- This topic has 21 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Did any of the UK channels show the virtual replays of the racing at Meydan yesterday evening? The Dubai Racing Channel had them a few minutes after every race. Unlimited 360 degree views of each race, jockey view with horse speed, sectional times, winner and his track over the course highlighted, all runners in their actual colours on an authentically modelled virtual Meydan racetrack. Average speed and peak speed summarised at the end of the replay.
Seriously impressive.
I don’t like them cluttering the screen during the actual race.
However I thought there were really interesting during the reviews – particularly the troubled passage of Age of Reason.
Lots of racegoers at Meydan last week were saying they wanted sectional timings and this is sectionals with a whole lot more info.
I’m fairly certain they’re using a firm called Trackus (http://www.trackus.com), who are in place at Del Mar, Santa Anita & Deauville.
I like the ‘chicklets’ at the bottom personally and the post race stuff is brilliant. Add in the sectionals and it’s a fabulous tool, and something RFC are aware of.
Don’t think it comes cheap though…
I like the ‘chicklets’ at the bottom personally
You don’t mean those numbered balls do you along the bottom of the screen while the race is on?
Think they’re awful and a distraction, thought the idea was to see horses perform not to watch numbers progress, that’s something for the arcade surely?It’s obviously a personal thing. The way they display them from Meydan is a tad clunky but other methods work better.
In my view the coverage of races on Equidia – screen layout, distance to run, horse order – is streets ahead of ours.
"Silvoir
05 Feb 2010, 16:39
by Silvoir on 05 Feb 2010, 16:39I’m fairly certain they’re using a firm called Trackus (http://www.trackus.com), who are in place at Del Mar, Santa Anita & Deauville.
I like the ‘chicklets’ at the bottom personally and the post race stuff is brilliant. Add in the sectionals and it’s a fabulous tool, and something RFC are aware of.
Don’t think it comes cheap though…Paul Struthers
BHA
http://www.britishhorseracing.com"It actually did come cheap as Turftrax did the same thing for free to UK racing well before Trakus copied it.
Did BHA etc support the Turftrax initiative ? – no, they went bust.
Glad RFC are aware – where have they been for the last decade?
Are they also aware that Turftrax/Trackus system can also provide recorded hard evidence for non-triers that would stand up in Court?
BHA are long aware but totally ignored this.I prefer the simpler method they use in Hong Kong and most American tracks where they just show the leading numbers at the bottom of the screen – particularly handy if you don’t have access to the commentary or if it is in a foreign language.
However I did like the chicklets on replay together with the speed of the winning horse etc.
It is definitely Trackus and after the glich on opening meet when they couldn’t get info onto the screen they are now getting there.
Are they also aware that Turftrax/Trackus system can also provide recorded hard evidence for non-triers that would stand up in Court?
Any chance you can expand on this?
Are they also aware that Turftrax/Trackus system can also provide recorded hard evidence for non-triers that would stand up in Court?
Any chance you can expand on this?
David,
I cannot broadcast on all the scams that may be going on including in-running which would be caught.
What I can say is that Trakus/Turftrax can give the ID, speed and location of every horse in the race 30 times every second. It gives a 3D picture (location along and across the track and horse speed) 30 times every second. It records the precise path each horse took and the path length, where the other horses were and any pulls, steering behind slow horses, deliberately missed gaps, long paths around, not riding out to merits etc.
The recordings are play-backable as many times as you need in slow motion. The data collection is quality assured. Head-on and side cameras (arguably subjective and incomplete without precise positional and speed data) would complete the evidence to Court standards. No Australian opinions or any other subjective or biased "opinions" would need to be sought.
http://www.trakus.com/press-pdf/trakus_FAQ.pdf
If many are put off considering racing as their betting sport due to the perceived "fixing" then a Turftrax type resurrection could be cheap at the price to restore /assure the faith.
Hi Robert
I’d forgot I’d asked you that on this thread, so my apologies for not replying, but very interesting stuff. Cheers.
"Robert….Do you think we may see this on U.K. tracks in the future say……….5 years?"
It could be in the next 3 months ready for racing’s showpiece, Royal Ascot, if there was any leadership, enterprise or business competence at BHA. There isn’t. They don’t make the likes of Phil Bull anymore who did achieve progress in his day. This was around for several years in its Turftrax form but BHA took no interest in promoting it and Turftrax folded holding worldwide patents. On form, therefore, it is a TimeForm squiggle.
Robert
Firstly, BHA weren’t around at the time.
Secondly, my understanding/recollection is that it was a purely commercial venture by Turftrax, and the support they required/requested was that rules were in place to ensure the speed sensing equipment was carried. I’m sure someone can correct me if that’s not the case.
Thirdly, I accept that some of the data providing could assist for integrity purposes, but yin support of the live footage, not the other way round.
Paul
Robert
Firstly, BHA weren’t around at the time.
Secondly, my understanding/recollection is that it was a purely commercial venture by Turftrax, and the support they required/requested was that rules were in place to ensure the speed sensing equipment was carried. I’m sure someone can correct me if that’s not the case.
Thirdly, I accept that some of the data providing could assist for integrity purposes, but yin support of the live footage, not the other way round.
Paul
1. BHA were around in November 2006. Turftrax did not fold this service until July 2008. BHA were certainly around at the time.
2. No service is ever purely commercial it must be attractive to both parties ie Turftrax and racing. All pioneering services require support in their fledgling stages of reduced cash flow from high investment with low income. They were hoping bookmakers would help. Presumably BHA etc would neither show initiative to maintain support nor help out with their ongoing costs. Nor were all horse owners helpful, some even wanted fees for the data rights from their horse’s performance.
"Don’t think it (Trakus) comes cheap though…Paul Struthers". It was coming cheap to UK racing at the time – is free not cheap enough? If Trakus is ever used then racing will pay monopoly costs when it did not need to.
This is what Turftrax wrote at time of folding:
"Unhappily, since that time the Group has been unable to secure contracts for the in-running fixed odds betting product from major bookmakers or an international sale of a Tracking system.
In particular the failure to secure a contract with a bookmaker has resulted in the failure to generate revenues sufficient to cover the ongoing costs of operation which if left unaddressed would have placed a significant and
potentially unsupportable burden on the Group’s cash position."3. Camera evidence is subjective due to parallax distortion error, camera lens spatial distortion, obscured detail and the lack of geometric or speed data – its interpretation is circumstantial. Turftrax evidence is not subjective. In a Court of law non-subjective evidence should have a higher standing than subjective, circumstantial evidence. (There is general agreement that assessment of relevance or irrelevance involves or requires judgments about probabilities or uncertainties). Both types together are mutually supportive to "beyond reasonable doubt". I would have thought that after the farce of the "Fallon" trial that Police/BHA would have learned at least the basic lessons of evidence.
Robert
Firstly, BHA weren’t around at the time.
Secondly, my understanding/recollection is that it was a purely commercial venture by Turftrax, and the support they required/requested was that rules were in place to ensure the speed sensing equipment was carried. I’m sure someone can correct me if that’s not the case.
Thirdly, I accept that some of the data providing could assist for integrity purposes, but yin support of the live footage, not the other way round.
Paul
1. BHA were around in November 2006. Turftrax did not fold this service until July 2008. BHA were certainly around at the time.
2. No service is ever purely commercial it must be attractive to both parties ie Turftrax and racing. All pioneering services require support in their fledgling stages of reduced cash flow from high investment with low income. They were hoping bookmakers would help. Presumably BHA etc would neither show initiative to maintain support nor help out with their ongoing costs. Nor were all horse owners helpful, some even wanted fees for the data rights from their horse’s performance.
"Don’t think it (Trakus) comes cheap though…Paul Struthers". It was coming cheap to UK racing at the time – is free not cheap enough? If Trakus is ever used then racing will pay monopoly costs when it did not need to.
This is what Turftrax wrote at time of folding:
"Unhappily, since that time the Group has been unable to secure contracts for the in-running fixed odds betting product from major bookmakers or an international sale of a Tracking system.
In particular the failure to secure a contract with a bookmaker has resulted in the failure to generate revenues sufficient to cover the ongoing costs of operation which if left unaddressed would have placed a significant and
potentially unsupportable burden on the Group’s cash position."3. Camera evidence is subjective due to parallax distortion error, camera lens spatial distortion, obscured detail and the lack of geometric or speed data – its interpretation is circumstantial. Turftrax evidence is not subjective. In a Court of law non-subjective evidence should have a higher standing than subjective, circumstantial evidence. (There is general agreement that assessment of relevance or irrelevance involves or requires judgments about probabilities or uncertainties). Both types together are mutually supportive to "beyond reasonable doubt". I would have thought that after the farce of the "Fallon" trial that Police/BHA would have learned at least the basic lessons of evidence.
1. BHA weren’t around in November 2006:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/media/releaseDetail.asp?item=0842262. I really don’t know whether TurfTrax approached BHB for financial support, and if someone wants to take the view that by not proactively offering the cash when a commercial model didn’t work out as a sign they showed a lack of initiative then that’s fine. I don’t know the facts of what went on – if you do then as I said before I’m happy to be corrected. It might well be that there wasn’t the enthusiasm for it and whether there’ll be enthusiasm for ‘dusting it down’ will be a matter for Racing for Change. In my personal view, I’d love it to be introduced for a) sectionals b) ‘equidia’ style television coverage (distance to run, race order etc) and c) the additional potential integrity benefits. But the costs need to be weighed against the benefits.
3. I’m not sure whether we’re agreeing or disagreeing. I’m sure that in certain cases the data contradict the effort in the saddle, and that it could support a negative interpretation of the ride. But, and perhaps I’m wrong, the video of the race will always be key. As for the trial, I was in court every day bar two so believe I understand the case better than most. The lack of Turftrax or similar data was certainly irrelevant to how the case was presented and, imho, would have made absolutely no difference given the way the investigation and prosecution was handled (see CoL Police post-trial findings). On that basis, your pay off line is, again imho and in relation to us, an unnecessary, cheap and inaccurate shot.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.