Did Quality Road just run 6f in 106.85?

[Moyers Pond]

Wow. Has to be clock problem.

[slew101]

Imbriale just said likely an error, but they are checking. 1:13 for 6.5 furlongs?

[bigchump]

Imbriale just said likely an error, but they are checking. 1:13 for 6.5 furlongs?
If it holds up won't that be a world record?

[WinterTriangle]

Hope his feet are cool as a cucumber later tonight.

If so...........he's B-A-C-K-K-K-K-K!

[slew101]

Equibase has the time/fractions as:

22.45
44.95
1:07.22
1:13.45

[rgustafson]

If it holds up won't that be a world record?

Well, no, they have the official time at 1:13.45 or 1:13 2/5 the old way. On 5/22/2005, at Emerald Downs, the seven year old Sabertooth is credited with going 6 1/2 furlongs in 1:13 flat (no timing listed in 100's, so I assume it would have to be 1:13.19 or less) which I believe is the current world record on dirt.

[RockHardTen1985]

The third quarter was wrong but not by much.
Hes a freak.

[cj]

The final time is not accurate. It is impossible to be very accurate on the 6f call because you can't see the pole in time, but no way did he run under 1:14.

[classhandicapper]

The final time is not accurate. It is impossible to be very accurate on the 6f call because you can't see the pole in time, but no way did he run under 1:14.

Are you basing that on the times for the rest of the day and the figures that make sense for that race or another clocking?

Couldn't the track have changed speeds?

[RockHardTen1985]

you guys are crazy... the final time is correct.

[RockHardTen1985]

Are you basing that on the times for the rest of the day and the figures that make sense for that race or another clocking?

Couldn't the track have changed speeds?


You are right, he is wrong.

[cj]

You are right, he is wrong.

I clocked the race 6 times now, and have a lot of experience doing it in the past. I say it is wrong because I timed it, not having anything to do with the times of other races or past performances of the horses.

I clocked it three times initially, and I was a little quick on the trigger finger at the start the first time and knew it right away. The times I got were:

1:14.22
1:14.06
1:14.10

I've done it three more times, and get:

1:14.08
1:14.10
1:14.07

I'm very confident in my initial statement. Why am I wrong?

Further, unless you have video not available to anyone else, there is no way to get an accurate clocking of the 6f call.

[RockHardTen1985]

I have replay of race.. I am getting the time posted on DRF.com... Results...PDF Charts...


Are you implying nyra and drf are lying about the time and a track record ?

[cj]

I am saying they are mistaken. It has happened before and will happen again.

One thing my experience in such matters has taught me is that when internal fractions are wrong, 98% of the time the final time is wrong too.

[ArlJim78]

I was hoping someone would time it, because frankly I thought it was not possible. I didn't believe the sub 1:07 6F either.

Take nothing away from the horse for a fine effort, but it's not the first time that the posted times were wrong.

[cj's dad]

I have replay of race.. I am getting the time posted on DRF.com... Results...PDF Charts...


Are you implying nyra and drf are lying about the time and a track record ?

There is a world of difference between lying and being wrong. The posted time is simply not believable.

[RockHardTen1985]

5:44 pm: Dave Litfin is reporting over on The Inside Post that track officials are now saying the final time of the Amsterdam is correct and that only the six-furlong split is off -- it should have been 1:07.22 and not 1:06.85.

ok

[Space Monkey]

I am saying they are mistaken. It has happened before and will happen again.[QUOTE]

Secretariats Preakness.

[bisket]

if one of the splits are wrong chances are the time is wrong. it'll probably be corrected by tomorrow

[bisket]

they have finally relented and changed secratariates time for the preakness. i think about ten years ago they did it.

[point given]

Take a look at the charts for all the races at saratoga today. It would appear that the track sped up before the 6th race. The filly in the 6th Dance Gal Dance ran 22.1 , 44.3, 1;08.2 1;21.3 -

[joanied]

"Quality Road (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred/quality-road/2006?source=BHonline) returned to racing in fine form Aug. 3 by smashing a track record in the six and half-furlong Amsterdam Stakes (gr. II) (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/race/USA/SAR/2009/8/3/8/amsterdam-s-gr-2) (VIDEO (javascript:showVideo('sar', '20090803', 8, 'Amsterdam', 'article');)) at Saratoga Race Course. He stopped the timer in 1:13.45.

The final time caught some by surprise. Even during the simulcast feed, track announcer John Imbriale said "Ladies and gentlemen, we know Quality Road is a particularly fast 3-year-old, but I don’t think those times on the board are correct, but we’ll check it out." After a hand-timing and then another timing of the replay off the monitor, the record stood, breaking a 30-year-old mark of 1:14 2/5 set by Topsider on August 1, 1979."

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Just got the above from the Bloodhorse... ooopppsss...thunder & lightning here...big time...best shut this machine off :(

[ryesteve]

5:44 pm: Dave Litfin is reporting over on The Inside Post that track officials are now saying the final time of the Amsterdam is correct and that only the six-furlong split is off -- it should have been 1:07.22 and not 1:06.85.

ok
In other words, "I read it on the internet, so it must be true"

[depalma113]

Who the hell is hand timing for NYRA?

That race was run in 1:14

[Moyers Pond]

Who the hell is hand timing for NYRA?

That race was run in 1:14

I timed it and I think they were basically right on. There is no way it went in 114.

The track was very fast. The beyer was only a 103. So the time is right but the track was just very fast. That is usually when track records are broken.

Quality Road now has 2 track records from I guess 5 career starts. One at 9f and one at 6.5f. Pretty impressive.

[cj]

I timed it and I think they were basically right on. There is no way it went in 114.

The track was very fast. The beyer was only a 103. So the time is right but the track was just very fast. That is usually when track records are broken.

Quality Road now has 2 track records from I guess 5 career starts. One at 9f and one at 6.5f. Pretty impressive.

I'm not sure how you can justify a raw clocking by quoting the Beyer speed figure.

[Moyers Pond]

I'm not sure how you can justify a raw clocking by quoting the Beyer speed figure.

It is very easy. I used a stopwatch and the time came up just about the same as the NYRA time. Then I looked at the beyer and it shows me the track was playing very fast. The beyer just confirms my stopwatch time. It says that the track was playing fast and that may have had a lot to do with why the time was so quick.

Do you really think you know how to clock a race better than professionals? It seems many who hand timed it got the same time as the pros.

It seems you do not like the horse or you do not like admitting you were wrong.

There really is no way of time the race correctly and not coming up with a sub 114 number. If you do than you do not know how to time races.

I leave it to the pros though and they said NTR.

This horse already has a 9f track record at Gulfstream so it should be no shock he set another one yesterday. He is very fast. I hope he runs in the 9f Woodward. I bet he could break that record too.

[g dunn]

I timed it and I think they were basically right on. There is no way it went in 114.

The track was very fast. The beyer was only a 103. So the time is right but the track was just very fast. That is usually when track records are broken.

Quality Road now has 2 track records from I guess 5 career starts. One at 9f and one at 6.5f. Pretty impressive.
THE GULFSTREAM TRACK WAS RoCK HARD and the toga was wet ...every race he is in from here on out i am betting 2-3 horses for third ..the freak is always drifting he will get taken down within his next 3 races I am hoping in the breeders ..$50 show prices...

[depalma113]

I timed it and I think they were basically right on. There is no way it went in 114.

The track was very fast. The beyer was only a 103. So the time is right but the track was just very fast. That is usually when track records are broken.

Quality Road now has 2 track records from I guess 5 career starts. One at 9f and one at 6.5f. Pretty impressive.

Just curious, which pole are you starting your hand timing of the race at, the black and white one or the maroon and yellow?

[Stevie Belmont]

I don't care what anyone says, I still think he won the Derby...

[cj]

It is very easy. I used a stopwatch and the time came up just about the same as the NYRA time. Then I looked at the beyer and it shows me the track was playing very fast. The beyer just confirms my stopwatch time. It says that the track was playing fast and that may have had a lot to do with why the time was so quick.

Do you really think you know how to clock a race better than professionals? It seems many who hand timed it got the same time as the pros.

It seems you do not like the horse or you do not like admitting you were wrong.

There really is no way of time the race correctly and not coming up with a sub 114 number. If you do than you do not know how to time races.

I leave it to the pros though and they said NTR.

This horse already has a 9f track record at Gulfstream so it should be no shock he set another one yesterday. He is very fast. I hope he runs in the 9f Woodward. I bet he could break that record too.

Wow, talk about a monumental leap? I don't like the horse? I think he is great, and thought he was a lock in the Derby before he was hurt.

Yes, I do think I know how to time a race just as well as the professionals, whatever that means. Who are these so called professionals? Do you think they know more about times, pace and speed figures than I do? I don't. Probably sounds vain, but I truly believe that.

If you start out at the right pole you get just over 1:14. One thing is certain, the fractions are off for sure...way, way off. I would not want to credit a horse with a track record on a race where the timer malfunctioned.

Something is amiss. As DrugS posted, the times for all the 6.5f races the last few years look suspect. Maybe the distance is off a bit, I don't know. But I certainly know how to run a stopwatch and get a reasonably accurate time.

[speed]

I still say there is no way the third quarter was run in 22.2 so if the final time is correct the internal fractions have to be wrong.

[joanied]

So...did he or didn't he break the record :confused:

If Rachel has to run with QR, she will be truly tested...IMO, she'll pass with flying colors....but, no doubt, QR is a monster!!

[proximity]

the acuity of beyerguy's stopwatch clicking skills aside, it is ridiculous that we're still having these problems at the planet's premier track in the year 2009..... 16 years after the publication of beyer on speed!!:eek:

[depalma113]

It is very easy. I used a stopwatch and the time came up just about the same as the NYRA time. Then I looked at the beyer and it shows me the track was playing very fast. The beyer just confirms my stopwatch time. It says that the track was playing fast and that may have had a lot to do with why the time was so quick.

Do you really think you know how to clock a race better than professionals? It seems many who hand timed it got the same time as the pros.

It seems you do not like the horse or you do not like admitting you were wrong.

There really is no way of time the race correctly and not coming up with a sub 114 number. If you do than you do not know how to time races.

I leave it to the pros though and they said NTR.

This horse already has a 9f track record at Gulfstream so it should be no shock he set another one yesterday. He is very fast. I hope he runs in the 9f Woodward. I bet he could break that record too.

This is hilarious!

The Beyer is a 103 because they are basing it on Randy Moss's video timing of the race at 1:14.70.

I guess the Andy Beyer and ESPN's Randy Moss don't know how to time a race like CJ or myself either.

Which pros should we leave it to now? You?

[slewis]

This is hilarious!

The Beyer is a 103 because they are basing it on Randy Moss's video timing of the race at 1:14.70.

I guess the Andy Beyer and ESPN's Randy Moss don't know how to time a race like CJ or myself either.

Which pros should we leave it to now? You?

I posted earlier that Im not an expert on video but the way it was explained to me is that something could be lost in the REPLAY of one's video equipment
(which is what you would be running your time tests on).


Also, to assure accuracy, one needs to record the race IN REAL TIME, not a recording of a video replay.

If Moss obtained an industry standard recording of the original video on the professional equipment that TV guys use, that would break that race down to hundredth's of a second and they could freeze the video at various points of the race and get splits.

They could slo-mo the frames precisiely and get the most accurate times.
I was able to do this 5 yrs ago with software that cost $1500.00.
What Moss has access to might be state of the art that costs 10x (or more) that amount.

Im not saying Moss is correct, nor that you and CJ are wrong because I believe you guys have the closest accurate way of getting the time, but if those guys timed it on top video equipt. and they are being honest, they would be more accurate than anyone.

[ryesteve]

They could slo-mo the frames precisiely and get the most accurate times.Why would you need to do that? As long as you know your frame rate, just count the frames. You don't even need a stopwatch.

[proximity]

I posted earlier that Im not an expert on video but the way it was explained to me is that something could be lost in the REPLAY of one's video equipment
(which is what you would be running your time tests on).


Also, to assure accuracy, one needs to record the race IN REAL TIME, not a recording of a video replay.
.

slewis,

for races at the same track anyhow, did you find that such discrepancies (as a percentage of the total race) were consistent from race to race? or did they vary by distance or surface? or did they tend to be totally random?

beyer figure aside, i wonder what final time will end up showing in the drf when the horses run back?

[cj]

I posted earlier that Im not an expert on video but the way it was explained to me is that something could be lost in the REPLAY of one's video equipment
(which is what you would be running your time tests on).


Also, to assure accuracy, one needs to record the race IN REAL TIME, not a recording of a video replay.

If Moss obtained an industry standard recording of the original video on the professional equipment that TV guys use, that would break that race down to hundredth's of a second and they could freeze the video at various points of the race and get splits.

They could slo-mo the frames precisiely and get the most accurate times.
I was able to do this 5 yrs ago with software that cost $1500.00.
What Moss has access to might be state of the art that costs 10x (or more) that amount.

Im not saying Moss is correct, nor that you and CJ are wrong because I believe you guys have the closest accurate way of getting the time, but if those guys timed it on top video equipt. and they are being honest, they would be more accurate than anyone.

All of this is true, but I still come very very close to the actual clockings for most other races manually. Something just isn't right here.

[slewis]

slewis,

for races at the same track anyhow, did you find that such discrepancies (as a percentage of the total race) were consistent from race to race? or did they vary by distance or surface? or did they tend to be totally random?

beyer figure aside, i wonder what final time will end up showing in the drf when the horses run back?

My findings were that the turf times were occasionally way off.
This would occur more often when the temp rails were up.

It still wasn't worth all the video work I was doing to get an occasional edge.

For the most part I think the timing of dirt races is very accurate, and turf races so-so.... but the turf race splits can often be amusing.

Also, I still insist (although I dont know for certain) that the Belmont 6F distances are not really 6F for the turf. Id say they are 40-60 feet shy.

As long as they are consistant, Im fine with it.

[depalma113]

I posted earlier that Im not an expert on video but the way it was explained to me is that something could be lost in the REPLAY of one's video equipment
(which is what you would be running your time tests on).


Also, to assure accuracy, one needs to record the race IN REAL TIME, not a recording of a video replay.

If Moss obtained an industry standard recording of the original video on the professional equipment that TV guys use, that would break that race down to hundredth's of a second and they could freeze the video at various points of the race and get splits.

They could slo-mo the frames precisiely and get the most accurate times.
I was able to do this 5 yrs ago with software that cost $1500.00.
What Moss has access to might be state of the art that costs 10x (or more) that amount.

Im not saying Moss is correct, nor that you and CJ are wrong because I believe you guys have the closest accurate way of getting the time, but if those guys timed it on top video equipt. and they are being honest, they would be more accurate than anyone.

Well, I am an expert on video. I'm a television producer. The video is in 30 frames per second. All one has to do is zero the control track at the trip wire and stop it at the finish line.

The minute and seconds we'll be correct and than all one has to do is multiple the number of frames times .033 and it will give you as precise a time as one can possibly get for the fraction of a second.

With digital recording, you no longer have to worry about slipping. So if you record it on a DVR and than put it into a computer editor, the time will be as accurate the original race.

[Moyers Pond]

Well they have fixed the time to basically what everyone was saying. Just under 114. Still a track record. Not that bad off a layoff like that. This horse should chase Rachel to either the Travers or Woodward. He is probably the only horse fast enough on dirt to beat her. I actually think the one with the better trip wins but I think he beats her at 10f regardless of trip.

[Bruddah]

While splitting hairs on the time of the race, you guys are missing the pertinent question. How does the running of this race effect the outcome of the Travers?

The Travers will be the BEST race of the year. You have two speed balls proven to carry their speed at least 1 1/8m. Each untested going 1 1/4m. One, Quality Road with one race under his belt on a comeback trail and the other, Rachel A., possibly having reached a peak after a long campaign.

Personally, I think the Travers sets up perfectly for one of the Birds to steal the race. Most likely Summer Bird.

I have to admit, I love all four of these horses and hate to see any of them lose. They are all great for the Sport. But, I am going large on Summer Bird to win the Travers. I think the race shapes up for him and his style of running. Plus, he should improve off his last race.

$500 win-plc on Summer Bird ( actual bet,if he stays healthy and starts)

[Moyers Pond]

While splitting hairs on the time of the race, you guys are missing the pertinent question. How does the running of this race effect the outcome of the Travers?

The Travers will be the BEST race of the year. You have two speed balls proven to carry their speed at least 1 1/8m. Each untested going 1 1/4m. One, Quality Road with one race under his belt on a comeback trail and the other, Rachel A., possibly having reached a peak after a long campaign.

Personally, I think the Travers sets up perfectly for one of the Birds to steal the race. Most likely Summer Bird.

I have to admit, I love all four of these horses and hate to see any of them lose. They are all great for the Sport. But, I am going large on Summer Bird to win the Travers. I think the race shapes up for him and his style of running. Plus, he should improve off his last race.

$500 win-plc on Summer Bird ( actual bet,if he stays healthy and starts)

Rachel is not running in the Travers. Kensai will run and if Quality Road does not run in that race I think Kensai will be a deserving favorite.

Jackson will not run Rachel against Kensai because Kensai needs to win a grade 1 for his stallion career.

The Woodward would be a great spot though for Rachel and Quality Road because of the distance of 9f. Both have already proven they are very fast running 9f.

[FantasticDan]

Well they have fixed the time to basically what everyone was saying. Just under 114. Still a track record.
Here's the article on the updated time and Beyer:

http://www.drf.com/news/article/106120.html

[JWBurnie]

Something I've never understood... why don't they use similar technology as NASCAR? If there was a chip in every horses sadle, as well one on every pole, this issue would never come up again. Exact times, every time. Thoughts?

[depalma113]

Here's the article on the updated time and Beyer:

http://www.drf.com/news/article/106120.html


It's still wrong. That race was not run under 1:14

[FenceBored]

Something I've never understood... why don't they use similar technology as NASCAR? If there was a chip in every horses sadle, as well one on every pole, this issue would never come up again. Exact times, every time. Thoughts?

TRAKUS (http://www.trakus.com/) as seen at Del Mar, Keeneland, and Woodbine.

[Bruddah]

Rachel is not running in the Travers. Kensai will run and if Quality Road does not run in that race I think Kensai will be a deserving favorite.

Jackson will not run Rachel against Kensai because Kensai needs to win a grade 1 for his stallion career.

The Woodward would be a great spot though for Rachel and Quality Road because of the distance of 9f. Both have already proven they are very fast running 9f.


Sorry...my bad. I had forgotten Kensai and Rachel were both from the same barn.

Well at least we stopped splitting hairs for a little while. :lol:

[JWBurnie]

TRAKUS (http://www.trakus.com/) as seen at Del Mar, Keeneland, and Woodbine.

I know what you're speaking of, but I don't follow any poly tracks (I don't have HRTV or TVG). Honest question... is Trakus capable of providing exact splits for all horses in every race? I'm sure it's not published information but are the times being recorded and maintained? In addition, do these tracks ever have issues with the splits / final time? Thanks.

[Rocklane]

Something I've never understood... why don't they use similar technology as NASCAR? If there was a chip in every horses sadle, as well one on every pole, this issue would never come up again. Exact times, every time. Thoughts?


Wouldn't they have to put the chip in the nose? I don't know...just a thought.

[PaceAdvantage]

This just puts the whole thing in question:

The timer malfunctioned during the running of the Amsterdam which required the race to be hand-timed. That was done by Steven Foster, the official timer for NYRA, who was one of the clockers that re-timed the race on Wednesday.

[proximity]

All of this is true, but I still come very very close to the actual clockings for most other races manually. Something just isn't right here.

did they even clock the other races with their backup system and see if there were any consistent discrepancies? nyra should send you a paycheck since you seem to be doing more detailed work on this than their entire staff combined!!

[proximity]

Here's the article on the updated time and Beyer:

http://www.drf.com/news/article/106120.html

i recall len ragozin (in his book) chiding beyer and hopkins for being too lazy to click a stopwatch during the gp timing debacles of the mid 90s.

i guess not much has changed.