Ascot speed figures

they have tried to do the same thing at Beverley over the last few years, same thing happened, bias other way


I wonder what will happen at Newcastle tonight :blink:
 
Last edited:
I've reached the point where I'd be quite happy for every turf flat course to be turned in to polytrack. Selective watering and rails movement is turning the game into a lottery (which is what they and their bookmaker partners want). Even if the Folkestone clown-of-course admitted what he did it's not much use to anyone without atr or who placed their bet beforehand. Why didn't he state his intentions on the BHA going reports page?

Anyaway, what is this obsession with draw bias? A draw bias favours no one. The draw is drawn randomly FFS.
 
On to Friday...

I'll revisit the figures next week when the amended instalment comes through but for the time being there seems a close-ish tie between the times of the Coronation and Wolferton. There's actually only 1lb net (to 9st and wfa not counted) between them, in Ghanaati's favour. Perfect Stride's RPR115 looks about right but if the time matches it then Ghanaati is on 116+wfa (10lbs), taking her up to 126. Assuming she ran to at least the same 123 (110+13lbs wfa) as I had for her in the Guineas, it still makes her pretty smart. For those who don't believe in wfa when calculating times, she's improved 6lb (from 110 to 116) at best or 3lbs (if she ran to the same form rating of 123). The Coronation looked very fast run to me but they couldn't get her off the bit and I think this filly might well be worth the 127 the generous reading gives her. Holburg appears to have also run a sharp time in the Queen's Vase.

The generous reading is based on a going allowance of -0.38spf, the lesser figure would make the conditions even faster, compared with the GA of -0.13 that gets Giganticus to run to his best previous of 107 on the straight course.

Note to self - in future work out the figures on daily basis you useless fecker otherwise you'll end up getting caught out again.
 
eliminating bias is all about knowing your strip of ground and taking the necessary actions..they don't teach that at nightschool..even though clerks do go on courses so I believe..its all about experience and being good at your job

watering out one bias and creating another is the sign of an amateur imo.
 
Last edited:
Re Folkestone...you couldn't make this up..

Folkestone draw bias turned on its head By Graham Dench3.29PM 26 JUN 2009 Racing Post site

FOLKESTONE'S long-standing track bias was turned upside down on Friday after the course management disclosed in response to eyecatching GoingStick readings that it had adopted an amended watering policy.

Clerk of the course Neil Mackenzie Ross confirmed that he had taken steps to eliminate the traditional stands' rail bias in the straight after penetrometer readings suggested the far side (GoingStick 9.8) would ride marginally quicker than the stands' side (8.6).

Mackenzie Ross said: "We know there's been a definite stands' rail bias here. We can't be sure why and there are various theories, but when the sprinklers are placed in the middle of the track the watering doesn't quite reach either side.

"We've slightly altered the position we place the pipes to ensure the stands' rail gets plenty of water, and although I wouldn't read too much into the readings I certainly wouldn't put anyone off going far side."

However, the evidence of the first race suggested the stands' side advantage had been eliminated, but it has been replaced by a marked far-side advantage. Four horses raced far side, and three of them finished in the first four. Hugyens produced a 25-1 shock victory from stall 14 of 14 declared runners and was followed home by 66-1 chance Astonishment, drawn nine.

Jamie Spencer was exaggerating perhaps when he returned on stands' side winner Al Khimiya, drawn two, who was soundly beaten into third overall but beat the next horse on his side by a huge 13 lengths, but he said: "It's soft on the stands' side and firm on the far side."
 
Last edited:
Ahhhh b&st&rds!!!

I've just spent a while typing up Saturday's stuff and the page expired as it was loading up. I suspected there might be a wee problem when it seemed slow and I was just selecting and preparing to copy when the page went on me.

B&st&rds!!!!

Any idea how frustrating that is???

B*gger... it's doing it again!!

...And again!!!!!
I'll type it up as a word document and c&p.


OK – here we go again.

Saturday

I have the round course racing much faster than the straight. Bronze Cannon and Drill Sergeant have run fast and true to the form lines. The GA for the round course on my figures is –0.26spf. Not as fast as Friday but the course was back to normal configuration and the wind was “modest, across”. There’s no indication of the wind for Friday.

As for the straight course, I’ve calculated the GA from High Standing’s form rating (113), which works out at –0.09, quite a lot slower than on the round track. Applying that GA to the Golden Jubilee, Art Connoisseur’s time rating is just 101 (+wfa), suggesting the stands’ side is 12lbs (four lengths) slower over the distance. I’ll be adding that amount to those that ran on the stands’ side in the Wokingham.

It puts Big Audio on 80 for the Chesham but I can’t remember how far across the track he ran. It probably makes Emperor Claudius a fair bit better than the bare form since he definitely was nearer the stands’ rail than the winner.

I whinged before the Hardwicke about the paucity of talent but Bronze Cannon has gone very close to putting up a true G1 figure (124) and looks to be still improving. I was quite taken by him.

Time ratings for Saturday:

Big Audio 80
Bronze Cannon 124
Art Connoisseur 101+wfa
High Standing 113
Drill Sergeant 112
Caracciola 92
 
Bronze was a real good time

4 lengths slower seems about right DO..looks like they had a Folkestone situation..interesting that Jamie Spencer has had no qualms in stating the standside is slower there because the coc admitted he watered one side more..but Jimmy Fortune felt the need to speak up for Ascot where they apparently didn't intentionally do the very same thing....deary me...where is the punter in all of this?...what about the owners pissing their money down the drain in all of this?
 
Just for a matter of copyright legalities EC (and anyone else), if you're using or reproducing articles from other sources? you need to accredit them. Providd they're syndicated and in the public domain then you can reproduce them, it's just that you need to acknowledge who the source is

Quoting people or disagreeing with them by putting your own comments/ interpretation on by way opinion is fine, that's your opinion (provided you stay on the right side of libel laws) you're entitled to it.

Also whilst I'm at it, please try not to drag any arguments from TRF (or any other forum) over here please, I'd rather their moderators sort their own house out than us inherit one that isn't of our making. We're more than capable of generating our own arguments we don't need to be an importer of them too.

thanks
 
Last edited:
EC1, I thought you might be interested in a little quote from an interview in Owner & Breeder magazine (recd. today) by Edward Rosenthal with Patrick Veitch:

The past watering policies of a number of courses are pretty much savaged in your book (Enemy Number One), due to the effect on the draw. Are Britain's racecourses still watering inconsistently to produce a draw bias?

Veitch: Draw bias was an enormous feature of my betting five to ten years ago. But to quote Basil Fawlty, that particular avenue of pleasure has been closed off! Improvements in the quality of watering have certainly been made.

However, it is absurd that there is not a tighter procedure for CoC's regarding watering. In some cases in recent years, the levels of watering have undoubtedly been tailored to meet the warnings of trainers of prominent horses.

At the moment, there is a huge variation in the amount and quality of information supplied by CoC's to trainers and owners regarding watering and rail movements etc. When owners are being asked to pay to enter and transport their horses hundreds of miles, only to find that basic information about watering and track alignment has not been readily supplied, there is simply no excuse.
 
Back
Top