an unequivocal official going of ‘good’?
If an elementary procedure like reading from a standard scale is open to all kinds of nuances and local variations, then we are little further forward, imo.I can understand the difference between the 2 courses at Leicester, and that different courses have different soil.
What I fail to understand is why there is only 5% difference on the reading – at the same course – for one track with ground bordering on g/f, and the other with it bordering on soft?
Also, although the soil may differ from course to course, surely the going stick is designed to give a uniform reading, so that all courses with a reading of; say 7.5, should give an unequivocal official going of ‘good’?
If an elementary procedure like reading from a standard scale is open to all kinds of nuances and local variations, then we are little further forward, imo.Reet,
BHA have never properly explained that the going stick scale has no universal meaning because it cannot represent the effect of a galloping horse, nor is it able to penetrate to the subsoil conditions below (which can be soft or hard), but they still publish these misleading readings. Some 130,000 readings a year are made and calibrated against race times. So if the hurdles are run faster, the ground is apparently faster (it isn’t, but thats what the near same going stick figures appear to say). They are also promoting the bizarre notion that Good in Summer is not necessarily the same as Good in Autumn. Next it will be the usual fudge that Good for Flat racing is not the same as Good for Jump racing. It still remains up to the clerk to decide the official going. It is never made clear as to whether the reported going is what the stick says or what the clerk guesses as to the going. Just puncturing the topsoil for a reading means that by a little bit of watering here and there and you can get any reading you want from the GS.
I suggested to BHA that they promoted the use of retired racehorses to gallop over timed sections as the only way that true goings before racing could be reliably determined.
These goings will be used for the official beaten distances which is another source of misleading data.
Still no mention of correct going and track preparation details for the AW where 60% of UK flat racing is now held.That some cannot really tell what the going is by walking round and non-full reliance on the going stick is borne out by the following:
"Speaking on behalf of clerks, the RCA’s racecourse services director Caroline Davies said: "A going description is a subjective view, but also an educated one (???). Clerks are qualified in turf husbandry and ground management, they know their racecourse and have the assistance of the GoingStick.
"It’s worth pointing out that in the past we carried out going forums, in which we asked people to walk the same track. Some came back saying it was good to firm, others said it was soft."I suggested to BHA that they promoted the use of retired racehorses to gallop over timed sections as the only way that true goings before racing could be reliably determined
Thats an excellent suggestion Robert, and would be the perfect solution. What was the BHB’s reply?
- Total Posts 17716
That some cannot really tell what the going is by walking round and non-full reliance on the going stick is borne out by the following:
"Speaking on behalf of clerks, the RCA’s racecourse services director Caroline Davies said: "A going description is a subjective view, but also an educated one (???). Clerks are qualified in turf husbandry and ground management, they know their racecourse and have the assistance of the GoingStick.
"It’s worth pointing out that in the past we carried out going forums, in which we asked people to walk the same track. Some came back saying it was good to firm, others said it was soft."That really says it all, imo.
In other words "We now have the equipment which could take us away from the arcane and unreliable methods we have used in the past, but it will only be used as a cosmetic exercise for the public’s benefit, while the CoC’s will carry on much the way they always have".
As with much of their other legislation, the BHA continues to treat those in the industry, and those who pay the piper, like the mushrooms they obviously think we are.
Will we ever have any professional handling of our sport?BHA have never properly explained that the going stick scale has no universal meaning because it cannot represent the effect of a galloping horse, nor is it able to penetrate to the subsoil conditions below (which can be soft or hard), but they still publish these misleading readings.
"It’s worth pointing out that in the past we carried out going forums, in which we asked people to walk the same track. Some came back saying it was good to firm, others said it was soft."
Robert,
Given that we’re likely to be lumbered with either the (very) subjective assessment provided by the Clerks’ walking stick or a set of uncalibrated, non-universal and seemingly illogical penetrometer readings for the foreseeable future which of the two, if either, do you think we should put more faith in?
Providing the BHA in their wisdom decide to maintain a historical database comparing going-stick, clerk assessment and actual race times for each course then I do believe, once a sufficiently large sample is collected, that we may at least be a little wiser pre-meeting as to what the actual state of the ground is.
Very much like your idea of retired racehorses being employed to determine the state of the ground; there will be no shortage redundant thoroughbreds over the coming Depression-laden years who I’m sure would prefer to while away their days in gainful work rather than on a one-way ticket to the Rendering Plant
Reportedly overheard ar the recent Newcastle going stick forum:-
"If you are worried about the going being too soft, just find a firmer patch of ground for the reading.
"If you are worried about the going being too firm. just find a softer path of ground."
Reportedly Rakaposhi King actually broke the track record on officially good-soft ground.
Apparently some horses prefer softer ground and can go quicker on it.
By all your comments does not seem going stick or penetrometer is going to be the whole answer.
Anyone know how Longchamp can come up with such crazy readings this year. Some British trainers went over there expecting soft and it rode like good-firm.
Do think times are the best way to judge going, as long as you can judge what is a slowly run race. But that is only after the first race.
Mark
Value Is EverythingWhy don’t we just get a bit more hip and with the times and send out a load of page three girls in six inch stilleto’s and ask what they think? Just as scientific and much more pleasing on the eye..
CR and Drone,
BHA never replied nor did any of the retired racing charities that I wrote to.
Anything new seems a no-no in UK, even though I gave them full info on a Clerk in New Zealand who already uses horses stabled at the course in a similar way.Unless BHA make changes after their round-robin seminars I suppose it still remains for individuals to use their own methods to determine what the true going was after racing, then check that against both the GS and clerk’s version. Unless BHA define Good, say, as 0.0 seconds per furlong slow then the official going can still be in a wide range and no pattern might ever emerge – especially if course staff change. There is supposed to be a Turftrax link to historic GS readings but of course that link remains broken from when Turftrax got taken over.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.