World record in the Pan Am? Really?

[Jeremy Jet]

I timed it twice off of a Twinspires replay, and recorded 2:24 and change both times. We all know about the timing issues at Gulfstream. A horse that had never previously earned a Beyer of better than 90?

Anyone else skeptical?

[horses4courses]

The record was broken there a week ago.
Didn't last long......

[Jeremy Jet]

The record was broken there a week ago.
Didn't last long......

Good point, and that underscores how unlikely it is that the times are correct.

[the little guy]

Good point, and that underscores how unlikely it is that the times are correct.

It's not a good point. He's wrong.

[Jeremy Jet]

It's not a good point. He's wrong.

Ah, he was referring to the CA record. That's fine, but I remain highly skeptical of the GP record, especially given that it supposedly eclipsed the one just set by a horse that raced downhill for part of the race.

[Robert Fischer]

I timed it twice off of a Twinspires replay, and recorded 2:24 and change both times. We all know about the timing issues at Gulfstream. A horse that had never previously earned a Beyer of better than 90?

Anyone else skeptical?


There's a 200' run-up.

I haven't gone over the race yet.

[cj]

Since race timing is now done by Trakus, can't really blame the timer. Could it just be the course is rock hard? Sure looks like it.

[Jeremy Jet]

Since race timing is now done by Trakus, can't really blame the timer.

That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the fractional times on the GP turf course are frequently inaccurate.

With regard to the condition of the turf, yes, GP tends to be on the hard and fast side. However, I have a hard time using that as an explanation for this supposed "world record".

[cj]

That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the fractional times on the GP turf course are frequently inaccurate.

With regard to the condition of the turf, yes, GP tends to be on the hard and fast side. However, I have a hard time using that as an explanation for this supposed "world record".

This meet? I haven't seen the issues I've seen in past seasons.

I'm just saying if something is amiss, it is amiss with Trakus, not the teletimer. It isn't an odd assertion at all. Trakus times are the official times.

[Jeremy Jet]

There are two components to an accurate final time, the timing system itself, and the distance. When the rails at Gulfstream are moved in and out, it changes the distance that horses travel, assuming a static starting point. That is why, of course, some tracks (e.g. Arlington) use "about" distance designations when the rail is out. Fair Grounds turf course records are all listed as "about" distances, and therefore cannot be confused with precise distances.

For obvious reasons, records recorded at "about" distances are not the same as records recorded at precise distances. So if the Trakus timing system was accurate in this particular case, I would question the actual distance traveled by the horses.

It is ludicrous to imagine that a horse like Twilight Eclipse is comparable to Hawkster, and yet we are to believe that the former just ran faster than the latter (which held the world record on a downhill course at SA for close to 25 years)?

I don't think it's credible.

[thespaah]

That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the fractional times on the GP turf course are frequently inaccurate.

With regard to the condition of the turf, yes, GP tends to be on the hard and fast side. However, I have a hard time using that as an explanation for this supposed "world record".
Where is the evidence that the times are inaccurate?

[cj]

I will work on the card tomorrow.

I explain, you change to "it must be the distance". Trakus gives the exact distance traveled. Checked the Trakus site?

You also didn't answer about fractions being "off" this meet.

[Jeremy Jet]

I explain, you change to "it must be the distance". Trakus gives the exact distance traveled. Checked the Trakus site?

You also didn't answer about fractions being "off" this meet.

First of all, I didn't "change" anything – I simply elaborated.

I have not followed the GP meet closely (out of the country for some time), but have seen a couple of grossly inaccurate fractions posted in turf races. I didn't bother to compare them with the undoubtedly "adjusted" splits that were used for official charts. There is no way that GP (or any other track) can provide accurate split timing at "about" distances.

I do admit that splits are not directly related to this particular issue, other than to make the point that if Hawkster had been in the race, he would have been 10 lengths in front for at least 10f., and would have won with ease. In the beaten field when he set his WR were Great Communicator, Pay the Butler, Lively One, Pleasant Variety, etc. None of them got in a blow, and all were far more accomplished than Newsdad.

[thespaah]

I timed it twice off of a Twinspires replay, and recorded 2:24 and change both times. We all know about the timing issues at Gulfstream. A horse that had never previously earned a Beyer of better than 90?

Anyone else skeptical?
I looked at the Equibase replay.
Here's what I saw. I stopped and started and reviewed the video.
I used the clock at the bottom of the screen. It appears when the cursor is rolled over the bottom of the image..
Anyway. The horses break at the 12 second mark. The winner crosses under the wire at the 2.41 mark..SO that's 2.29 to run the race.
Except, the gate is 200 feet from the timer.
So even of the first horse is in a dead sprint from the gate it at best would be going 30 mph after 200 feet because it had not reached full speed yet.
30 mph is 44 feet per second. BUT, the first horse was not running a constant 30 mph yet. Even at an even 44 fps, it would have taken nearly 5 seconds for the first horse to start the timer. I am thinking it probably took more like 6 to 6.5 seconds to cover the initial 200 feet. I can say this because the first quarter was a little over 24, seconds. So the first eighth was a little over 12 seconds.
The fractions were logical. The last 4f was covered in 47.11. The 3rd and 4th quarter miles were just a hair under 24 seconds.
The last was unreported...
If anything I don't think there is a timer issue. I think they may have a measuring issue.
The race in this case is not 1.5 miles. It may be less. But not much.
I guess the only way to find out is to walk the course with a wheel and measure it. The question I have is where is the track measured. Is it at the rail? The 4 path?..Anyone?

[thespaah]

Since race timing is now done by Trakus, can't really blame the timer. Could it just be the course is rock hard? Sure looks like it.
Yes..There was a lot of dust kicked up. Indicating a dry course.

[cj]

First of all, I didn't "change" anything – I simply elaborated.

I have not followed the GP meet closely (out of the country for some time), but have seen a couple of grossly inaccurate fractions posted in turf races. I didn't bother to compare them with the undoubtedly "adjusted" splits that were used for official charts. There is no way that GP (or any other track) can provide accurate split timing at "about" distances.

I do admit that splits are not directly related to this particular issue, other than to make the point that if Hawkster had been in the race, he would have been 10 lengths in front for at least 10f., and would have won with ease. In the beaten field when he set his WR were Great Communicator, Pay the Butler, Lively One, Pleasant Variety, etc. None of them got in a blow, and all were far more accomplished than Newsdad.

You could have checked and rechecked the Trakus site many times over by now. They give actual distance run and time. If there are questions, and obviously there are, that is the starting point.

[Jeremy Jet]

You could have checked and rechecked the Trakus site many times over by now. They give actual distance run and time. If there are questions, and obviously there are, that is the starting point.

I've been to the site (at your suggestion), and from what I can see, it is necessary to have an account in order to access data. If that is wrong, please do explain how to access it.

Thanks.

[onefast99]

Yes..There was a lot of dust kicked up. Indicating a dry course.
We finished 9th yesterday in that race, we earned a 65 beyer. Cruz told us that he never had a chance to get into the mix because they were going too fast up front.

[Jeremy Jet]

We finished 9th yesterday in that race, we earned a 65 beyer. Cruz told us that he never had a chance to get into the mix because they were going too fast up front.

24.21, 48.25 and 112.09? Too fast? Yikes!

It was certainly a realistic pace for a long race, but not especially fast (the record set at SA last week the 6f. split was 110.48).

[Robert Fischer]

here's what I just came up with on my replays:

gate opens = ~11 seconds

race finishes = ~2:38 (two min 38 sec)

gate to wire = ~2:27 (2:38-11) gross time

run-up = 200ft

1/16th = ~333ft
~333ft = ~6 seconds

200ft = ~3.6 seconds

2.27 - ~3.6 seconds = ~2.23.4 net time

actual trakus time = 2.22.63

---
conclusion: After using logic to estimate the race time, I came up with an estimated 2:23.40. The actual trakus time was 2.22.63. The difference in actual and estimated times was .77 seconds. My method of hand-timing and estimating using video replay is not precise enough to make .77 seconds a significant difference. I found no reason to dispute the actual trakus time of 2.22.63.

[onefast99]

24.21, 48.25 and 112.09? Too fast? Yikes!

It was certainly a realistic pace for a long race, but not especially fast (the record set at SA last week the 6f. split was 110.48).
The only horse to close into the pace yesterday was Newsdad. They never backed up.

[Jeremy Jet]

Thanks for your efforts, Robert. I'm willing to accept your calculations, but it then leads me to question the actual distance covered (from tele-timer trigger to wire). I remain highly skeptical that a horse of that caliber is capable of recording such a fast time while closing off of a realistic, but not especially fast pace.

Obviously the long run-up plays some role, as does the hard ground, but I have serious, nagging doubts about what is really an "about" distance.

When Hawkster set his record (which stood for around 25 years), he did so on a course on which the first three furlongs are downhill, and in a manner that is fairly typical of record-setting performances: he ran a freak race while dominating the pace. Not only that, but he was clearly a much better horse than the Pan Am winner (improving though he may be). To be fair, the horse that just broke Hawkster's record at SA recently is a lightly raced improver as well.

All but one of the GP turf course track records have been set since 2006, when the track was renovated, including new timing system(s). While it is an intrinsically fast course, I maintain that there have been timing and/or distance issues that have distorted these records.

Bottom-line is that I remain skeptical of any records recorded on that course when races are run with the temporary rails up. They should be labeled as "about" distances.

[cj]

I've been to the site (at your suggestion), and from what I can see, it is necessary to have an account in order to access data. If that is wrong, please do explain how to access it.

Thanks.

You go to Gulfstream's site. That is where you find Trakus data.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I really don't know. The time just seems fishy. I was just pointing out that all official times come from Trakus now, not a teletimer.

[cj]

http://tnetwork.trakus.com/tnet/t_Gulfstream.aspx?EventID=46773&Date=3/23/2013&Type=TBRED&Venue=20

[thespaah]

here's what I just came up with on my replays:

gate opens = ~11 seconds

race finishes = ~2:38 (two min 38 sec)

gate to wire = ~2:27 (2:38-11) gross time

run-up = 200ft

1/16th = ~333ft
~333ft = ~6 seconds

200ft = ~3.6 seconds

2.27 - ~3.6 seconds = ~2.23.4 net time

actual trakus time = 2.22.63

---
conclusion: After using logic to estimate the race time, I came up with an estimated 2:23.40. The actual trakus time was 2.22.63. The difference in actual and estimated times was .77 seconds. My method of hand-timing and estimating using video replay is not precise enough to make .77 seconds a significant difference. I found no reason to dispute the actual trakus time of 2.22.63.
http://tnetwork.trakus.com/tnet/t_Gulfstream.aspx

According to the Trakus chart which indicates the actual distance traveled by each horse, the winner traveled 1.5 miles minus 8 feet. So this distance for the race from the end of the run up to the wire is legitimate.
I cannot think of a more accurate method of timing and distance that of an electronic transponder.

[thespaah]

24.21, 48.25 and 112.09? Too fast? Yikes!

It was certainly a realistic pace for a long race, but not especially fast (the record set at SA last week the 6f. split was 110.48).
For a 12f race, yeah that is a fast pace.
Most 12 f races nowadays are nothing more than a crawl to the 6f then an all out sprint for the remaining 6f.

[cj]

http://tnetwork.trakus.com/tnet/t_Gulfstream.aspx

According to the Trakus chart which indicates the actual distance traveled by each horse, the winner traveled 1.5 miles minus 8 feet. So this distance for the race from the end of the run up to the wire is legitimate.
I cannot think of a more accurate method of timing and distance that of an electronic transponder.

If the winner didn't run 1 1/2 miles, how is the distance legitimate? Unless he ducked inside the rail on one of the turns for a few strides, it shouldn't count. Trakus removes the run up from the times and distance, or at least they did last time I checked.

[cj]

The winner traveled more than 12f according to the chart as did every other horse in the race. The question is how are the distances measured.

[horses4courses]

The record was broken there a week ago.
Didn't last long......

My bad.

[Robert Fischer]

The winner traveled more than 12f according to the chart as did every other horse in the race. The question is how are the distances measured.

Yes. I'm seeing 8004ft covered for Twilight Eclipse.

12furlongs = 7920ft

Seems like there is no problem with the distance.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm guessing that the track was very fast, and that the horse got a great trip(optimum pace, smooth trip).

Still haven't watched the whole race but the finish was visually impressive for a 12f race.

[Jeremy Jet]

The question is how are the distances measured.

I also believe that to be the essential question. I will contact Trakus this week and see if they are willing to explain how they calculate distances when temporary rails are out.

Thanks to all for your input and links.

[thespaah]

If the winner didn't run 1 1/2 miles, how is the distance legitimate? Unless he ducked inside the rail on one of the turns for a few strides, it shouldn't count. Trakus removes the run up from the times and distance, or at least they did last time I checked.
It says the winner traveled just 8 feet less than 1.5 miles. I assume the total distance does not include the run up.
Also, although I attempted to find it, the part of the course at which the distance is measured is not public info.
I am going to take a flyer and say they probably use the two or three path. In any event, it's academic. The Trakus device measures the horse's distance traveled via the transponder.

[thespaah]

If the winner didn't run 1 1/2 miles, how is the distance legitimate? Unless he ducked inside the rail on one of the turns for a few strides, it shouldn't count. Trakus removes the run up from the times and distance, or at least they did last time I checked.
Ok..i made an error..1.5 miles is 7,920 ft. According to Trakus, the winner traveled 8,004 ft or 1.5 miles plus 84 feet.
Here is the Trakus chart....The 4 digit figure to the right is each contestant's total distance traveled in feet.
The "Delta" figure is the distance variant vs the winner's distance traveled.

Twilight Eclipse
46.66 2668 9.8 39.0 4 2:22.63 40.2 8004 ---

Ioya Bigtime
47.79 2672 1.8 38.1 1 1/2 2:23.31 39.2 8016 12

Newsdad
47.41 2692 13.6 38.7 4 1/4 2:23.58 40.7 8040 36

Belo Acteon (BRZ)
48.49 2687 2.2 37.8 1 2:24.36 39.6 8055 51

Mucho Mas Macho
48.34 2678 17.8 37.8 2 1/2 2:24.56 39.7 8009 5

Teaks North
49.47 2663 10.5 36.7 3 1/4 2:25.04 39.2 7988 -16

Ducduc
48.14 2674 14.8 37.9 1 1/4 2:25.66 39.6 8002 -2

Empire Builder
49.64 2682 19.4 36.8 1 3/4 2:25.89 39.7 8050 46

Gossip Column
48.48 2686 22.2 37.8 13 1/2 2:26.23 39.7 8021 17

Total Reward
51.48 2674 7.4 35.4 2:28.65 39.1 8014 10
Race Notes:

[thespaah]

I also believe that to be the essential question. I will contact Trakus this week and see if they are willing to explain how they calculate distances when temporary rails are out.

Thanks to all for your input and links.
See if you can get them to tell you at what point the distance begins...Is it from the break? Or the end of the run up which theoretically is the start of the actual race distance.
That's important.

[cj]

See if you can get them to tell you at what point the distance begins...Is it from the break? Or the end of the run up which theoretically is the start of the actual race distance.
That's important.

I know for a fact the times don't include run up, and neither does the distance. The run up distance and times used to be publicly available, but they aren't any longer.

[cj]

I will add I'm always skeptical of races with missing fractions. If Trakus is so perfect, why no 1 1/4 mile fraction? That is the standard second call for 12f races.

[thespaah]

I know for a fact the times don't include run up, and neither does the distance. The run up distance and times used to be publicly available, but they aren't any longer.
The run up distances are included in the equibase charts.

[Jeremy Jet]

The run up distances are included in the equibase charts.

Yes, and 200 feet stands out like a sore thumb!

[cj]

Yes, and 200 feet stands out like a sore thumb!

It would certainly aid final times in being faster.