Ascot speed figures

why do you ask?

just post em


you said you wanted sectionals UG..what about these:

The last two furlongs of 2 races


Queen Alex (over 2m 6f) at 25.90
Golden Jubilee (over 6f) at 26.04

when you add your views..can you pass a comment on those two sectionals as well?
 
krizon said:
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.
Click to expand...

from elswhere

215 horses paved a path middle to far side & 209 middle to stands side from tues - fri inclusive.
thats with ascot stakes /gold cup/queens vase as double as they actually pound part of the far side of the straight twice for races 2mile plus.


Krizon

that is why I don't really buy the theory that one side has had more hammer so would be prone to being softer with even watering. If that theory held then in fact come Saturday the high side should have been softer shouldn't it?
 
The strips which got the most traffic would be those most loosened up, yes, whether they got watered or not. With the drying winds that were prevalent throughout Ascot week, I doubt that the amount of water put on would've made a huge difference, since a lot would've been wicked away. Even if Stickells had an all-night divoting crew at it, and put a roller over the ground afterwards, thousands of cuts by the horses' shoes would've disturbed the surface enough to have rendered it less well-packed than the less-travelled strips. However, the stats provided 'from elsewhere' show a fairly even wear of both sides of the course, which shouldn't - rationally - result in one side coming up significantly different to the other in terms of disturbance and its effect on ground firmness.

Did Stickells give separate stick readings for the far and near sides? TurfTrax (who make the going sticks) did mappings for the major courses (for all I know, maybe for all of them), segmenting the course into blocks where the Clerk ought to take readings for significant areas of change. A course going map is divided into squares all over, and there are different-coloured blocks to show areas where particular areas have shown up as predominantly Good, Firm, Soft, etc. and other areas which ought to be tested, as they're more prone to rapid changes after weather fluctuations. For example, some courses have known soft spots where there are underground streams crossing the course, which will always throw up a few metres of softer ground (Plumpton's railway crossing - the turn before the final straight - is an example of that), while in others the dips and cambers will affect the 'low and soft' and 'high and dry' portions. I'm not aware of whether Ascot has a slight camber now, following its reconstruction of the straight, but if there is, it should favour, however minutely, the lower lie of the camber to be on the softer side than the higher side.

(It's a new area of discussion to me, so bear with my complete and utter ignorance! But it's sometimes interesting to take a peek at a subject that fascinates a number of punters in their quest for an edge. It's like dosage - I fail completely to understand it because I'm to figures as a dog is to Chaucer.)
 
With all the evidence at hand, anyone who still thinks that the stands side was not riding considerably slower than the far side on Saturday must simply be trying to save face (whether it be Stickels or certain no-draw-bias-it's-where-the-pace-is freaks).
After all, the collective evidence for a slower stands side on Sat is as about as compelling as it can possibly be...

conditions "squelchy" on the stands side, not on the far side
clods of turf flying high on stands side, not on far side
horses and jockeys on stands side coming back covered in mud, not those on far side
comparisons of racetimes of the 3 straight-track races on Sat strongly suggest the far side runners were on quicker ground
sectional times comparison strongly suggest the far side runners were on quicker ground

The evidence offered against a bias is...

you needed to be where the pace was


The pace theory is regularly churned out by the draw-bias deniers and while I agree that often this can be the case, it's interesting that...

In the Britannia on Thurs they split with the far side in front early, yet the stands side won (not where the pace was).

In the Albany on Friday, again they split with Above Limits setting the pace in the centre (a good 4l clear of the stands side group) yet the first 5 home were stands side (not where the pace was).

In the Buckingham Palace stakes on Friday, once more they split, and again the far side was in front from the off, yet the first 4 home were on the stands side (not where the pace was).

On Saturday in the Wokingham, the far side had the early call and the first 4 home were from that side (where the pace was).


So in the 4 races which split from Thursday onwards, only one was won by a runner in the group which set the fastest early pace - and that was in the only race where the stands side runners had a major disadvantage on the ground.


from elswhere

215 horses paved a path middle to far side & 209 middle to stands side from tues - fri inclusive.
thats with ascot stakes /gold cup/queens vase as double as they actually pound part of the far side of the straight twice for races 2mile plus.

Krizon

that is why I don't really buy the theory that one side has had more hammer so would be prone to being softer with even watering. If that theory held then in fact come Saturday the high side should have been softer shouldn't it?
Click to expand...


That was my initial thought when I read the "After 4 days the Ascot stands side had taken a hammering - the far side was pristine." comment - on Thurs and Fri combined 8 of the 12 races had taken place on the round course so twice as many races as on the straight track, and of course when you include the straight race runners which went over to the far side (obviously no round track runners came stands side) there's no way the stands side would be more cut up than the far side.


My time ratings for the straight track (in relation with the class of the winner) for the week are...

-3.3 Canford Cliffs
-3.2 Fareer
-2.9 Jealous Again
-2.8 Giganticus
-2.7 Scenic Blast
-2.4 Strike The Tiger
-2.1 Forgotton Voice
-2.0 High Standing
-1.9 Ouqba
-1.6 Paco Boy
-1.5 Moneycantbuymelove
-0.9 Spacious
-0.9 Habaayib
-0.8 Radiohead
-0.6 Big Audio
-0.4 Art Connoisseur

Saturdays winners are in bold - surely no coincidence that the 2 races which took place down the stands side were the slowest of the entire week, whilst the Wokingham winner on the far side clocked a time pretty much par for the week. The argument re MARKAB in 5th (stands side) holds no water either because adjusting for distance beaten his rating (had he won) would come out at -0.9.

EC - I have GIGANTICUS as running a fairly good time whereas you have it as slow....are you comparing with the round course in line with Tues to Thurs because they moved the rail out 3 metres on those days before moving it back across for Fri & Sat, thus speeding up the times on the round course.

Stickels could have prevented a lot of criticism and arguments after Saturdays card by saying something along the lines of "we watered on Friday night but as always with the pop-up sprinklers there is the chance that wind can affect the distribution of the water - and using hindsight and logical evidence it seems more has been blown towards the stands side but it was not a deliberate action".

To try and claim that the water was distributed perfectly evenly because "the wind was actually from the west and so it was blowing directly up the straight" is bizarre and condescending - so we are meant to believe that the wind was blowing directly parallel up the straight with no deviation at all during the whole watering procedure? :lol:
 
Stav said:
To try and claim that the water was distributed perfectly evenly because "the wind was actually from the west and so it was blowing directly up the straight" is bizarre and condescending - so we are meant to believe that the wind was blowing directly parallel up the straight with no deviation at all during the whole watering procedure? :lol:
Click to expand...

Ascot has only straight wind, don't you know? :rolleyes:

Ah, pop-up sprinklers? Where are they in relation to the turf? My guess is pretty near (doh!) -- wonder if they're leaking when in use .....

:)
 
EC - I have GIGANTICUS as running a fairly good time whereas you have it as slow

I didn't make a separate going allowance for the straight as you guessed, at that point I had lost heart with it and there was only Big Audo to compare it with anyway. I've no doubt it was a decently run contest, it was faster than the Big Audio by a chunk.

Your pace comments are spot on..and make Jimmy Fortune look the epitome of the term.."gone native"..I was staggered to read a jockey make such a fool of himself tbh..but its up to the individual in these instances to show where their allegiances lie.

The whole "with the pace" argument is totally flawed from the word go imo anyway....for the very simple reason that horses win races by going even pace..not chasing 10 front runners going hell for leather.

"With the pace lovers" ..like to see lots of front running types on one side and assume that means the winner will be favoured by that. Seems a little illogical as that usually means the pace is too strong..so is a negative.. not a positive.

If a race splits in two and one side goes even pace and the other side has lots of on pace horses...and goes too hard..the best horse going even pace will still win...on a level playing field...from either side. With the pacers won't see that though because the..we must have lots and lots of pace mentality ...totally dominates the thought process.

A few trainers have now realised and commented about what went on at Ascot..but there will be nothing done about it because these situations make it harder for the punter ...who loses more money...which keeps the boys with the massive RP adverts happy.

If the race times hadn't started me being suspicious about this I would never have looked further into this...now I have..and read Clerkwatch..I'm totally ashamed of whats occuring week in week out tbh.

The RP have all these overpaid writers...and not one with the nous to have thoroughly gone into this and exposed it..and I don't mean an odd mention of draw bias. I have read the course had a hammering stand side so often now ..and yet no one measured the amount of hammer...thats left to folk who get paid nothing.

it shows that you can fool most of the people most of the time though..which it appears is a lot of how racing is run relies on...then they expect to attract more people to it..can't see a flood of folks doing that tbh.
 
Last edited:
I'm gently backing out of the room now, as it's got more technical than a shuttle launch, but interesting to hear Eddie Fremantle opine this afternoon that the nearside was, from the 2f marker, worth eight lengths to its runners (in his opinion).
 
Its not really technical Krizon to be fair..counting a few horses..timing a few races..a very basic understanding of pace...knowing when you've been had over as an owner/trainer/punter....watering a bit of grass

none of its brain surgery really

we have a situation building now at the Curragh..Oxx says its good in the straight but coc says good/firm and will water..surely someone must have a good idea of how fast the straight is right now..is it Oxx..is it the coc?

so its not really technical..its just made to look overcomplicated so no one in particular is believed when they pass a view.

Your input has been very interesting imo because I would be offering up similar suggestions to you if I hadn't looked deeper..and to be honest..I wish I hadn't.
 
here we go again, from another board, not betfair by the way

According to Timeform radio there is a 'massive draw bias' stands side at Newcastle today, which might be rectified by watering tomorrow.

be interesting to see how this one pans out
 
Newcastle Thursday
Race 1: 9-13-12: 12 ran
Race 2: 4-6-5: 5 ran
Race 3: 10-3-11: 12 ran
Last Race: 13-6-12: 12 ran (non runner)
 
Last edited:
OK guys, here's my provisional take on the Tuesday at Ascot. I'll add the later days as ad when but Friday is a problem as a page was completely blank in the form book instalment.

According to the going stick, the ground in the straight was much quicker than on the round course so I've gone with the fastest race on the round course and checked how the GA works out on the straight races.

The fastest race, relatively speaking, was the SJP. The form ratings of Delegator, Lord Shanakill and Evasive work out to within a pound of previous figures so I'm very keen to use them as the line. It puts Mastercraftsman on 123. The GA that allows this (after wfa) is -0.32spf. apply that to the other races on the day and the time ratings for the winners are:

Paco Boy (too slow to be worth calculating)
Scenic Blast 113
Mastercraftsman 112
Canford Cliffs 104
Judgethemoment (too slow)
Strike The Tiger 81

This leaves the unanswered question, was the straight (stands' side) a lot slower even on day one, and if so why did this side dominate the HUnt Cup finish the next day?

I suspect the've gone too fast in the Kings Stand resulting in a slow overall time. The Windsor Castle is probably about right, and the Queen Anne is slow for the class.

So what to make of the visually impressive Canford Cliffs? 104 is as fast as anything else this season but not appreciably faster. Even allowing for Strike The Tiger being six months more forward than its rivals, the wfa for the end of the year is 16lbs at 5f so that would give it a form rating of 97, just 4lbs shy of the RPR allocated. So maybe CC should be 108 and Scenic Blast 117. Those are hardly a big deal.

Maybe CC didn't beat much.
 
As a comparison I sometimes substitute my standards for the RP standards on my spreadsheet ..for example...the RP ones give

116 PACO BOY
119 SCENIC BLAST
123 MASTERCRAFTSMAN
106 CANFORD CLIFFS
80 STRIKE THE TIGER

and mine give

111 PACO BOY
121 SCENIC BLAST
122 MASTERCRAFTSMAN
109 CANFORD CLIFFS
81 STRIKE THE TIGER
 
Last edited:
I include wfa in my figures, EC1, and I use the old Raceform Standard times. I realise Ascot will have changed therefore I'm a bit wary of my time ratings for the track.

On to WEdnesday...

The two fastest races were the Jersey and the Queen Mary.

The Jersey is hard to rate but I had Ouqba on 114 for the Free Handicap and I've rated the Jersey via Patrician's Glory running to its OR100, which puts Ouqba on 115, or 106+wfa,making the GA -0.14spf, a fair bit slower than Tuesday but that might be accounted for by the cahnge in wind direction over the two days (light, half-behind changing to fresh across).

It makes the rest of the races, including the Hunt Cup (first three drawn single figures), slow, except for the Queen Mary, in which Jealous Again has run almost as fast as Canford Cliffs.

Time ratings:
Ouqba 106+wfa
Spacious (slow)
Vision D'Etat (slow)
Forgotten Voice 99
Jealous Again 105
Moneycantbuymelove 79+wfa
 
On to Thursday...

This was tricky to rate. I thought I had a handle on it via the King George, since it made Flying Cloud work out bang on its RPR. However, it then made the Hampton Court winner a match for Sea The Stars, which I can't quite buy.

I then rated the HC via Monitor Closely running to its previous 110, which put the winner on 119 and the runner-up, who was conceding 3lbs, on 121. I reckon this will have given Alain De Royer-Dupré a good handle on his top 3yos and we should take note of any future raiders from this yard.

For the first time this week, the figures suggest that evidence is starting to emerge to back up EC1 and others' view that the ground is faster on the round course, (edit) by some way: -0.31spf on the round compared to -0.15 on the straight track, about a length per furlong of a difference but the Ascot straight is less than 3f. (Come to think of it, that is quite a lot if it as it projects to about 6 lengths over the 6f course!!)

Time ratings for Thursday:

Radiohead 80
Flying Cloud 91+wfa
Yeats 83
Fareer 94+wfa
Glass Harmonium 107+wfa
Cosmic Sun 72+wfa
 
Last edited:
looking forward to Friday & Saturday's conclusion

Radioheads race was the first inkling...all I can say is that Fareer's race must have been strong to uphold the figure it earned
 
Thanks, EC1 - didn't want to appear to be barging into a clearly well-researched and heartfelt discussion without some reason. Trying to learn what makes different punters tick, you see!
 
Ratings etc would not be a subject I have much nouse about either but I think FAREER's 7lb increase was maybe something to do with the path his race took. He started from mid field, tracked over to the stands side group after nearly .75f, raced at the back of that group, was towards the outside of group 2f out but then tracked back across towards the rail when starting to race clear and hung left at the finish...

You have to ask whether, if he had been drawn low and had the rails to race up and keep him straight, he would not have won just a bit cosily! Maybe that's what the handicapper is basing his rating on ?

Not that I haven't watched the replay once or twice you understand...:whistle:
 
Fareer's increase is pretty well in line with what a Britannia winner gets (if anything he's been let off a little on the light side) so if you think he's been holding a bit from the handicapper by way of taking a circuitous route then he's worth a few more pounds yet!!!

Sir Gerard raised 10Ibs
Analyser raised 9Ibs
El Gran Papa raised 9Ibs
New Seeker raised 8Ibs

Eddie Jock raised 7Ibs
Fareer raised 7Ibs
Fifteen Love raised 7Ibs
Mandobi raised 7Ibs

Pentecost raised 6Ibs
 
The coc at Folkestone has used selective watering to try and nullify the stands side bias, but he has clearly overdone things and now there is a bias to be racing over on the far side!

Can anyone explain what the hell was the point of this?

You couldn't make it up, ffs.
 
Back
Top