Article by Beyer on Run-Ups and Class Complexity

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thespaah

I pulled this quote from the article..
7 1/2 furlongs. “Horsemen are begging for them,” track president Tim Ritvo said, “because they want to run a shorter distance [than a mile].” Because these races start close to the turn, Gulfstream employs run-ups as much as 250 feet, making 7 1/2 furlongs almost as long as a mile. (Nobody ever confused horsemen with rocket scientists.)..
I find that incredibly amusing..The math states a race of 7 1/2 F with a run up of 250 ft is just 80 ft short of a mile.
This is 15/16ths of a mile. That plus 330 ft would be.....One mile..
Just goes to show, when a piece of wrong information repeated enough times, people tend to believe it..
So the trainers believe their horse is running in a race less than a mile. Sheesh..
Anyway I don't necessarily have an issue with run ups in an of themselves. I just would like the info given to the public once the gate is set so we can handicap the distance with the run up...
Send the info to the track announcer and the television production people, make the announcement and post in a graphic on the monitors.

So what the horsemen want trumps what the customers want.

Got it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by thespaah

I pulled this quote from the article..
7 1/2 furlongs. “Horsemen are begging for them,” track president Tim Ritvo said, “because they want to run a shorter distance [than a mile].” Because these races start close to the turn, Gulfstream employs run-ups as much as 250 feet, making 7 1/2 furlongs almost as long as a mile. (Nobody ever confused horsemen with rocket scientists.)..
I find that incredibly amusing..The math states a race of 7 1/2 F with a run up of 250 ft is just 80 ft short of a mile.
This is 15/16ths of a mile. That plus 330 ft would be.....One mile..
Just goes to show, when a piece of wrong information repeated enough times, people tend to believe it..
So the trainers believe their horse is running in a race less than a mile. Sheesh..
Anyway I don't necessarily have an issue with run ups in an of themselves. I just would like the info given to the public once the gate is set so we can handicap the distance with the run up...
Send the info to the track announcer and the television production people, make the announcement and post in a graphic on the monitors.

But why have the run-ups in the first place? Because the breeders do not want us to see the real speed of the horses during the first quarter of the race?

It's really better to see the artificial measurement of 22.00...instead of seeing the REAL time of 23.6, that we would likely see if the horses were timed from the starting gate?

Maddening...IMO.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This is my answer to Beyer's last question in the article:

No. The game will not do anything just because the public wants it. The other entities in the game are entitled to the pursuit of profit...so their wishes must be first and foremost in the game's mind. The public is in the game merely for entertainment...so their wishes can safely be pushed to the background.

After all -- as renowned trainer Bob Baffert has already stated -- the gamblers can always move on to some other gambling game if they don't find what they like in horse racing. The horsemen and the track operators, on the other hand, are "stuck" in this game...so the game should cater to them.

Why should the Bafferts of the world have to put their lifestyles in jeopardy during uncertain times...when the risk can easily be carried by the horseplayers?

What Baffert ignores is the possibility of so few placing wagers, the purses are adversely affected by the lack of takeout revenue.
Then of course the horsemen will start screaming for subsidies( slots, casinos, taxpayer) to fund purses.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Valento

This is backwards. If gamblers can move on and horseman are stuck, you'd think the track operators would cater to the player, not the horsemen.

This is one of the best posts i've read in a while, spot on V!

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

But why have the run-ups in the first place? Because the breeders do not want us to see the real speed of the horses during the first quarter of the race?

It's really better to see the artificial measurement of 22.00...instead of seeing the REAL time of 23.6, that we would likely see if the horses were timed from the starting gate?

Maddening...IMO.

Run ups are not for the sole purpose of a run up. This is done for track maintenance purposes.
That is to my knowledge

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

But why have the run-ups in the first place? Because the breeders do not want us to see the real speed of the horses during the first quarter of the race?

It's really better to see the artificial measurement of 22.00...instead of seeing the REAL time of 23.6, that we would likely see if the horses were timed from the starting gate?

Maddening...IMO.

If I am following your logic properly...
This is where Trackus is an excellent tool.
One can go to the site and see exactly to the foot how much distance each entry covered during a race.
Obviously, not all tracks have this. I believe in the not too distant future, Trackus will gain wide appeal.
The other issue is the technology installed at the tracks themselves. The timing devices are not movable. The starting gate obviously is. So there would be no accurate way to time the race because a fixed start point is not used.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by cj

As for the race conditions, the Meadowlands has simplified them greatly for its harness races, and it is paying big dividends.

We need bigger fields, which would happen with less conditions. Let trainers explain to owners why the horses are not running. Why, for example, do we have claiming races for male and female horses? Why not combine them? Just run a 10k claiming race, and the rule could be it costs 50% extra to claim a female. (I realize 50% might not be the right number, just an example)

The same goes for conditioned claimers. No more NW2 lifetime, NW3 lifetime, etc. Just boost the claiming price. If a race is a 10k claimer, a horse that fits NW2 costs 20k, NW3 15k, etc. You could also build in weight concessions. But lets force more horse to run against each other.

I know I'll hear a bunch of reasons why you can't do this, but my answer will always be of course you can, if you really want to do it. There are always reasons NOT to do something, but that doesn't make the status quo the best path.

Actually Yonkers Roosevelt and Monticello used classified race conditions. Then switched to conditioned.
Also, harness claiming races sometimes include female and male horses. The claiming prices were higher for the females or they drew for the inside post positions.
And, if there were say, 3, 4 and 5 year old claiming races, the younger horses claiming prices were higher.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by Valento

This is backwards. If gamblers can move on and horseman are stuck, you'd think the track operators would cater to the player, not the horsemen.

You would think so, seeing that most businesses that survive and thrive are operated in that manner. The conditions now are maddening. I saw the new people asking about that in another thread, Optional Allowance, claiming 25000NX1...when the cock crows twice, during a full moon and the barn dog lifts his left leg to take piss, all grey horses are eligible....... that's real encouraging to someone trying to learn...it attracts all kinds of new business and is greatly appreciated by your regular customers????

[cj]

Originally Posted by thespaah

If I am following your logic properly...
This is where Trackus is an excellent tool.
One can go to the site and see exactly to the foot how much distance each entry covered during a race.
Obviously, not all tracks have this. I believe in the not too distant future, Trackus will gain wide appeal.
The other issue is the technology installed at the tracks themselves. The timing devices are not movable. The starting gate obviously is. So there would be no accurate way to time the race because a fixed start point is not used.

But, Trakus doesn't provide this info. The time and distance of the run up is removed. They have it, but it isn't public.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I thought this was a terrific one because both conversations came up here recently.

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer...layers-balance

The article was well written as usual by Beyer, but his conclusions on run-ups and timing is faulty.

[pandy]

In what way?

Someone wrote on here that run ups don't relate to a faster first quarter. I know in harness racing they do. It's just like racing out of a chute. The longer the straight distance a horse has to run until it hits a turn, the faster the first quarter.

[speed]

Originally Posted by pandy

In what way?

Someone wrote on here that run ups don't relate to a faster first quarter. I know in harness racing they do. It's just like racing out of a chute. The longer the straight distance a horse has to run until it hits a turn, the faster the first quarter.

You know they do. Anyone not believing that they do, compare Churchill 6 Furlong races with their 6 1/2 furlong opening quarter times.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by cj

But, Trakus doesn't provide this info. The time and distance of the run up is removed. They have it, but it isn't public.

Trackus data provided is truncated with the run up portion deleted?
That is stupid!

[cj]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Trackus data provided is truncated with the run up portion deleted?
That is stupid!

Yes.

[cj]

Originally Posted by pandy

In what way?

Someone wrote on here that run ups don't relate to a faster first quarter. I know in harness racing they do. It's just like racing out of a chute. The longer the straight distance a horse has to run until it hits a turn, the faster the first quarter.

Of course the longer the run up (to a point) the faster the first fraction can be. It won't always be of course, depends on other factors as well.