Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
Andy,
Yes.
There IS a reason for renaming/branding a meet.
And there ARE a lot of moving parts.
If a track wants to brand their meet and make it stick out by giving it a catch phrase name:
GO for it!
But keep in mind the data is one of those moving parts too.
Imo, when a track asks Equibase to brand an upcoming meet a certain way:
They should also ask Equibase to not break the data.
And Equibase should strongly (and quietly behind the scenes) suggest to track management that they be allowed to get the data right if that doesn't happen.
Imo, that means:
The rebranded track name can and should be front and center when Entries are drawn, on the front page of the DRF, on Track Programs, on TV, and on Track Video.
But the data itself (data file names, result file names, running lines, workouts, and compiled stats) should bear/be based on a permanent track code where the races are run.
The only valid reason to change an existing track code would be if a track is torn down, the track surface(s) are removed, or moved to a slightly different location, and then rebuilt (such as Belterra which was essentially built on the same site where River Downs used to be.)
Horse Racing is a data driven business.
The first order of business:
Get the data right.
-jp
.
|
This is 100% correct of course. And I'd add that Equibase is charging a ton of money for data. You would think they would have an interest in maintaining integrity.
Let's see what happens with CD/Ellis. Equibase has been very inconsistent with stuff like this over the years. Changing track codes but not track names, changing track names but not track codes. There does not seem to be an overarching philosophy or spec that they adhere to. For a company that is the only source of this data, it's quite clownish, IMO.
