Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Gus,
Agreed and a shame that he is so bigoted that any views he has of interest get dismissed by more informed and open minded people of influence.
One book for those of gambling inclinations is Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Taleb.
Prufrock,
Yes, that agrees with what I was meaning about the original thread topic. The original WFA scale has been tested many times with modern ratings, race times, mathematical statistics etc and found to be not too far out. Sectional times and horse body weight data etc may iron out a few wrinkles in the scale but probably not so that it makes much practical difference. Have not read the NM article yet so should probably shut up.
But have not Timeform, Raceform, Racing Research etc all carried out their own investigations in recent times and for the average (which is a big enough error on its own) made WFA and horse sex adjustments based on actual race results. Mostly small changes made, but greater ones eg for the different 2yo racing of today.
For the younger horses these would have experience and weight gain/loss on future runs unavoidably built into the averaging calculations. If weight ratings in themselves were an accurate guide to performance they would not have to be altered so much.
Quote: from clivex on 6:29 pm on Sep. 24, 2006[br]i dont live a million miles away and it tipped down on Friday… Heaviest rain seen for a while
Sunny and nice breeze on sat, but just cant see how ground remained good/firm<br>
Clive,
Just because it pelts down in the grounds at Broadmoor does not necessarily mean it rains the same at Ascot.
Quote: from Wallace on 2:10 pm on Sep. 14, 2006[br]You may be going a bit too far with those points Simon!
Knowing the actual race distance is fundamental to the sport.  When false rails and dolling are introduced the start position should be modified to take these into account or the Clerk should state the amended distance.
<br>(Edited by Wallace at 2:16 pm on Sep. 14, 2006)<br>
Wallace,
Quite right.<br>When the tracks were remeasured in the 80’s and we got all those odd number of yards, the JC announced that Clerks were to advise the public of any alterations and their value. (It is not practical to move starts on many tracks). Advice never happened. Possibly AP will confirm if it was owners and trainers that blocked this move.
Later what we actually got were distances advertised as approximate distances so that races that were shorter than advertised could not be contested as null and void.
Quote: from apracing on 11:17 am on Sep. 14, 2006[br]<br>Robert,
I see you have now decided it isn’t owners and trainers that should be blamed for the lack of sectional timing, although I’ve yet to see any apology for the remarks made on another thread made before you changed your view.
AP<br>
Alan,
I have never blamed owners and trainers – so nothing to apologise for. That is something you brought up. Read it again – the full text is still there.
It is the tracks that can’t see any point in enabling the provision of any racing data to anyone not attending at the course.<br>Turftrax do want to cover every course with sectional timing and proper going data. Without any central leadership their initiative is left to individual tracks to agree with or not. Sectional timing from Newmarket (free anyrate) and random other courses is of little commercial use. If the data was complete for all courses (as we were promised for June 2006) then more people would likely subscribe to Turftrax. A chicken and egg situation with the small company willing to have a go being thwarted by the indifferent, self serving establishment, allowing another UK development to be exploited by others in N America.
Quote: from apracing on 6:05 pm on Aug. 18, 2006[br]<br>Robert,
Please get your facts right – the conditions of almost all races now include the fact that runners will be required to carry speed sensing equipment. Owners and trainers have no say in this matter.
If the sectional timing info isn’t in the public domain, it’s not the fault of connections.
AP<br>
Alan,
That was what owners and trainers were being told last year, as you will be aware certain parties were refusing to cooperate even at Newmarket. The full provision of sectional data from all courses, which is the promised service we are discussing (not the rules of racing) has never happened.
Yes some good replies. I did think of a few other categories but there are only 10 lines available.
In the 1980s when they remeasured all the flat courses the clerks were instructed by JC to give out information on any and every distance change. This has never happened.
Last year we were told that owners and trainers were being instructed to cooperate to provide sectional timing on all courses by June. Never happened.<br>(Would people like the horse raced distances as well – that Turftrax do not make available?)
Horse weights are an integrity issue for non-trier evidence as well as general fitness. Hong Kong, Japan and soon Australia will manage to record and communicate horse weight data. In UK the trainers do not like that information being made available so I suspect it has to be an over-riding racing integrity issue.
Easy to be defeated but does anyone support providing the authorities with polled data on what punters actually want from the sport, and what is the best way to go about that for a positive result?
EC,
I have given a few clues in the past and on Flatstats for dynamic draw bias prediction.<br>Perhaps a few thoughts from Conan Doyle, a bookwiter just like Stav, might give a few pointers to the little conundrum.
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius. Thanks Stav.<br>
Quote: from clivex on 10:11 pm on July 16, 2006[br]
EU legislation does come into it as professional bodies and MS Governments are not allowed to put arbitrary barriers in the way of professionals working in other countries
Fair enough but i sense that the Eu would not see this as "arbitrary" given that charges are to be made. Until a conviction or otherwise it is an unfortuate grey area but same would apply to other professionals charged (or about to be charged) with misconduct of one sort or another
<br>
If a NH doctor has done something involving him in a Court case then he is often sent home on gardening leave, on full pay until after the trial. If he is found guilty then and only then his employer may feel they have grounds for dismissal. The GMC waits until all this is over before the doctor is considered for being struck off or not. Dr Shipman had killed about 250 by this time. The Professor who got cot death parents wrongly convicted got reinstated so he could continue his profession. Other professions have different rules and some have to receive a complaint from another professional member before they will even consider any action to remove a wrongdoer from the profession but they cannot usually bar a person from seeking work in the same field.
Discretionary should use the same considerations for all but not discriminate. EU legislation does come into it as professional bodies and MS Governments are not allowed to put arbitrary barriers in the way of professionals working in other countries. The French are past masters at excluding all sorts and getting away with it. UK in comparison obeys the EU rules to the letter. See http://www.dfes.gov.uk/europeopen/
Quote: from clivex on 8:00 pm on July 16, 2006[br]
So possibly a  total discrimination by HRA against KF.
Why?
As i understood it hes not due any compensation from the HRA anyway because hes not registered in the UK
Clive,
No he is not registered in UK but he is an EU citizen who regularly rides in UK for his living and has an EU right to work in UK without hindrance. That right to work has been taken from KF and the other two jockies. Ony two facing the charges are being compensated for the same loss of income source, hence the discrimination.
Probably a total misquotation. UK top jockeys earn around £50K from riding fees only. Most of that does go in travel, agent, telephone, medical, valet expenses and tax. Only real money to be be made legitimately are prize money share, advertising and retainer fees. HRA have probably allowed for the latter with the other two jockies. So possibly a total discrimination by HRA against KF.
The SmartSig forum might be able to help take on TRF duties. It has not got properly restarted since last autumn.
