"About" Time for a Change at Gulfstream Park
 

read the other day at Equibase race day changes for GP .... "distance 7 1/2 furlongs changed to about 7 1/2 furlongs"
LOL

Next they'll be running on about dirt at about half past 10.

about 4 year olds and up, approximately colts and geldings?

How about "about turf"
That course looks pretty bad for so early in the season.

I'm glad someone else saw this. It seems this course is really chewed up they are getting some rain now and expect showers over the next few days. I am sure the rail will be moved so they can have some new grass but no one knows when that will occur.

It feels like many of the tracks tend to underestimate their audience. Maybe they are correct that the overwhelming percentage of horse players are totally unaware of these issues, but the ones that are make a lot of noise and probably tend to bet more.

LOL, very true.

The racing secretary writes the conditions of the race, and in the conditions the distance the race is to be run is specified. In the case of the 7.5f turf races at Gulfstream the term "about" is used, or not used. The racing secretary does not know when he or she writes the conditions of a turf race, what the configuration of the turf course is going to be. Wear and tear on the course is going to vary depending on weather. The track maintenance crew is constantly changing where the rails are to prevent over use and for the safety of the horses and jockeys that are running on it. But on the day the race is run, that crew has a plan, with the rails in place, and so the distance and run-up of the race can be measured. So when the racing secretary writes "about" in the conditions it really does not matter. What matters is on the day the race is run, the real distance and run-up can be reported, but is not.

Equibase is the "official" data provider for horse racing. Equibase is responsible for the information provided to the public, and it's accuracy. The reporting or in this case miss-reporting of the distance, and run-up's of the races is entirely their problem. If Equibase needs to have one more person at Gulfstream to be able to collect the correct data, that is what needs to be done. It does not matter how they collect the information. what matters is that they collect accurate information and report it. Does it matter that the original conditions were wrote for 7.5f and because of the track set up today, the distance is really a mile? No, what matters is that the run-up and distance changes are reported to the public before the race is run.

Trackus is another part of this, they provide the "official" times for the races. This is probably the simplest part of the problem. As official timer your job is to accurately time the race. That's it, time the race. We have been timing races and other things for hundreds of years now. We have the technology to do this. Yes, the different lay outs of the turf course's can cause minor problems, but once the real lay out has been learned, you have to do your part also.

So, in the end, Equibase and Trackus, need to get together and figure out a way, to solve this problem. Gulfstream Park should not think that because they only write the conditions that they are not part of this. Because the way these two companies are reporting the information that they collect, it is perceived that your product is not to be trusted.

How is it that somebody complaining of "about" offers data which is nowhere near to being accurate while he chides a racing association for sticking with "about" so said association doesn't have to be precise?


... only in the minds of those who have no understanding as to the definition of "about".


The first thing to do is to report data which would fit within the generous swath covered by "about", and then, when your own data is accurate, that's the time to critique others.

Although, in this specific case, your data should be precise before you grumble about somebody else who does not pretend to be precise.

C'mon, you cited a finite window of time (regardless of what you meant by "from 2009..."). You regard yourself as a horse racing official, and these horseplayers deserve better from you.

Try being coherent instead of just being a dick. If anyone can figure out what this means please let me know.

Whatever the exact number of 7 1/2 furlong races, haven't Gulfstream's timer issues been documented for many years now? What possible reason could there be to defend Gulfstream on this? Their lack of interest in accuracy is a fact at this point.

Doesn't name calling result in demerits? Or is this an "about" situation?

Moderators are allowed to follow the NYPD Blue rule when it comes to language, PA instituted that a long time ago. We get a little discretion. :) That said if PA wants to give me one I'm ok with it.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/On-T...ain1/#comments

Excerpt:

Try as it might, it is clear that Gulfstream Park has proven incapable of supplying accurate turf times on a consistent basis, especially at the hybrid distance of 7-1/2 furlongs, according to a well-researched piece authored by TimeformUS figure maker, Craig Milkowski.

Issues at the heart of the concern are the placement and replacement of timing poles with respect to the use of temporary rails; the wide variance of run-up distances prior to the start and the accuracy of the distance itself since Gulfstream has recently employed the term “about” that could cover-up any potential inaccuracies.

We have requested an interview with Gulfstream upper management to discuss the process of collecting the turf times that are a matter of public record via the auspices of past performances data collection by Equibase, a Jockey Club subsidiary.

Can't wait to hear what they say.....:rolleyes: