REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

None taken, Ian. Historically the ground at Ayr is fast and even Willie Mullins referenced it not being as fast as he was expecting. I was also watching the stick readings and kept thinking - I think I said at the time - 'that can't be right' and it is very unlike Ayr to water so enthusiastically. It's something worth keeping in mind for the future.

They hadn't quantified how much they were adding, merely going with the catch-all 'watering to maintain' line, until Saturday morning, I think it might have been.

One of the issues I have with raw times, eg 6.61s slow, is that they don't allow for rail movements. Moving the rails out 5y adds over 30y per circuit, that's about 50y over a 2m race at Ayr, which would account for about 3s. If the time for a 2m race was 3s slow people would be saying the ground was good.

Saturday's times suggested they had put an awful lot of water on after racing on Friday as the times were much slower.

But we do need more transparency about it, which Paul Kealy made strong mention of in his RP column on Friday.

<blockquote data-quote="Desert Orchid" data-source="post: 2698539" data-attributes="member: 65242">None taken, Ian. Historically the ground at Ayr is fast and even Willie Mullins referenced it not being as fast as he was expecting. I was also watching the stick readings and kept thinking - I think I said at the time - &#039;that can&#039;t be right&#039; and it is very unlike Ayr to water so enthusiastically. It&#039;s something worth keeping in mind for the future.They hadn&#039;t quantified how much they were adding, merely going with the catch-all &#039;watering to maintain&#039; line, until Saturday morning, I think it might have been.One of the issues I have with raw times, eg 6.61s slow, is that they don&#039;t allow for rail movements. Moving the rails out 5y adds over 30y per circuit, that&#039;s about 50y over a 2m race at Ayr, which would account for about 3s. If the time for a 2m race was 3s slow people would be saying the ground was good.Saturday&#039;s times suggested they had put an awful lot of water on after racing on Friday as the times were much slower.But we do need more transparency about it, which Paul Kealy made strong mention of in his RP column on Friday.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desert Orchid, post: 2698539, member: 65242"] None taken, Ian. Historically the ground at Ayr is fast and even Willie Mullins referenced it not being as fast as he was expecting. I was also watching the stick readings and kept thinking - I think I said at the time - 'that can't be right' and it is very unlike Ayr to water so enthusiastically. It's something worth keeping in mind for the future. They hadn't quantified how much they were adding, merely going with the catch-all 'watering to maintain' line, until Saturday morning, I think it might have been. One of the issues I have with raw times, eg 6.61s slow, is that they don't allow for rail movements. Moving the rails out 5y adds over 30y per circuit, that's about 50y over a 2m race at Ayr, which would account for about 3s. If the time for a 2m race was 3s slow people would be saying the ground was good. Saturday's times suggested they had put an awful lot of water on after racing on Friday as the times were much slower. But we do need more transparency about it, which Paul Kealy made strong mention of in his RP column on Friday. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?