- This topic has 24 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Deauville today and yesterday described officially as “soft”. Putting away owners, trainers, bookmakers and punters. I originally backed against Alpha Centauri in the Marois, but – thanks to Bobby Bluebell who pointed out some at the course believed it a lot faster – I looked up yesterday’s Deauville officially soft ground results and changed my bets.
Race times in the Racing Post, one actually “fast by”, most under 3 seconds slower than standard.
Are those race times wrong?
Are the Racing Post Standard Times wrong?
Are they racing over a shorter trip than advertised?
Or is it just a ridiculous going report?I strongly suspect the latter. It is impossible to beat a proper Standard Time on truly soft ground; a time that suggests real good-firm. Rest of the times were also too close to Standard to be soft. I’d say Good is more accurate. They didn’t seem to be kicking it up at all either.
This not only puts away punters on the day. It also puts away trainers, owners and bookmakers. One thing for certain is if bookmakers thought it was Good-Firm or even Good they’d have offered long odds-on Alpha Centauri, instead of 5/4.
We were lucky to see Alpha Centauri at all, it would’ve been easy for connections to pull her out due to the officially soft going.
It’s bad enough for today, but “soft” also goes in to many form books too. If Alpha Centauri runs on soft ground again loads of future punters will also be put away – thinking she’s proven on soft.
I can understand if Going Reports are slightly out, but this is too much.
Racing media needs to investigate.Value Is EverythingGingertipster – Deauville today and yesterday described officially as “soft”. Putting away owners, trainers, bookmakers and punters.
The going at Deauville Sunday on the turf was +0.33s/f (good to firm).
As Claude Chalet RUK French racing Expert once stated, the clerk of the courses in France are under no obligation to report accurate going descriptions, tongue in cheek statement, but accurate.
Alpha Centauri’s speed figure was very impressive at 106, using my RPR conversion chart he ran to an OR of 115.
Mike.
It’s poor show from France and everyone involved. I saw a post from Andrew Smith AKA festivalracing who is quite clued in on the game, saying she can do it on the soft as well.
Shows how unclear it actually was in regards to the going.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!Jackh1092 – It’s poor show from France and everyone involved
You only have to look at the problems I see practically on a daily basis regarding official going descriptions.
Saturday’s meeting at Deauville the Racing Post had the going as soft, Dave Edwards “TopSpeed” time base going on the turf was +0.36s/f (good to firm).Looking at yesterday’s Leicester card I had the going at +0.39s/f (good to firm)
Oisin Murphy feeling the ground was a little bit dead, while Harry Bentley felt there was plenty of ease in the ground.
The official going description at Leicester was GOOD (Good to firm in places; watered; 7.2)
You have a different problems in Ireland due to suspect race distances, the flat meeting at Last week’s Sligo meeting I calculated that the 10.45f races were run over 10.07f, to correct for this faux pas, the official going was given as good, RP Dave Edwards had to use a going allowance of +0.56s/f (firmx) to correct for this anomaly.
I could go on but I have yet to meet anybody who even understands what is really going on, Dave Edwards is exempt from this statement.
Mike.
Non racing folk would laugh at us. Racing – on annual betting turnover alone – is a multi billion pound industry.
How difficult can it be to set up something that offers an objective assessment of the ground? The going stick has no credibility as it needs to be pushed into the ground by the user, who could be 8 stones with arthritic elbows or 20 stones with a powerlifting penchant.
One drawback often cited is the difference in soil from course to course. Surely experts in that field could grade the different soil types so that each could have a going allowance? Then something as basic as a tech-adapted harrow with sensors could be pulled around the course behind a tractor (speed and harrow weight always the same), a reading taken and the soil allowance added/deducted.
(patent pending)
The going stick is pushed in to a prescribed depth – the pushing in speed is not relevant.
The going stick is the best we have to date and is very credible.
Most UK natural soil profiles vary every few feet around the track and across the track – so it actually is practically impossible to grade. Watering and absorbed moisture content is another variable in soil behaviour. The Clerk takes about 22 readings a furlong and averages those out.
The BHA should enforce the production of Turftrax going maps as “soft in places” does not tell you where or how much. That would get you nearer to your grading each section suggestion and the Clerks already collect all the data – the majority just do not publish it as going maps. They should forbid clerks /jockeys from giving any “opinions” on what the going might be. These random guesses just add to the whole mess of confusion.The soil has to be tested to about 14 inches deep for the ground that supports a galloping horse hoof and the shear test shows how the grass roots are binding the topsoil section. A harrow would wreck the turf if going into such depths and all the divot repairs would be pulled out.
One way to get a better prediction of the actual going is to stable 5 retired racehorses at the course and time them at full gallop speed over various sections. This was done in New Zealand. There are other ways.
Robert, the following from a Racing Post article on the going stick; quotes are from clerk Andrew Cooper. Full article is here: https://www.racingpost.com/news/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-goingstick/260234
Nobody pretends the GoingStick is perfect. “People will have the odd criticism,” says Cooper. “I certainly wouldn’t ever want to be putting out a GoingStick reading on its own; I think we need the verbal assessment as well.”
He adds: “We certainly haven’t got to a situation across all the racecourses across the country where if a course gives out a reading of 7.5, a trainer or an owner can say, ‘Ah, that means good ground’; in fact it could actually mean a very different going description between one course and another.
Or even at the same track within 24 hours. Look at the example of Chester on June 24-25: on the Friday, the ground was described as ‘good to soft, good in places’ with a GoingStick reading of 6.8. The next day, the official description had firmed up to ‘good, good to soft in places’ – yet the GoingStick read 6.5. “It can be quite user-specific – it depends how forcefully an individual pushes it in, so there can be a bit of a variation,” admits Cooper. “Some people are quite light-handed and some are a bit more heavy-handed.”
Why can’t they just get a competent jockey to take a horse out onto the course and then report how the ground is riding?
Surely that has more merit than titting about with sticks?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
By the way, in the lead up to the Marois the Racing Post said midweek that the surface was GOOD and that Alpha Centauri would take her chance. The following day, the card for the race gave the going as SOFT. The day after that the card reported the going as GOOD and finally the result page reported the going as having been GOOD TO SOFT.
I have watched the race a few times and despite the time being reported as FAST by over a second, I can’t help but notice sods being kicked back here and there during the race:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU1Z3vu5eKc
If you pause the video at exactly 3.00 into it, then let it run on for a few seconds, the ground looks a little bit chewed up to me.
One thing that we can say with total certainty is that there WAS definitely GOING that day.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Steve said
“I have watched the race a few times and despite the time being reported as FAST by over a second, I can’t help but notice sods being kicked back here and there during the race”
I noticed this as well when watching the race yesterday. WIth regards to Deauville I posted the below on the French Horse Racing thread 2017 last year so as some have said the French going descriptions are a bit of a lottery
“Just got back from Deauville and reading the two threads in Big Race Discussions I was surprised to read that the ground was very soft on Saturday and soft on Sunday (ZeTurf was showing Bon on Saturday!). Visually they looked to be really motoring and I did go down to where the photographers were on the edge of the course and I struggled to get my heel in. Just goes to show what a bad judge I am which was reinforced by my tally of winners over the weekend. Having said that and I know comparing times on different days is not an exact science Brametot ran a time quicker than The Gurkha did on good ground 12 months previously and less than a second slower than La Cressonniere”
I think steves idea is about spot on
Going stick reading as per + a few jockeys to describe the ground before the first race, would give the punters enough knowledge to make there selections, more often than nt the ground is described officially as good and after the first race someone will say its “dead”, good isnt a valud description of “dead” ground but if you had both you could make a good enough assumption yourself…
I do not understand why someone under BHA rules so to speak isnt made to go over to deauville or wherever and measure the ground daily leading upto a race day (cards where british interest is obvious) and its reported back properly, cant be this difficult, can it? the BB is talking about something totally different which probably isnt relevant to most punters just looking for a near accurate going description.
Blues Brother, I am interested in your Racing Post to Official Ratings converter.
I have found no real correlation between the two sets of ratings.
In general I would say that the Racing Post tend to be more generous with their figures but it’s by no means set in stone and there are times when the Official assessor gives a higher rating than the Racing Post award to a horse.
Just wondering how your chart works in converting ratings?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
The way different jockeys in a race see the going very differently suggests sending a jockey out to ride the track would not work. Going reports would depend on how the horse felt that day. It’s not the jockeys feet on the ground anyway, it’s too difficult for them to tell and would probably end up worse than it is now. One of the problems with Official Going Reports now is they take too much notice of jockeys. ie Despite times strongly suggesting (if not making it downright obvious) they have the wrong going report; if just a few jockeys agree with the official going – they’ll keep it the same.
Before racing the Going Report should be given to someone independent from the racecourse. Possibly Turftrax.
Once Racing is under way it should be up to a timing expert.Value Is EverythingBlues Brother, I am interested in your Racing Post to Official Ratings converter.
The ratios for the RPR converter were calculated from 33,000+ races using SPSS.
RPR Converter: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ePKDc5qpqsFbCXXS-_TbwboooI6Edf7b
Mike.
Thanks very much for the tables Mike.
I am not sure if they will apply to the sort of horses I tend to follow because I am mainly interested on 2YO and lightly raced 3YO horses. In those races the ratings are a bit volatile and a matter of opinion more than being solid.
An example would be Calyx, who won this year’s Coventry at Royal Ascot. The Racing Post awarded him 116 and using the table he should come out to 107 on BHA but the BHA have him on 114. Similarly, runner up Advertise has run to 112 on his last three starts and that would convert to 103 on BHA ratings but the BHA have him exactly the same on 112, which is a significant difference of 9 lbs.
In the 3YO table an RPR of 122 is shown to convert to 109 on BHA but the BHA rating for Masar is 121
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.