Ascot speed figures

I took Goober's invite to look for other explanations to an emphatic statement that they did not water one side of the course to try and correct any bias, which in your first paragraph you seemed to agree with, but then contradicted in your third.
All things being equal the 4th horse home in a handicap might be having a good day, preferred the ground that side, likes running in isolation and
got out of his box on the right side that morning, and the combination of all those factors may explain why he run the way he did. Perhaps like a horse bred to be a sprinter turns out to win the Grand National. Anything is possible in racing.
Perhaps you should ask the COC if he did water or not then there is no need for suspicion. Or send an email to the RP asking them to publish it and ask for a response? Without scouring the press I would have thought it would have been made public by now if he had and it would have reached this forum as a fact. I can't believe with the amount of people who would have been involved that if it did take place, it hasn't.
 
Officially they said they put 4mm on top of 1mm of rain. Whether he'd tell me differently to this, and whether I'd believe him are two different issues. Since it's not going to help me find the next winner particularly, I'm not really inclined to email him to be honest, as I can pretty well guess his reply now.

You've misread the first paragraph otherwise. I don't doubt that Uncle Goober relayed the information in good faith, and I don't doubt for one second that he's not making things up, however, that doesn't exclude the possibility that they did water selectively.

The BBC seemed to be particularly animated about any draw bias which tells me that Ascot were concerned about it and desperate to repell the notion, and that the Ascot press office seem to have done a number on the BBC in stressing that one didn't exist. The attention the BBC gave to the subject, particularly in the Britannia gave me the feeling that there'd been some off-air briefings and that the racecourse were pretty sensitive to put it mildly and were using the BBC as a front to repell the suggestion which they duly over-did

I was going to suggest that the ground was never dangerous enough to warrant watering, but then that's because they did water:lol: so a bit of silly argument really, but at +2.70 on the Tuesday isn't normally ground you'd water on. Havign said that, the warning signs were ther eon the Tuesday that there might have been a stands side bias, but this only really got born out on the Wednesday in the Hunt Cup when they tested the far side for the first time
 
I don't think I misread anything. It seems to be that despite what anyone would say, you believe they watered. Even if the COC told you he didn't, you wouldn't believe him.
I didn't watch the BBC coverage but if by BBC if you mean Carson et al, I wouldn't put any store in what they said. By 'repelling the suggestion', do I understand that basically you mean they were lying? Why would they think they would get away with it? One jockey with a brain cell should have been able to spot the difference if it was that noticeable.
I'll email the RP and ask them to ask him.
 
I'll give you their reply now if you like?

1: Ascot has no draw bias
2: Ascot does not water selectively to remove a draw bias that doesn't exist
3: We put 4mm down on Friday night evenly across the straight course to provide good safe ground

It was just about the whole of the BBC team talking about there being no bias. It just had a look of the whole thing being choreographed, such were the pains they seemed to be going to, to under-line it. No draw bias is really no news etc move on. The fact that 4 of their presenters were stressing that there was no draw bias within about 5 minutes of the Britannia just hints to me at least, that someone had been at pains to try and put this message out, and logic dictates that this would have been the course who had the most to lose by allowing the idea to develop.
 
Last edited:
I'll draw the line MR

last post on this

firstly I have replied to Robert on here because I didn't like being described as a loudmouth on this topic as I had or have no axe to grind..and all my findings were in real time...and altered my judgement process along the way ....I actually gained financially by backing the Wokingham winner due to making the decision before the race that the standside was not the place to be..it must have been a good guess on my behalf...I'm not aftertiming either..its posted on here.

I never ever stated there was a draw bias on Tuesday or Wednesday..not once..I didn't particularly care as I don't play big in big field splitter races.

The only reason that I got suspicious about the stand side was after Fridays racing when both stand side races over the straight produced very slow times - Giganticus & Habaayib..and they weren't slow run races...they were not run fast ground no matter what Stickels says.

I would like anyone to watch both those races and look at the horses in the last furlong..they look like they are running on a surface that is more like slow ground not fast...the times back up the visual..the ground for those two races came out at GOOD going..about 8 lbs fast per mile..whilst the other races were 38 lbs fast...now thats not just a bit slower..its a LOT slower.

This was only brought up by me on Friday night when we chatted on here about what could cause such slow timings when we knew all week that Standside had run decent times and everyone was happy that it was as fast as the far side...some suggested faster - I didn't by the way.

On to Saturday..first race..Big Audio..again standside..again a slow time ..that was now 3 top races recording times well below previous years and below par by some way..a pattern was emerging.

The Jubilee...again a slow time..I didn't know then that they had run near on the same time to 2f out..but then the G1 horses ran the last 2f slower..again that is against all logic..especially when you consider everyone states they went slow early in teh Jubilee..if they did how come they couldn't run the last 2f quicker than the handicap...again..no one can answer that..because there is only one answer and it isn't the answer wanted.

I haven't looked into the Markab thing..I will though.

I actually thought this thread had thrown light on something that was beneficial..I do not believe I have behaved in a beligerent way.... or whinged about a bias that has cost me money..or in a loud mouthed fashion..its been a speed figure thread that highlighted some very odd happenings on a strip of ground.

I certainly don't appreciate people who name call me from other forums..for no reason whatsoever....but do not have the balls to come on here and argue their point...although in Roberts case ..after reading his last response..its about as weak a reply as is possible to give...the guy is a lightweight imo if thats his best response...I thought better of him after reading his posts for a number of years....seems Colin did too.

I was quite pleased we came to a conclusion here..and that that conclusion was borne out on Saturday..not aftertimed in any way...but somehow its now deemed as nonsense..but those calling it that give no support to their argument..and I am sorry.. but telling me I must trust someone's word..doesn't really cut it..people say what they have to for their own benefit..its a selfish world.

UG...I will say that when I read your post I thought it was worded in a rather confrontational & dismissive manner..something which I have been taken to task for..but which I am no longer going to be doing on here..I'll stick to reasoned argument. I was surprised at your tone tbh.

I am looking forward to your wonderful pictures from Ascot UG, I always enjoy them..but I will be particularly looking though at the silks on the jockeys after the Jubilee..which all the watering defenders say was run on fast ground..of course they should be spotless if that is the case yes?..not mud splattered in any way?..because obviously you only get mud splattered if the ground is very wet...unless Robert thinks of some new water bias idea that makes silks get really dirty on fast ground.
 
Last edited:
I do need to make one more post :)

sorry

re Markab OHR 99

finished 3.75 lengths behind High Standing which would just make him the winner of the Jubilee..that seems impossible to people..thats odd when you consider that the same type of no chancer...LESSON IN HUMILITY OHR rated 106 finished 3rd..beating 120 rated JJ The Jet Plane for 4th..if the first two hadn't run I wonder how LIH's win would have fitted in with this thinking.

would Markab winning have been impossible?.. I don't think so

I'll just add...Markab has run a great race..a slow ground horse too...how odd ..on supposed Fast ground?
 
Last edited:
Of course if my photographs do not show dirty faces and mud splattered silks you can accuse me of doctoring the evidence to cover up my previously stated mistaken views. Something only a conspiracy with a national broadcaster can help to duplicitously cover up!:ninja:

No one has said that he did not water. He did water and not only that, in conjunction with rain on Friday night/ Saturday morning. I was surprised to find that the official rainfall was only 1mm, I expected it to have been more than that.

My post was not intended to be confrontational it was intended to help by telling you that he did not water one side of the track only in an attempt to correct the notion of a bias. This was not a guess or an interpretation.
I am glad at least that it was taken seriously enough to lead to a further examination of the figures.

If it helps, Big Audio came up the centre of the track in a race where they went too quick and he ran even paced. Alot of races were run too quick last week especially when jockeys were keen not to allow a leader to steal a march on them, resulting in bursting their own chances doing too much too soon. Markab was knackered in the last furlong after trying to win the race at halfway. I thought alot of this went on last week. If only we had official sectional times hey?
 
thanks for the reply UG

what about the sectionals posted for the Jubilee and Wokingham though UG?

They tell a story

Its odd how every race on the straight course from Friday onwards was run too fast early resulting in disproportionally slow final times but all those on the round course were run with decent final times do you not think? Some of those round course races were run a little too fast early as well but they didn't produce final times as slow as the straight course ones...too fast early can compromise final times..but not to the degree they did on the straight course

The jubillee was slow early..not my words..so they didn't run themselves into the ground..should have had loads of petrol left for a fast final 2f then yes?...but from 2 out they slowed down quicker than the farside wokingham runners...how is that possible?

I understand about.. where the pace is..and final times suffering due to races being run hard early..but in races where they do go too fast early...not every runner does..and so the winner will usually run evenish pace and come through and win...and will record a time that can vary from decent to a few pounds below par..not 2 stone below par every single time.

If I am to take Stickels as being truthful then all I can say is that he has cocked up the watering ..he says not purposely..so then its not been done right has it?...so its either by design or cock up

I have read every reason under the sun now how all these things affect just the straight course stand side..but not one race time on the round was affected by pace bias or x bias.

Robert gave a list of biases as long as his arm..but failed to mention most of them should also have affected the round course races too....a long list designed to support the COC. He stated that the low side straight course had been hammered..I think the high side strip had had a hammering too..yes less races on the round..but with fields splitting on the straight..the farside will have had similar usage..just another nonsensical illogical excuse.

The main reason the round course times are all good is because they never raced stand side at any point...the standside is the only area where times markedly slowed down from Friday onwards...so how is that even watering?

I have no need to be a consiracy theorist UG...I just go on what is logical and what is not...if Stikels were me Dad..the points I have made would still have been made be on this thread.

I have to ask myself why people invent any reason on earth to explain this....martians did it...massive pace swings in only straight course races....stalls bias..wtf was that all about?...but won't accept the most obvious explanation that is staring them in the face.

I would recommend you read that Clerkwatch thread on Betfair Ante Post forum..after this carry on ..I have sat and read it..its hardly an isolated incident is it?
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
If I am to take Stickels as being truthful then all I can say is that he has cocked up the watering ..he says not purposely..so then its not been done right has it?... ?
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere!


By sectionals I meant those turftrax ones we used to get for every horse in every race at Newmarket. I'm not going on the betfair forum. I know poor watering is an issue in other places at other times but I am only talking about this instance where false assumptions were being made about watering one side of the straight course only.
 
Given the choice between conspiracy and incompetence, I know where my money would be 99% of the time. Sometimes we give the powers that be far too much credit.
 
This is just not 'going' (ahem) away, is it? Still, it's interesting when there's no facing off :)

How about if they watered (unsupervised, maybe: groundsman's assistant told to 'go off & put this much water down' and no-one watches) and suppose it was windy? Refering to the course map, would that be a possible explanation?

ascot.jpg
 
Reason for the last post:
I've seen a V-shaped watering m/c in use when there was quite a wind -- resulting in one side of the track receiving most of the water. Was on tv a couple of years back.
 
good point MR..was it windy at Ascot?..is it really possible that someone watering wouldn't have seen nowt going far side and a huge torrent going stand side? I'm starting to wonder if Colonel Blink was in charge here.

on to today..surprised no one has seen this..or mentioned that Luke Harvey looked at the going on Saturday with the COC live on TV..and described the standside as squelchy..strange description for fast ground is that.

Today in the RP paper version..not checked online..

Clive Cox stated he walked the course everyday. He says on Saturday it was common knowledge amongst the jockeys that the highside was the fastest side..hence why most jocks went over there in the wokingham.

That is at odds with what we have been told by the COC who says he has evenly watered, in which case neither side should have been faster, and it shows that the stand side was indeed slower....which I doubt many would have believed earlier in the week..because it wasn't slower then..so how did it change?

I doubt anyone was brave enough to try it high in the jubilee..but those high in the wokingham had to try it..and as it happens..as Cox says..as it was common knowledge ...most of them went there....queueing up to get there in fact....actually going that side from mid to low was surely foolish wasn't it?..as there was no bias?

Quite a lot here points to the standside being over watered now. In fact everything points to and nothing against it.

Obviously this doesn't sit well with some people for some odd reason..some of the stuff I have read in defence of the condition of the track has frankly amazed me...watering cock up deniers?

I thought that as punters and as people interested in level playing field races we need to be knowing about this sort of thing and should not be happy to sit back and accept it as right...or defend it in totally illogical ways.

The main question is..why has the standside been slowed down so much?..it wasn't for the welfare of the horses or the highside would have had similar treatment..that leaves two explanations imo..either..

1. To make sure that people couldn't say afterwards that the Hunt Cup & Wokingham were both decided by a bias rather than best horse winning....or..

2. Someone doesn't know what the hell they are doing.

I'll be honest..I'd rather be viewed as doing it by design than being hopeless tbh

It has been levelled at those suggesting bias that they are wrong about any actually existing..but the evidence points to someone close to the course really believing one did exist if its by design.

Going a bit round in circles now..but I thought the Cox comment was worth adding...some folks believe stuff more if told them by racing people..because some people look on message board posters as either rajjed or anorak wearing-stopwatch wanking fools.
 
Last edited:
uncle goober said:
I'm not going on the betfair forum.
Click to expand...

A matter for you but in this instance you're missing out on an interesting and reasoned discussion.

My view, for what it's worth, is that this was more a cock-up than a conspiracy in that more water was poured on the stands' side on Friday night than anywhere else on the track in an effort to put right a perceived bias. The clerk got the amount wrong but can't now admit it because to do so would be to admit there was a bias in the first place.

It's the best argument I know for banning watering once a meeting has started.
 
some of the stuff on that thread Gus paints racing in a very poor light...tbh..its a scandal what is happening

i am starting to think that anyone defending it has gone native..Francome gets a lot of stick for that..but he sure isn't alone

why anyone remotely interested in racing would have no interest in reading it is quite staggering imo

each to his own though
 
This one from that thread is a cracker for those who worship at the altar of the going stick
=========================================================================
RP comment, first race: "afterwards the jockeys reported the going was soft"
M Hills when interviewed by Nick Luck stated "genuine soft ground"
It looks soft to my eye, but like the above that is subjective opinion

NEWBURY - Flat

(Updated:17/04/2009 at 12:13)
Going
Good to Soft
Soft in places back straight
(GoingStick: 5.4 on Friday at 12:00

From Archive

29-Mar-08 Soft 5.8

31-May-08 Soft (Good to Soft in places) 5.7

11-Jul-08 Soft 6.2


A lower reading today than on other occasions, but the clerk describes the going as Good to Soft, Soft in places
==========================================================================




this is happening lots of times...formbook worthless when the most important factor ...going....can't be entered correctly

as said on that thread..who benefits when punters are misinformed?
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth (35p), CoCs will prod the going stick in all the TurfTrax mapped places, and especially those spots where he knows there are differences to the main, about three times before declaring an average of the readings. Depending on the size and length of the course, his proddings will be anything from 15 spots on small courses like Brighton to 60 on larger Flat courses, and up to 80 on NH. The probe goes in 4" and is pulled back at a 45 degree angle (to replicate the shear of a horse's hoof). The stick's readings range from 1 (bottomless pit) to 14 (M4).

There are different readings obtained at different courses, though, due to variations in the soil (clay or chalk base, for example), the species of grass sown, the cover of grass, etc. What's G at Newcastle might produce a reading of 7.8 while elsewhere it would still be considered G for that track at 8.5. Brighton today, for example, was G to F with a reading of 8.9.

If a numerical reading of 7.2 at a specific course is genuine G, then a reading there on one raceday of 7.6 shows it's firming up, while a reading of 6.8 tells you it's on the softer side - but the whole range of readings still rates as G for that course. So there's no conspiracy to a range of readings, since they're all within that course's range for G.

I don't have a fascination for this stuff, but I thought that the RP carried a going map of all the courses, with their individual readings over the years, so that you could assess the changes to one side or the other of their average?
 
Whilst accepting that Tom Segal isn't the final word in racing; in the Weekender under the headline of "TV presenters have heads in the sand on Ascot's draw bias" he writes the following

"I gave up worrying about the draw baout ten years ago and it didn't affect my punting at Royal Ascot, but anyone out there who still believes that there isn't a draw bias at Ascot is just living in cloud cuckoo land".....

"It's all very well TV presenters banging on about there being no draw bias juts to keep Ascot onside, but try telling that to owners of horses drawn in double figures on the first two days" (I'm assuming this is reference to the BBC who completely over-played this angle to the point that they gave the distinct impression of being under a three-line whip)

"Quite simply, jus three horses drawn with double digits next to their name managed to finish in the in the first three......In those circumstances I reckon those drawn near the rail have about a 5 length edge"

"The question that has to be addressed now though is why by the end of the week the Wokingham tends to be dominated by horses drawn very high. I think it is because the ground gets slower on the near side by the end of the week with the clerk watering on opened-up ground"
 
If you know anything about clerking, as any expert should, then you know that with multiple days of racing, they're always going to water on drying ground. Ground which has been sheared more in one place than another is exposed to the sun and wind (especially in summer, not so much in autumn and winter). Rather than have it dry out unnaturally, it will be trod and probably sanded-in if necessary, followed by light watering. The whole course doesn't get watered every time one's informed that watering has taken place. Plus, ground which has been cut up by three or four days of racing will feel different underfoot to the ground down the centre, where few jockeys elected to remain in place. It stands to reason that on Day 5 it will provide a different ride to Day 1. His point about the nearside riding slower by the end of the week isn't just because Stickells sprayed it - it's because the shearing will have loosened up the soil and, naturally, the hoofprint will be a fraction deeper than pristine, unsheared ground. You would adjust your thinking about times accordingly, wouldn't you? It's not complicated.
 
EC1 said:
I'll draw the line MR

last post on this

firstly I have replied to Robert on here because I didn't like being described as a loudmouth on this topic as I had or have no axe to grind..and all my findings were in real time...and altered my judgement process along the way ....I actually gained financially by backing the Wokingham winner due to making the decision before the race that the standside was not the place to be..it must have been a good guess on my behalf...I'm not aftertiming either..its posted on here.

I never ever stated there was a draw bias on Tuesday or Wednesday..not once..I didn't particularly care as I don't play big in big field splitter races.

The only reason that I got suspicious about the stand side was after Fridays racing when both stand side races over the straight produced very slow times - Giganticus & Habaayib..and they weren't slow run races...they were not run fast ground no matter what Stickels says.

I would like anyone to watch both those races and look at the horses in the last furlong..they look like they are running on a surface that is more like slow ground not fast...the times back up the visual..the ground for those two races came out at GOOD going..about 8 lbs fast per mile..whilst the other races were 38 lbs fast...now thats not just a bit slower..its a LOT slower.

This was only brought up by me on Friday night when we chatted on here about what could cause such slow timings when we knew all week that Standside had run decent times and everyone was happy that it was as fast as the far side...some suggested faster - I didn't by the way.

On to Saturday..first race..Big Audio..again standside..again a slow time ..that was now 3 top races recording times well below previous years and below par by some way..a pattern was emerging.

The Jubilee...again a slow time..I didn't know then that they had run near on the same time to 2f out..but then the G1 horses ran the last 2f slower..again that is against all logic..especially when you consider everyone states they went slow early in teh Jubilee..if they did how come they couldn't run the last 2f quicker than the handicap...again..no one can answer that..because there is only one answer and it isn't the answer wanted.

I haven't looked into the Markab thing..I will though.

I actually thought this thread had thrown light on something that was beneficial..I do not believe I have behaved in a beligerent way.... or whinged about a bias that has cost me money..or in a loud mouthed fashion..its been a speed figure thread that highlighted some very odd happenings on a strip of ground.

I certainly don't appreciate people who name call me from other forums..for no reason whatsoever....but do not have the balls to come on here and argue their point...although in Roberts case ..after reading his last response..its about as weak a reply as is possible to give...the guy is a lightweight imo if thats his best response...I thought better of him after reading his posts for a number of years....seems Colin did too.

I was quite pleased we came to a conclusion here..and that that conclusion was borne out on Saturday..not aftertimed in any way...but somehow its now deemed as nonsense..but those calling it that give no support to their argument..and I am sorry.. but telling me I must trust someone's word..doesn't really cut it..people say what they have to for their own benefit..its a selfish world.

UG...I will say that when I read your post I thought it was worded in a rather confrontational & dismissive manner..something which I have been taken to task for..but which I am no longer going to be doing on here..I'll stick to reasoned argument. I was surprised at your tone tbh.

I am looking forward to your wonderful pictures from Ascot UG, I always enjoy them..but I will be particularly looking though at the silks on the jockeys after the Jubilee..which all the watering defenders say was run on fast ground..of course they should be spotless if that is the case yes?..not mud splattered in any way?..because obviously you only get mud splattered if the ground is very wet...unless Robert thinks of some new water bias idea that makes silks get really dirty on fast ground.
Click to expand...


Oh come on EC, why are you bothering to argue with those 'over there'? You know they are right....they always are!
 
Back
Top