Attention Time Gurus

C

Colin Phillips

At the Start
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,268
Location
Talbot Green
There is a thread on TRF regarding race-distances, one of the posters contacted the BHA and this was the response he received.:


"Thanks for your email regarding race distances.

All Flat distance starts are measured to the nearest yard and professionally surveyed. However, where any flat race is run around a bend the word “about” is used in the official distance to take into account the fact that there may have been an element of dolling in/out of the running rail on the bend.

In terms of NH racing, all distances are officially measured with a wheel and rounded to the nearest half furlong. This is again to cater for rail movement, which is much more common and extensive in jump racing because the avoidance of particularly heavy/poached parts of ground is more necessary in the Winter months. Consequently, the agreed industry criterion means that a distance measure at 2m 4f and 166yds and a distance measured at 2m 5f and 55yds would both be formally classified as “2m abt 5f” in NH Racing. No NTF/Jockeys Association concerns have been raised about this methodology.

As you know, racecourses use rail dolling as a vital and fundamental tool in ensuring - from a safety/welfare perspective and against the backdrop of the current size of the fixture list - that the participants have access to the best possible ground and have the opportunity to give of their best in the safest possible conditions. On many occasions the decision to move rail is taken out of necessity on the raceday itself when the track has been assessed (eg to take into account recent heavy rainfall). Clearly, these alterations would be after all newspapers have already been printed. That said, we have told racecourses that they need to advertise rail movements wherever possible and there has been a big increase in this (together with rainfall data) happening.

The problem is, the vast majority of the media are not interested in publishing a Clerk’s report along the lines of “chase course: good to firm, good places; Hurdle course Good; 3mm overnight rain and rail moved out 4 metres on parts of the home bend (hurdle course only)”. However, this sort of information is now often displayed by Clerks in weighing rooms and press boxes. We are beefing up our going section on britishhorseracing.com to include this sort of data. The other issue, and I can confirm this having clerked for a number of years in the past, is that when rail is moved on a bend, it is frequently not a case of moving the entire radius by the same amount, but of blending the rail in if necessary to achieve the best turf coverage. The “entire radius” approach is much easier on purpose built ovals (eg USA/Australia etc), which of course we don’t have in GB.

We don’t have any immediate plans to modify the arrangements that are used to measure and describe the official distance, but we will keep this under review. However, I have to say there is no groundswell of opinion from racing’s participant bodies and general betting public that all NH distances should be officially described to the nearest yard and amended if necessary on a fixture by fixture basis.

The other aspect to bear in mind, of course, is that Dave Edwards’ article on distances and potential inaccuracies is based on the fact that his formula for devising “standard times” is 100% infallible, but I’ve never seen anything that confirms this to be the case. He uses Sedgefield as a recent example when at least 2 of the races on that card were run in dense fog. Similarly, the Turftrax speed and positioning technology that was used in number cloths over a period of time a couple of years ago clearly showed that races were more slowly run when it was raining (regardless of whether the rain was heavy and having an obvious impact on the going). I’m not clear how Mr Edwards’ model factors that in.

Thank you again for your email – we will continue to try and get the media to mention Clerks’ details of rail dolling that has occurred ahead of meetings.


Kind regards

Fraser Garrity

Manager, BHA Racecourse Department"
 
In this day and age, with technology such as GPS and ultra-powerful computers, it should be possible instantly to measure to the millimetre the distance of any race regardless of dolling, then re-calculate to a thousandth of a second the standard or median time for the distance.

Turftrax can tell you to a hundredth of an inch how many yards a horse travelled in a race.

Football coverage now includes a measure of the distance each footballer covers in a match.

There is no reason, including money, why this shouldn't be happening in racing. What we lack is the collective will to do it.
 
It's a problem with jumps in particular, and there's certainly one course in Cumbria that has been throwing up some unusual times of late. As they say it's not a problem if the reduced or increased ground gained through a rail movement is the same percentage of overall distance. What happens in a case like that is that you'll draw an incorrect conclsuion about the track variance on the day, and potentially therefore a wrong opinion about a horses preference, but you would still generate the same hierarchy, with the same ratios in terms of the level of superiority one horse holds over another. The problem occurs when you encounter different adjustments at different distances, and thus penalise some horses whilst letting others off.

If you want an example, try looking for the results on November 12th, where you'll see the aforementioned Cumbrian track provide a shocking example of it!!! Either there have been some alarming rail movements, or Cedrus Libani is already the 2008 Arkle winner in waiting. Given that something like 4 track records have at Carlisle in the last month or so, it points to severe rail movements.

The biggest problem for me at least, is that it makes a mockery of standard times, which are so important to any rating. As I half suggested, you can get around this, to some extent, provided its the same for every race. The problem is that it invariably isn't. Dave Edwards has been on a crusade for about a year on this one, and forced a remeasure of Kempton, so out of kilter were their advertised distances with the times being run. The problem appears to be particularly acute in Ireland too.

I can only assume Fraser Garrity isn't completely au faix with the methodology for calculating a rating, as the odd slow race can be legislated for, and even a series of them will show up in a track variance calculation by way of an equalisation. To some extent that's a red herring, although it undoubtedly also represents a weakness in the methodology too. You're most likely to get caught out when a moderate time appears fast by virtue of everything else not only being run slowly, but similarly slowly. This reduces your chances of spotting the rogue card, and it's something I've recently become aware of in terms of the idea that the horses who lie about 4th to 6th on my ratings were probably legitimate times, where as those they lie 1st to 3rd stood a fair chance of being undetected rogues, which is how they got there in the first place. Consequently I've been more inclined to look down the league table a bit.

The idea that clerks are displaying this information in "weighing rooms and press boxes" is such a pathetic justification I wouldn't have even bothered trying to put it up in honesty. I'd be interested to see what would happen to me the next time I tried to access either location at a major track to see what Simon Claisse had dolled off??? I'm sure I'd be welcomed into either, and guided with complete politeness and understanding to the appropriate notice!!! In any event, this completely misses the point of a track time anyway.

To a large extent having this information available on the day, is of little benefit to a punter in terms of making any adjustments to which horse they'd have backed etc. There's more than a good chance that if horse X wins a 3 mile chase, from horse Y, then the same horse would also prevail if rail movements have shortend the course by 75yds too. Where it does have the potential to cripple a rating is the retrospective analysis which most people apply a speed rating too.

I've had people ask me about the point of this before (somewhat to my bafflement at times) as clearly 95% of form study is pretty well the same thing. That is to say you use historical data (previous results) to try and forecast a future likelihood. A speed rating is no different in principal. It therefore isn't necessarily the answer to publish it in a weighing room or press box, as few people will have a calculator on hand and be able to perform the necessary adjusment by way Pi r squared or whatever, to any meaningful effect on the day anyway. What it will do however, unless there is an adjusment made later in the results by way of a new standard time being set, is lead you into misleading conclusions, and it is this that Fraser Garrity seems to completely miss, or simply not understand the significance of. Under these circumstances it is entirely with justification that the likes of Dave Edwards, Dave Bellingham and Nick Mordin have tried to devise their own standard times so distrusting have they grown of the official ones. (Bellingham uses medians incidentally, and Mordin uses some which he's imported from the Planet Neptune, but he swears by them). In fairness I can see aspects of Nick's logic, even if it would require fitting a JATO unit to a horses back to achieve some of them, but provided they're consistently applied he should still generate the same hierarchy.

The other thing that Fraser Garrity is perhaps guilty of is the obsession with blaming the media. I actually have some sympathy in so far as the information is of little interest to anyone outside of a dark brotherhood. In a lot of cases the information would sail over the heads of correspondent and reader/ viewer alike. He doesn't need therefore to get "try and get the media to mention clerk's details of dolling off ahead of races". All he need do for a vast majority of us, is to get a correction made in the trade paper. It isn't necessary to think of the media as plural in this instance, but just the topspeed section of the RP will be enough(written by Dave Edwards) who given the amount of column inches he's routinely been generating in the Weekender for well over a year, you'd think he'd be only to happy to oblige. As mentioned earlier, it's not so much that we need the information "before racing" as Fraser Garrity implies, in truth its of little practical use to us, but we would most definately find it beneficial 'after racing' which is when the analysis and ratings are made. It's not a very difficult calculation/ adjustment to make (in fact its very straight forward) provided they can supply you with an accurate(ish) estimate of how much longer or shorter a distance was riding at. All you need do is add or deduct this from the standard time, and perform the calculation as normal.

I know of someone who has recently invested in some laser guided stuff, and seems to have launched a personal onslaught against Musselburgh and their walkie wheel contraption. For Gods sake, we used to use these things in the 1970's in the school playground when learning about distance for the first time. Modern measuring devices mean that this can be done quite accurately and quickly now, and in fairness a few yards here and there is of little consequence, it's just that it routinely seems to be involving much longer distances.

I don't tend to use speed rating on the jumps to anything like the same extent I would on the flat, as there are a number of things that make them vulnerable. Slow run races as Fraser Garrity alludes to is just one of them, and they're much more prevalent on the less than competitive jumps scene. We've seen some shocking examples of small fields again in the last month just dawdling around, with the Peterborough Chase being perhaps the best, though not exclusive example. To some extent you can absorb these, but it's difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from them. A lot of the 2 mile hurdles trials invariably are just that. Moderate 'jog and sprints' in preparation ofr the one race where they're likely to go much quicker. Eased down performances are much more prevalaent in jump racing too, again the result of extended distances, and the less than competitive races through field size. Rail movements is another factor, but not the most corrupting (I regard the other 2 mentioned as more likely to throw a spanner in the works).

As a method it doesn't work anywhere near as well in jump racing (possibly because so smuch of the theory and study of it is American?). You will however, encounter the occasional truly run and competitive jump race and the methodology can be used to some effect here, but such races are the exception rather than the rule.
 
Dave Edwards has been on a crusade for about a year on this one, and forced a remeasure of Kempton, so out of kilter were their advertised distances with the times being run. The problem appears to be particularly acute in Ireland too.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't help that Dave Edwards makes no allowance, for example, of the difference between mile races on the straight and round courses of the Curragh.
 
Precisely. Horses on curving tacks are not running the same distance as one another on the same track in the same race - do they measure the distance just inside the rail?
 
Back
Top