Going reports

L

Lard

Apprentice
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
73
They are so frustrating. The same going stick reading can range in classification at different courses from Soft to Good to Firm. Something is wrong if this is possible.

There's got to be a better and standard way of classifying the ground. Don't understand why the ranges aren't fixed - ie Soft = 6-7 etc
Or why the results/form information held doesn't have the going stick reading at the time of the race, instead of soft, GS etc.

And is really a man with a stick the best method? There isn't something better than that? Seems archaic and prone to human error.
 
The type of soil a course is built on varies and I don't think it is surprising that different courses have different goings in relation to going stick readings.

I would think it would be very difficult to design a device that would enable the standard going to going stick readings you are looking for.

Just looking at Ascot the soil on the newly constructed straight course is very different to that of the round course.
 
In 10 years though they must have the data now to at least give each course a co-efficient to give a standard cross-course reading?
 
LArd, dont know if you read Richard Hughes analysis of British racecourses last year in Racing Post. He blames overwatering for a lot of surface problems on racecourses. The best guide to going are race times on the day- just look at Royal ascot last tuesday. Soil science is a tricky subject. Those who know it have little knowledge of racing and those racing have little knowledge of soil science. Crack it and you have a future!
Even the types of grass sown and what should be used vary as do opinions on same.
 
Just my view, but many Clerks of Courses are still living in the past, and calling the going as near as they dare to what trainers want to hear. The going stick often gives the lie to their fantasies, and (imo) is a much more uniform and reliable guide.
Chris Stickels, however, is one of the good guys, and generally calls it as it is, giving readings right across the straight course and a separate reading for the round. At Ascot last Tuesday, the last g/s reading was:

Straight Course: Good
Round Course: Good to Soft (Good in places)
Standside 8.1
Centre 8.3
Farside 8.1
Round 7.4

8.1 is bang in the middle of the going stick scale (i.e. Good ground) which ties in pretty well with how the straight course turned out (Though the RP form reads g/s for the first 2 races, even though their time-based ground showed it as good).
It might help if C0C's were restricted to just the digital reading, and kept their frequently biased opinions to themselves. CH4 etc, might also benefit from a similar policy.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be using those times at haydock on fcast grounds from the 24/25/26th of may as reliable!!:lol::lol:
 
Those Haydock times were perjured by all races on the last 2 days reportedly run over 50 yds further than advertised, which is a rare instance of the official ground being a better guide than the clock, Gigs.
 
Last edited:
we are better off it raining at big meetings as it did at ascot last week..at least its watered evenly then..if we had no rain last week you can bet that any perceived bias would have been addressed by the sprinkler

interesting that when nature did the watering last week..no perceived bias cropped up
 
Back
Top