huge debut for Instagrand at Los Al

[dilanesp]

He cost $1.2 million. He looked like it.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://mobile.twitter.com/tvg/status/1012806768118804480&ved=0ahUKEwiXpOPku_rbAhUQJnwKHcJ8B3UQwqsBCDYwBw&usg=AOvVaw2ncfQFKaRMa2To5zWoHs0D

[Andy Asaro]

The second place runner ran a pretty good race. Hard to believe he finished second with that extremely wide move on turn.

[Someday Silent]

So far Instagrand has been the first two year old this summer to make me sit up and take notice. I hope that he stays sound-- you never know with these expensive babies.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/status/1013132244100272128

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/status/1013137548774952960

[papillon]

He cost $1.2 million. He looked like it.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://mobile.twitter.com/tvg/status/1012806768118804480&ved=0ahUKEwiXpOPku_rbAhUQJnwKHcJ8B3UQwqsBCDYwBw&usg=AOvVaw2ncfQFKaRMa2To5zWoHs0D

Hollendorfer said he reminds him of Shared Belief. He isn't one to gush about his horses and compare them to every great horse in history before they even hit the track, so I'd say the horse is the real deal, sort of like if Mandella said a filly reminds him of Beholder, but of course the horse is running as a two year old which is passe now, so one's mileage may vary...

[davew]

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/status/1013132244100272128

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/status/1013137548774952960

I watched the race and the times - at first the track posted 53:62 (but before crossing finish line) which was changed about 50 seconds after the finish to 56:00.

I pulled out my stopwatch and tried to hand time, and boy was I confused. Where does timing start? I looked like about 40 yards after the gate ....

if so a couple horses had a 10 yard 'penalty'

No wonder speed figures and pace figures are such an inexact art.



Why don't they start timing when the gate opens?

[Thomas Roulston]

The second place runner ran a pretty good race. Hard to believe he finished second with that extremely wide move on turn.


The last thing you want is an extremely wide move on (either) turn at Los Al - because the turns there are brutally tight!

[cj]

I watched the race and the times - at first the track posted 53:62 (but before crossing finish line) which was changed about 50 seconds after the finish to 56:00.

I pulled out my stopwatch and tried to hand time, and boy was I confused. Where does timing start? I looked like about 40 yards after the gate ....

if so a couple horses had a 10 yard 'penalty'

No wonder speed figures and pace figures are such an inexact art.



Why don't they start timing when the gate opens?

I can't tell you the why. Pat Cummings wrote a good article (https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/time-change-why-north-america-must-stop-perpetually-mistiming-races/) about run and the history. I wrote one that shows the effect (https://timeformusblog.com/2013/12/17/run-up-and-its-effect-on-final-time/). The race in question was hand timed as something tripped the beam at the finish early. I timed it via video and it looks to be accurate to me.

[jay68802]

Some objections are likely.

“It will be difficult to understand. It makes all our horses look slower.”
:lol:

I have to laugh at this, in the last few weeks horse racing has had a commissioner throw out positive drug tests. They have testified against a Act that would strengthen drug testing, and had what could be viewed as suspicious riding tactics in one of their biggest races of the year. Not to mention running two races at the wrong distance.

And they care that publishing slightly slower times will make their product look worse?

[dilanesp]

Some objections are likely.

“It will be difficult to understand. It makes all our horses look slower.”
:lol:

I have to laugh at this, in the last few weeks horse racing has had a commissioner throw out positive drug tests. They have testified against a Act that would strengthen drug testing, and had what could be viewed as suspicious riding tactics in one of their biggest races of the year. Not to mention running two races at the wrong distance.

And they care that publishing slightly slower times will make their product look worse?

It really would screw with records. Every time record has been from a running start.

EDIT: and that is the one thing Pat Cummings has no answer for. He says "I don't like track records". But fans do. And, honestly, speed figures don't accurately compare horses from different eras either. So we aren't improving history by junking track records.

I think runups should be timed and disclosed for speed figure people. But the official time should remain with the running start.

[jay68802]

It really would screw with records. Every time record has been from a running start.

In all honesty I really don't care about the records. Adjust them or let them stand, does not matter to me. Did MLB care about their old records when they started using a juiced ball?

[Thomas Roulston]

Every distance on the turf at the Fair Grounds is listed as "About" the stated distance - and presumably "about" means "more than" in every case (no way could "about 7 1/2 furlongs" on the turf be less than 7 1/2 furlongs because at that distance there is only a 480-foot run into an 814-foot turn; any shorter and it would be clearly unsafe or totally unfair to horses drawing outside posts - and the run-up for these races was 60 feet in 2018).

The only exception I know of nationwide was at the now-closed Bay Meadows, where "about 1 1/8 miles" on the turf had to have been less than a true 1 1/8 miles, unless the portable rail was set at the maximum 25 feet.

[cj]

It really would screw with records. Every time record has been from a running start.

EDIT: and that is the one thing Pat Cummings has no answer for. He says "I don't like track records". But fans do. And, honestly, speed figures don't accurately compare horses from different eras either. So we aren't improving history by junking track records.

I think runups should be timed and disclosed for speed figure people. But the official time should remain with the running start.

Nobody with any sense cares one lick about track records.

That said, nothing wrong with your suggestion. The problem now is that nobody even knows how long the run up is most of the time. The tracks tell Equibase where the gate will be place, but it isn't always accurate. The guy driving the tractor doesn't seem to care and the guys writing the charts don't adjust of the gate is place X number of feet in front or behind the reported spot.

[cj]

Every distance on the turf at the Fair Grounds is listed as "About" the stated distance - and presumably "about" means "more than" in every case (no way could "about 7 1/2 furlongs" on the turf be less than 7 1/2 furlongs because at that distance there is only a 480-foot run into an 814-foot turn; any shorter and it would be clearly unsafe or totally unfair to horses drawing outside posts - and the run-up for these races was 60 feet in 2018).

The only exception I know of nationwide was at the now-closed Bay Meadows, where "about 1 1/8 miles" on the turf had to have been less than a true 1 1/8 miles, unless the portable rail was set at the maximum 25 feet.

Woodbine runs about 1 1/8 miles on the turf and it is shorter than 9 furlongs. I'm pretty sure Gulfstream mile races on dirt are slightly less than a mile but I haven't bothered to check it out via Google Earth yet.

Fair Grounds distances are actually correct when the rail is at 0 from what I've been told. What changes is that when the rails move, they don't have extra sets of beams for the timing systems so they use the same ones no matter where the rail is. Most tracks move the starting gate closer to the finish as the rails move out, but Fair Grounds just leaves it the same regardless of rail setting.

All of this stuff is ridiculous in 2018, and for that matter it was ridiculous in 1978. The whole race should be timed, we should know the exact distance, and we should know the correct time for the whole distance and designated points during the race as well.

[dilanesp]

Nobody with any sense cares one lick about track records.

That's a very speed figure oriented answer.

There are a lot of people who love horse racing snd don't care about the accuracy of speed figures. 2:24 flat and 1:59 2/5 mean a lot to some of them.

This is like saying eliminate the bugle call because speed handicappers don't care about it.

[GMB@BP]

That's a very speed figure oriented answer.

There are a lot of people who love horse racing snd don't care about the accuracy of speed figures. 2:24 flat and 1:59 2/5 mean a lot to some of them.

This is like saying eliminate the bugle call because speed handicappers don't care about it.

Given tracks are being fiddled with so much with the surface I am not sure what a track record even matters anymore.

[cj]

That's a very speed figure oriented answer.

There are a lot of people who love horse racing snd don't care about the accuracy of speed figures. 2:24 flat and 1:59 2/5 mean a lot to some of them.

This is like saying eliminate the bugle call because speed handicappers don't care about it.

Who are these people? I've never come across any serious player that cares about raw times. Everyone knows they are more about the track than the horses. We only pretend they matter when a good horse breaks one. Nobody cares of a 10k claimer breaks a 6f track record, and claimer are all over most tracks list of record holders.

[cj]

Given tracks are being fiddled with so much with the surface I am not sure what a track record even matters anymore.

Exactly. Nobody cares that Santa Anita was super slow this year, except a few people here who mistakingly thought that meant the SoCal 3yos would stink this year, LOL.

If tracks cared about records as being meaningful, they could certainly be sure some happened any time decent horses race if that is what they want to do.

[dilanesp]

Who are these people? I've never come across any serious player that cares about raw times. Everyone knows they are more about the track than the horses. We only pretend they matter when a good horse breaks one. Nobody cares of a 10k claimer breaks a 6f track record, and claimer are all over most tracks list of record holders.

This is like saying no baseball fan cares about 73 home runs because of steroids.

[GMB@BP]

This is like saying no baseball fan cares about 73 home runs because of steroids.

They dont, at least the ones I know.

[dilanesp]

:13:They dont, at least the ones I know.

Really? If someone threatened to hit 74 it would sell a lot of tickets.

Records are important in sports. The speed figure guys arguments are "well they aren't important to ME". But lots of people are sports fans and don't care about ssbermetric statistics. So aports are under no obligation to reconfigure everything to please one segment of fans.

[cj]

:13:

Really? If someone threatened to hit 74 it would sell a lot of tickets.

Records are important in sports. The speed figure guys arguments are "well they aren't important to ME". But lots of people are sports fans and don't care about ssbermetric statistics. So aports are under no obligation to reconfigure everything to please one segment of fans.

It has nothing to do with making speed figures. I can't think of anyone I know that cares about track records. Giving better, more accurate information should matter to tracks.

[davew]

the Olympics should start timing with full speed starts -> more records

the 100 meters in under 9.0





back to horses, if a horse has a bad break and runs a 80 beyer, would that be similar to a good break and running a 85?

[GMB@BP]

the Olympics should start timing with full speed starts -> more records

the 100 meters in under 9.0





back to horses, if a horse has a bad break and runs a 80 beyer, would that be similar to a good break and running a 85?

answering that question goes along way to making money. Most people cant see past the figure regardless of extenuating circumstances.

[GMB@BP]

:13:

Really? If someone threatened to hit 74 it would sell a lot of tickets.

Records are important in sports. The speed figure guys arguments are "well they aren't important to ME". But lots of people are sports fans and don't care about ssbermetric statistics. So aports are under no obligation to reconfigure everything to please one segment of fans.

only cause Bonds is despised and people would want a more legitimate holder of that record, for whatever that means in todays day and age.

I dont think a lot of baseball people really recognize that record.

[dilanesp]

It has nothing to do with making speed figures. I can't think of anyone I know that cares about track records. Giving better, more accurate information should matter to tracks.

And I am all in favor of more information. You sbould know the runups and the full times.

But I am opposed to getting rid of run-ups, because records do matter to some horse racing fans.

[dilanesp]

only cause Bonds is despised and people would want a more legitimate holder of that record, for whatever that means in todays day and age.

I dont think a lot of baseball people really recognize that record.

Plenty of Giants fans recognize it.

[cj]

And I am all in favor of more information. You sbould know the runups and the full times.

But I am opposed to getting rid of run-ups, because records do matter to some horse racing fans.

I said in my first reply that would be fine.