"About" Distances at BEL

[eqitec]

Tomorrow's card has several races on the grass carded at "About" distances.
This is the 1st time I've seen these at BEL.
Seems like another brainstorm from the CA shipper new NYRA Racing General Mgr. and his new Racing Sec. IMO they are 0-2 thus far.

[the little guy]

Tomorrow's card has several races on the grass carded at "About" distances.
This is the 1st time I've seen these at BEL.
Seems like another brainstorm from the CA shipper new NYRA Racing General Mgr. and his new Racing Sec. IMO they are 0-2 thus far.


I don't know if they are 0 for 2....but I do know you are 0 for one.

[Robert Goren]

Most people hate "about" distances even in turf races. I don't understand why they can't gives us a true distance even if it is something like "a mile and a quarter plus 10 feet". At least then you could adjust the times.

[DeltaLover]

Most people hate "about" distances even in turf races. I don't understand why they can't gives us a true distance even if it is something like "a mile and a quarter plus 10 feet". At least then you could adjust the times.

I don't think there is anything wrong with about distances. The implied complications in speed figure - track variant calculations are the same for everyone adding a little to the uncertainty of the race which favors the handicapper who can make the best adjustments...

[PhantomOnTour]

I don't know if they are 0 for 2....but I do know you are 0 for one.
More like 1 for 2, eh?

I've never seen these about distances either, or the rail at 35ft on the Inner

[therussmeister]

Most people hate "about" distances even in turf races. I don't understand why they can't gives us a true distance even if it is something like "a mile and a quarter plus 10 feet". At least then you could adjust the times.
As far as I know true distances are available from some source, like the tracks web site. That I don't know this for sure shows I am not the slightest bit bothered by "about" distances. It is certainly not worse than varying the runups based on rail setting which is what tracks do when they do not use "about" distances.

[cj]

More like 1 for 2, eh?

I've never seen these about distances either, or the rail at 35ft on the Inner

It is a bad move that didn't consider horseplayers.

[HuggingTheRail]

It is a bad move that didn't consider horseplayers.

Surprised?

[Clocker]

It is a bad move that didn't consider horseplayers.

With rare exception, tracks exist for the convenience of horsemen, not horseplayers.

[LottaKash]

With rare exception, tracks exist for the convenience of horsemen, not horseplayers.

Perhaps, "the tracks, and the horsemen", may still believe that most of us just pick our favorite color, or number, or something...:jump:

[Clocker]

Perhaps, "the tracks, and the horsemen", may still believe that most of us just pick our favorite color, or number, or something...:jump:

I think they should offer "Quick Picks" on all wagers. It would save everyone a lot of time and effort.

[DJofSD]

It could be truth in advertizing.

I would guess Belmont, for each distance, does not put the starting gate at the same exact place for each race. They likely move it around a bit so the grass does not get all dug up from repeated starts over the exact same spot.

[Some_One]

It is a bad move that didn't consider horseplayers.

Because horseplayers are way too reliant on speed figures?

[cj]

Because horseplayers are way too reliant on speed figures?

Call me crazy, but I think if you run a race at a racetrack, it should be able to be timed properly and the exact distance given. Handicappers can do what they want with the data. This is a much bigger all over the country than most people realize.

Shouldn't we expect this BASIC RACE INFO to be reliable? This sport is tough enough, but now we have two services (Equibase/Trakus) reporting wildly different times for the same events.

[cj]

It could be truth in advertizing.

I would guess Belmont, for each distance, does not put the starting gate at the same exact place for each race. They likely move it around a bit so the grass does not get all dug up from repeated starts over the exact same spot.

Where the starting gate is positioned has very little to do with the listing of "about" distances. Run up takes that out of the equation. About about has to do with the distance of the timed portion of the race.

[DJofSD]

Where the starting gate is positioned has very little to do with the listing of "about" distances. Run up takes that out of the equation. About about has to do with the distance of the timed portion of the race.
OK, that's more than likely what is going on with the about label.

Do you have anything more specific? Is this "variance" just affecting the first segment?

[cj]

OK, that's more than likely what is going on with the about label.

Do you have anything more specific? Is this "variance" just affecting the first segment?

Today is the first day with the "about", so I'm not sure yet. I can't even find it, looked at program on NYRA site and the Equibase site. I'll wait for the charts and see what races show the "about" designation.

The last few days races were run with a brand new rail setting on the inner turf, 35 feet. I'm guessing it is to keep the inside good for Saturday's big races. But, when those races were run, the times are coming back really different between the track time and Trakus. Trakus is using the exact distance, so maybe the difference in times with the track timer has caused the "about" label.

[DJofSD]

Today is the first day with the "about", so I'm not sure yet. I can't even find it, looked at program on NYRA site and the Equibase site. I'll wait for the charts and see what races show the "about" designation.

The last few days races were run with a brand new rail setting on the inner turf, 35 feet. I'm guessing it is to keep the inside good for Saturday's big races. But, when those races were run, the times are coming back really different between the track time and Trakus. Trakus is using the exact distance, so maybe the difference in times with the track timer has caused the "about" label.
Good info.

I appreciate sharing the insight.

[SansuiSC]

More like 1 for 2, eh?

I've never seen these about distances either, or the rail at 35ft on the Inner
35ft on the inner has many people talking.

[Clocker]

Today is the first day with the "about", so I'm not sure yet. I can't even find it, looked at program on NYRA site and the Equibase site. I'll wait for the charts and see what races show the "about" designation.





I don't think there are any today. There are 3 tomorrow, Sunday.

The 4th is about 6F on the turf and the 6th and 9th are about 1 1/16 on the turf. None of these 3 races give a rail position, but 3 other turf races on the same card show on the turf with the rail at 27 feet.

[Cratos]

With rare exception, tracks exist for the convenience of horsemen, not horseplayers.

It is good to read a post where the poster understands who this game is for and I concur with you, it is not for the horseplayers.

[Tom]

Then why should we bet?
Let the horsemen run against each other. for the purses that won't be there.

But a race is two thing - a distance and a time.
And too many tracks can't get either one right.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. Belmont and Trakus come with different times????
This worse than pathetic - this is incompetence.

I hope it pours rain all next weekend - that will settle this stupid new rail crap at Belmont. :D

[Clocker]

I hope it pours rain all next weekend - that will settle this stupid new rail crap at Belmont. :D

Can they run the Belmont with dogs up? :p

[Tom]

More than one dog has won the Belmont over the years.

[RaceBookJoe]

Anyone catch that last race at Belmont? 10 horse bolted over temp rails and then over the inner. Tyler Rice was aboard but haven't seen any updates.

[classhandicapper]

These things usually have something to do with saving the turf course from the wear and tear of the starting gate being in the same location all the time or from the horses running on specific paths all the time. It would be nice if the races could be timed properly, but it would probably take a incremental investment that no one wants to make in a tough business environment.

If you are making figures, so many turf races are a mess because of extreme paces anyway, it probably makes sense to just break the races out and go off the horses. That may be tough to do in races with a lot of FTS, surface changers, or lightly races horses, but if there are a couple of races at the same distance a reasonable estimate should be possible.

[Exotic1]

Then why should we bet?
Let the horsemen run against each other. for the purses that won't be there.....



:ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Yeah, why bother to time races?
It's not like racing is your business or anything.

[reckless]

Today is the first day with the "about", so I'm not sure yet. I can't even find it, looked at program on NYRA site and the Equibase site. I'll wait for the charts and see what races show the "about" designation.

The last few days races were run with a brand new rail setting on the inner turf, 35 feet. I'm guessing it is to keep the inside good for Saturday's big races. But, when those races were run, the times are coming back really different between the track time and Trakus. Trakus is using the exact distance, so maybe the difference in times with the track timer has caused the "about" label.

I am not trying to be snarky. CJ, but I believe Friday, not Saturday, was the first day of the 'about' distance.

The first race at the about 6 furlongs distance was race 4. It was a $40,000 maiden claimer for F & M 4-up. The winner came from way back--11th at the first call 11 1-2 lengths back, and was 6th after 4 furlongs, 4 3-4 lengths back.

In race 9, for MSW types 3-up, it was run at about 1 1-16 miles and the winner set all the fractions with the place horse chasing all the way.

Both winners were said to have set a course record and both races were run on the inner turf course.

[BIG49010]

I am not trying to be snarky. CJ, but I believe Friday, not Saturday, was the first day of the 'about' distance.

The first race at the about 6 furlongs distance was race 4. It was a $40,000 maiden claimer for F & M 4-up. The winner came from way back--11th at the first call 11 1-2 lengths back, and was 6th after 4 furlongs, 4 3-4 lengths back.

In race 9, for MSW types 3-up, it was run at about 1 1-16 miles and the winner set all the fractions with the place horse chasing all the way.

Both winners were said to have set a course record and both races were run on the inner turf course.

Your correct about this, when I downloaded the charts from BRIS, those two races had negative distance of 6 furlongs, indicating they were run at about distance. This also made my program bomb out, so I figured they had done something. I must say though, at least they time the race, where Gulfstream's first race on Saturday nobody was available to do it.

[cj]

I am not trying to be snarky. CJ, but I believe Friday, not Saturday, was the first day of the 'about' distance.

The first race at the about 6 furlongs distance was race 4. It was a $40,000 maiden claimer for F & M 4-up. The winner came from way back--11th at the first call 11 1-2 lengths back, and was 6th after 4 furlongs, 4 3-4 lengths back.

In race 9, for MSW types 3-up, it was run at about 1 1-16 miles and the winner set all the fractions with the place horse chasing all the way.

Both winners were said to have set a course record and both races were run on the inner turf course.

No worries...pretty sure those races were not originally listed as "about". I think it was done after the fact.

[cj]

I must say though, at least they time the race, where Gulfstream's first race on Saturday nobody was available to do it.

Times have been added for that race.

[Robert Goren]

Then why should we bet?
Let the horsemen run against each other. for the purses that won't be there.

But a race is two thing - a distance and a time.
And too many tracks can't get either one right.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. Belmont and Trakus come with different times????
This worse than pathetic - this is incompetence.

I hope it pours rain all next weekend - that will settle this stupid new rail crap at Belmont. :D I doubt if Nick Zito could get a mile and a quarter anymore.

[HUSKER55]

the only way to get what you want is a straight track....not going to happen. How the race is run and how the horse runs determines the distance the horse ran. Take a look at the tracks that use Trakus. The length that the horse ran and the distance of the race are not the same.

between run-up, where the gate ended up at and etc it is a race.


Be grateful NYRA decided to be honest and use the term "about". I would not have gone to the trouble of changing a thing and let you wonder. :D

[1st time lasix]

[QUOTE=Tom]Then why should we bet?
Let the horsemen run against each other. ***** I'll play Jamie Ness as long as he is talking what he feeds his.....

[PhantomOnTour]

Did I see a 5f turf race carded for Friday at Belmont??

[infrontby1]

Did I see a 5f turf race carded for Friday at Belmont??
You did, as it's the first two year old race of the season in New York.

While we are on the topic of turf sprints, I truly believe because of these races being carded so frequently this meet to attract large fields, that the green is being torn apart much quicker than it usually is by the time July rolls around.

This may explain why; for the first time, turf races are now being carded 35 feet out from the rail.

[infrontby1]

And I'm surprised that the Ramsey's would enter one of their Kitten's Joy's offspring in this dash

[andtheyreoff]

You did, as it's the first two year old race of the season in New York.

Not to be pedantic, but it's the second 2yo race of the season, after the opener on Sunday. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the first 2yo race on grass anywhere in the country.

I hope it pours rain all next weekend - that will settle this stupid new rail crap at Belmont.

Oh brother. First, you hoped it rained at the Derby, then you hoped California Chrome would lose the Preakness, now you hope it rains at the Belmont (which it won't). It's not all about grudges, you know. Have fun with the big days. :ThmbUp:

[infrontby1]

Not to be pedantic, but it's the second 2yo race of the season, after the opener on Sunday. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the first 2yo race on grass anywhere in the country.



Oh brother. First, you hoped it rained at the Derby, then you hoped California Chrome would lose the Preakness, now you hope it rains at the Belmont (which it won't). It's not all about grudges, you know. Have fun with the big days. :ThmbUp:
You're correct,

Overlooked the weekend races.

[Cratos]

I don't care what distance(s) are scheduled for races except that they should NEVER be labeled as "about" distances.

We live in a "decimal world" where virtually everything can be measured to the inth decimal place.

Therefore if a race is scheduled for a non-standard racing distance the racetrack management should list the distance with a decimal metric.

[eqitec]

Surprisingly, it seems data from Euro PPs delivers the total race distance precision required. It would seem that such precision would be less important for Euro racing given their lack of fractional timing, which makes it impossible to do any pace calculations. (Someone who knows more than I about Euro racing might care to chime in.) Perhaps the Timeform people need precise distances to produce their ratings?

Using many different distances in Europe could be due to their running so many grass races on wet turf due to weather and/or on many different turf courses during short meets at courses with different configurations.

For examples, here are the different total race distance # yards which I've seen from Euro PPs for what would be reported here as "-1760" in our PPs, or "About 1Mi" in the conditions. In my software, I convert the actual Euro distances from their PPs to the "About" distances as text, as shown below:
1750 yds = 7.95F (about 1Mi)
1753 yds = 7.95F (about 1Mi)
1760 yds = 8.00F (true 1 Mi)
1764 yds = 8.02F (about 1Mi)
1773 yds = 8.06F (about 1Mi)
1775 yds = 8.07F (about 1Mi)
1782 yds = 8.10F (about 1Mi)
1791 yds = 8.14F (about 1Mi-40)
1793 yds = 8.15F (about 1Mi-40)
1800 yds = 8.18F (true 1Mi-40)
1815 yds = 8.25F (about 1Mi-40)
1819 yds = 8.27F (about 1Mi-70)
1826 yds = 8.30F (about 1Mi-70)
1830 yds = 8.31F (true 1Mi-70)
etc.

Since it seems the US is now in a new "Moisticene" era of perpetual wet weather similar to Europe, changing starting locations for grass races to preserve the courses (and hopefully reduce the # of races taken off the turf and reducing the high # of scratches) is commendable. But here, where we do have the benefit of fractional timing in our PPs, precise race distance metrics are very useful.

If anyone knows why, and/or how the Euros can accomplish this and we can't, I'd like to be enlightened.

[DJofSD]

Surprisingly, it seems data from Euro PPs delivers the total race distance precision required. It would seem that such precision would be less important for Euro racing given their lack of fractional timing, which makes it impossible to do any pace calculations. (Someone who knows more than I about Euro racing might care to chime in.) Perhaps the Timeform people need precise distances to produce their ratings?

Using many different distances in Europe could be due to their running so many grass races on wet turf due to weather and/or on many different turf courses during short meets at courses with different configurations.

For examples, here are the different total race distance # yards which I've seen from Euro PPs for what would be reported here as "-1760" in our PPs, or "About 1Mi" in the conditions. In my software, I convert the actual Euro distances from their PPs to the "About" distances as text, as shown below:
1750 yds = 7.95F (about 1Mi)
1753 yds = 7.95F (about 1Mi)
1760 yds = 8.00F (true 1 Mi)
1764 yds = 8.02F (about 1Mi)
1773 yds = 8.06F (about 1Mi)
1775 yds = 8.07F (about 1Mi)
1782 yds = 8.10F (about 1Mi)
1791 yds = 8.14F (about 1Mi-40)
1793 yds = 8.15F (about 1Mi-40)
1800 yds = 8.18F (true 1Mi-40)
1815 yds = 8.25F (about 1Mi-40)
1819 yds = 8.27F (about 1Mi-70)
1826 yds = 8.30F (about 1Mi-70)
1830 yds = 8.31F (true 1Mi-70)
etc.

Since it seems the US is now in a new "Moisticene" era of perpetual wet weather similar to Europe, changing starting locations for grass races to preserve the courses (and hopefully reduce the # of races taken off the turf and reducing the high # of scratches) is commendable. But here, where we do have the benefit of fractional timing in our PPs, precise race distance metrics are very useful.

If anyone knows why, and/or how the Euros can accomplish this and we can't, I'd like to be enlightened.
Good stuff. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and some of your programming details.

A couple of thoughts came to mind, not that they're new or terribly significant.

First, the distance of a race should be considered the minimum amount of ground which would need to be covered by an imaginary horse during a perfect, imaginary race. No bumping, altering course, running wide, being fanned out in the turn, dropping to the rail, etc. Perhaps this is what Trakus has as a fundamental assumption and is trying to use as a starting point when they offer the ground covered data.

Next, in this day, I don't understand why we do not have the measurements of the run up to the first timer or whatever. In a perfect world the distance of the race would be the usual structure we are used to but an additional data point which would be the run up distance would be given. Doing this might eliminate the so called about distance races.

OK, guys, fire away!

[Tom]

Simple answer.
They want to do it.
We do not.

If we did want it, it would be done.
It is not rocket science.

I think they realize over there that they are in the racing business.
It is not evident here that many tracks think they are.

Many HIGH SCHOOLS are much more high tech than our tracks are.
Sad.