Racing Post Standard Times - WTF?

Harbinger

Harbinger

At the Start
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
11,282
Question: what is the Racing Post Standard Time for 6 furlongs at Newmarket?

Is it:

a) 70.00s (according to: http://www.racingpost.com/horses/racing.sd?r_date=2009-04-15&course_id=38 - click on "Times" and in the very last race, subtract the Comparison time of 4.20s from the final time of 1m 14.20s)

b) 70.30s (according to: http://www.racingpost.com/horses/course_home.sd?crs_id=38 - click on "Standard Times")

c) 70.80s (according to: http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=478200 - subtract the "slow by" figure from the final time)

d) 71.00s (according to: http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=453280 - subtract the "slow by" figure from the final time)


And that's just one example...
 
That's very worrying, I noticed a discrepancy at Sandown on Friday in the 5f sprint. The race was run faster than standard time yet the per furlong time for the race in the card overview was something like +0.08 per furlong!

Have you dropped them an email Gareth?
 
This has been going on since before Cheltenham when I first started bleating about it. A lot of standards have been altered with seemingly no explanation. They've added 7 secs to the staying hurdles standard at prestubury park (probably in some desparate attempt to make the animals appear genuine grade 1). They've also back calculated times using the new standards, so a horse like Tuictchev is suppsoed to have won his Arkle in a time 16 secs faster than standard now. They've also taken to adjusting times a few days later too, (and old trick this one - but its become more frequent, and anyone who took the Greenham times a few hours after the race will get a shock if they recalculate the card now). The Newmarket standards ahve been altered but not drastically. I don't know if Dave Edwards is still doing Topspeed, or whether a newbie's taken over, but there appears to be a slightly different approach in operation. It might be an idea to archive their old standards if possible, (or even their new ones) and then use ATR timings yet. Especially as they're going to charge us for this soon
 
Those of you who know me well enough will know that I ditched the new standard times within a year of their first appearance, as they were costing me a fortune in losing bets. As soon as I resurrected the old standard times my fortunes turned and I soon wiped out the losses. I've stuck with the old times ever since, despite experimenting occasionally (retrospectively) with the new ones and finding the same old problems.
 
Dunno. Maybe if you googled them you might find them.

Otherwise, if you're really desperate, I could photocopy and send you my booklet.

What you will find is that they are some way faster than the new ones. They're based on genuine 126 horses at the trip on good ground whereas the new ones are based on horses rated 100.
 
Last edited:
Thanks DO - was hoping the RP might still have them or at least try and search for some old races if they hadn't updated them as yet :)
 
I've scanned a 2-page (2xA5) spread into a single A4 Word Document.

If anyone can tell me how to transfer it on to the thread I'll do so.

It covers Ascot through to Newmarket (Rowley Mile).
 
Save the document and upload it to a file sharing site, say photobucket ala a picture. Then copy the link into this thread.

Think that's it - though Gareth etc. will know more than I do.
 
But if you look at the Fred Darling and Greenham on the card overview by time page, then the 7 furlong time is 83 on there. I think it's the results themselves which are wrong, the page with the card's times on doesn't seem as out.

Let me know what you find...
 
The theory I'm working on is that:

a) the standard times were updated at some point last year

b) previously, when the standard times were updated, every result page was updated with the new standard time - even those from years ago. Either by accident or design, this hasn't happened. So new results have the new standards, whilst old results retain the old standards.

c) the course details pages (e.g. http://www.racingpost.com/horses/course_home.sd?crs_id=23) carry an older set of standard times which are not the ones currently being used.

d) there's a bug on the meeting information page that's rounding all of the standard times to the nearest second before making the comparison
 
Testing

Am getting this message:

"Your file of 66.0 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 19.5 KB for this filetype."

I'll try editing the document.
 
Testing...

Some of the hieroglyphics are becaue the scanner hasn't recognised my scribbles. The comment at Ascot relates to the new surface being laid in 2006 so I tend not to rely heavily on these times.

Same goes for those courses that I know have been relaid recently, eg Doncaster.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
The theory I'm working on is that:

a) the standard times were updated at some point last year

b) previously, when the standard times were updated, every result page was updated with the new standard time - even those from years ago. Either by accident or design, this hasn't happened. So new results have the new standards, whilst old results retain the old standards.

c) the course details pages (e.g. http://www.racingpost.com/horses/course_home.sd?crs_id=23) carry an older set of standard times which are not the ones currently being used.

d) there's a bug on the meeting information page that's rounding all of the standard times to the nearest second before making the comparison
Click to expand...

I think in part b), it's by design.

To take the 5f course at Newmarket as an example. On the results page, the standard works out to the following:

1988 to 1998: 58.8s
2000 to mid-2001: 58.4s
mid-2001 to end-2001: 58.2s
early-2002: no standard
rest of 2002: jumps between 58.3s and 58.5s and 57s (no idea what's going on here!)
2003 to early 2004: 58.5s
mid-2004 to early 2005: 58.3s
mid-2005 to early 2006: 58.4s
mid-2006 to present: 58s
 
Back
Top