Apparently, Arlington has rented the Gulfstream timer

[PaceAdvantage]

Too late buddy...I'm too quick for you NJ...

[cj]

I really didn't think it was a big deal. I just didn't see the point of posting a copy of a message from another board. If that makes me an ass, so be it I guess.

[cj]

Well, if anything, the timer is getting worse. I'm seeing more and more missing times, and a few reported times that are wrong.

[jdhanover]

Remind me next week to ask Arlington folks about the timer issue(s).

Rather than get on each other's case...let's see if we can help make a positive change.

[Jeff P]

I disagree with the "kid gloves" approach. It's been tried by the data vendors and Equibase - and it's not working.

What you don't know is that data vendors (like HDW) are constantly finding mistimed races. In turn, they bring those mistimed races to the attention of Equibase.

Equibase, in turn, is constantly going to track management (and not just Arlington) about mistimed races.

As a result, the races in question (days later) are given a second look (from video) and (where possible) revised charts are cut.

This is an ongoing problem (and not just for Arlington.)

Someone needs to take the gloves off and "thwack" track management across the top of the head - because clearly track management (and this includes Arlington but is not limited to Arlington) has so far failed to take the problem seriously enough to address it.


-jp

.

[Tom]

Maybe the tracks need to be told that we will withhold all wagers from them until they start operating like professionals and not amateurs.

Tracks like Arlington need to classified as "not betable."

[cj]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

I disagree with the "kid gloves" approach. It's been tried by the data vendors and Equibase - and it's not working.

What you don't know is that data vendors (like HDW) are constantly finding mistimed races. In turn, they bring those mistimed races to the attention of Equibase.

Equibase does a good job and are very helpful as you know. In the end, it is their job to report data, not to time races.

What Jeff says is 100% correct about mistimed races. It way worse these days than most people would imagine. This goes for fractional and final times. It is so common I've built safeguards into all my programs and I think I catch nearly all the phony times, but it is still ridiculous that this happens in 2012. This is one area where Equibase could improve, their safeguards are a bit too liberal in my opinion.

[cj]

Well, at least now we know it isn't just a turf race issue. Rubber races are missing fractions left and right these days. Nice track.

[ArlJim78]

Dave Zenner (dzenner@arlingtonpark.com) of the Arlington marketing department was good enough to sit down with us to talk about the timer issues they have experienced this year. He prefaced his comments by saying that none of this is acceptable and they do not want this to be viewed as merely excuses. I took some notes on the back of my racing form but then left my form at the track so I’m going from memory. If anyone feels like they want to clarify any of this feel free to contact Dave directly.

The main problem happened earlier in the meet when their machine which processes the signals from the timer eyes on the turf course failed. Only the turf signals were affected. The scramble to get it up and running again didn’t go very well. The technicians recommended replacing the motherboard. That didn’t work. They shipped in another motherboard, still didn’twork. Then they decided to replace the entire machine. Once the new machine was installed the problem went away and it functioned normally again.

The problem is that this whole process took approximately two weeks. During that time the turf races were hand timed, and the fractions were manually tripped. They had people looking through binoculars upstairs and tripping the fractional timer when they saw the horses pass the particular timer position. I think it’s easy to envision how this manual backup timing system would be very susceptible to errors, given the number of turf lanes and various timer positions.

Dave also recounted two other instances where faulty internal communication procedures resulted in some bad data getting out. Again these were both turf related.

One day the turf course was scheduled to go in lane 5 which was communicated via emails to those who need to know. However sometime that morning a decision was made on the ground to run in lane 4 rather than 5 given that lane 5 was too beat up. This late lane change was not confirmed or communicated properly through channels. So while horses were running in lane 4 they were collecting the times off of the lane 5 timer eyes. So basically the three turf races run that day had incorrect numbers.

Then on another day a 5.5 furlong turf race was improperly scheduled for lane one, which as I understand it based on the course configuration should never have happened. The time reported was not even close, and I believe that equibase didn’t even accept it.

Dave said that they have reviewed their internal procedures and made the necessary changes to prevent these types of problems from recurring.

Yesterday I followed up with Dave regarding that last comment left by cj regarding the main track. He wasn't aware of any problems but did check with their timer. The response is that other than one race which had some kind of timer malfunction or a faulty fractional trip, they weren't aware of any main track issues with the timing. Again, Dave can be reached directly for further clarification.

Finally, my personal observation is that what was said here earlier that tracks take this stuff too lightly is probably true. What they really need is to adopt quality control principles like we have to do in my industry. Quality audits, corrective action reports, etc. Tracks should have their own data review processes in place and reliable backup systems. Their goal should be to validate their data before passing it on to other parties. The reliability of they data that they they pass on should be much higher imo.

[jdhanover]

Thanks, Jim for posting this so that everyone could benefit from the explanation. I can also tell you that in 3 differnet conversations Dave was very clear that none of it was excusable, but it was explainable.

One slight, but important correction - the races were NEVER manually timed. The electronic eyes were manually activated. In other words, once the horse passed the first eye, a person manually activated the next one which then read the horses tripping it electronically. That automatic flipping of the next eye was what the machine was supposed to do but failed to do so.

[ArlJim78]

Thanks for the correction Jon, that is an important point. I would have liked to have had more time to clarify that stuff more precisely, but with everything else going on around us it was hard. Plus the fact I forgot my notes didn't help either.

[Steve 'StatMan']

A Big Thank You to Dave Zenner of AP for sharing this information!

[Valuist]

For grass racing, trip notes supercede figs. Between AP and GP, the best thing to do is to watch the races/replays and make your own visual observations. Field strung out or boxed together?

I noticed a big timer discrepancy the other day for a Churchill race. It was a 7f race in early June and Formulator had very slow fractions; :25 and change and :49 yet when I looked on Equibase, it showed :22 and change and :45 and change; much more believable fractions.

[jdhanover]

One other thing Dave noted is that NO timer system is fail-safe (unfortunately). He said if a timer trips prematurely for whatever reason and there is still 6 or more seconds until they get to that timer, then they usually can reset the timer to get the right time. But if it trips very close to when the horses get there then there is no way to reset it in time. In theory if it trips close to the time the horses get ther (say a half-second early) it is possible it wont even be noticed.
Lots of things can trip the timers apparently as it is not an unusual occurrence.

[davew]

I wish time of races started when gates open rather than when the first horse passed the electronic eye a little ways up the track - some horses are already 3 lengths behind.

I understand the desire to be able to have the starting gate at variable locations for the same location, especially for turf races as I imagine the original surges at thst start are probably rough on the turf.