Another example of tracks not caring about bettors

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by Rook

Here are the worst offenders with at least 20 such races in 2009:
AQU 50
BEL 44
BEU 45
CD 25
CRC 25
CT 23
DEL 28
EMD 26
GG 153
GP 21
HAW 39
HOL 38
HST 24
LRL 52
MTH 36
NP 25
PHA 70
PID 20
PRM 26
RD 40
SA 39
TP 30
TUP 27

Any way you can convert this list into percentage of total races at the track?

[NYPlayer]

Originally Posted by cj

Beginning Monday, I'm going to compile a list of all the tracks doing stupid things with their races. Be it running distances with no times, or fraudulent times, or running silly distances when their are other similar distances available. I'm going to write the tracks and see what kind of responses I get and I will post the answers.

I imagine I'll get that Don Quixote feeling, but what the hell.

You may as well be tilting at windmills.

Ever thought of hand-timing the races from the replays? It would certainly be a better use of your time.

[cj]

Originally Posted by NYPlayer

You may as well be tilting at windmills.

Ever thought of hand-timing the races from the replays? It would certainly be a better use of your time.

I just don't have that kind of time. Maybe some bad publicity will help.

[Rook]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

Any way you can convert this list into percentage of total races at the track?

Sure,
Here they are sorted from worst to best:
GG17.4% MTH13.2% ARP12.5% BEL12.5% LRL11.2% HST10.9% RD10.4%HOL10.2% HAW10.0% NP9.9% DEL9.0% BEU8.8% PIM8.8% PHA7.7% AQU7.7%PRM7.4% ASD7.3% EMD7.3% PID7.0% CNL7.0% CD6.3% KEE6.3% CBY6.1% CRC6.1% SA6.1% PM5.6% TP5.2% AP5.1% FL3.8% TUP3.7% RUI3.6% FP3.5%GP3.1% FG2.9% IND2.6% FE2.5% CT2.3% WO2.3% PEN2.2% OP2.0% LS2.0%LA1.9% MNR1.5% SRP1.2% SUN0.9% SUF0.9% DED0.8% LAD0.8% TDN0.8%YAV0.8% FON0.6% EVD0.6% WRD0.6% RET0.4% TAM0.4%

[johnhannibalsmith]

Having just joined in recently and read this thread, and now backtracking a few pages - from the perspective of someone that (among many things) has done tele-timing:

There is little to no excuse for unpublished fractional times. Equibase should always be provided with fractional times, even if those times do not readily appear as part of the 'live' graphics. There can always be tele-timing malfunctions or graphics display problems that cause for some information to be disseminated incorrectly or incompletely (or not at all), but that information should never be omitted from the final charts due to the (human) timer's lack of effort.

Occassionally, Equibase will decide against publishing fractional times that, in their estimation, can not be accurate or are compromised to such a degree as to be considered unreliable. Legitimate reasons - such as heavy winds that create severe tailwinds, headwinds, or cross winds or track conditions that implore riding in an otherwise illogical manner when those circumatances cannot be conveyed in a meaningful way in chart form - jump to mind.

As for missing internals on specific distances - If it is a consistent, regular (more than a few days) problem, then the track, in my opinion, needs to hire a (human) timer that can clock those intervals accurately.

A tele-timer is an infallible machine that relies on light sensors, essentially reflectors that trip when the beam is crossed, much like those nifty Hollywood spy film infrared security beams that Tom Cruise deftly avoids in whatever movie he is in this month.

The sensors and beams are usually well maintained, but can easily become misaligned due to weather or other circumstances. They can be prematurely tripped by birds, rain, droplets from water trucks, an obscure angle of the sun - you name it. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Obviously, most places have people that can readily repair a malfunctioning or damaged cell (the sensor that 'reads' beam), but occassionally they won't, or the required electrical components simply are not 'at hand'. Sometimes the wiring just goes batty and the whole thing needs to be reworked.

The other important aspect to consider is that tele-timers work much like a circuit. The cells must be tripped in a proper sequence for it to work at all, which is actually a safe guard. For example, for a six furlong race, the computer is told to tele-time a six furlong race by the operator.

The computer then views the race as five unique events, START (6f pole), 1/4 (half pole), 1/2 (quarter pole), 5/8 (eighth pole), and FINISH (finish pole). The cells at each pole must be working properly for the tele-timer to accurately time the race.

If the 'START' pole works and the half-mile pole works, but surprisingly, the cell at the quarter pole is dead - what you will see is simply a quarter mile fraction and then - nothing! It will never register a half-mile split and simply continue to run until something, (usually a water truck nine minutes later) finally trips the next cell in the sequence, which is still after all of this time, the broken quarter pole cell.

So, often, if a track is aware that a cell is malfunctioning, they may choose to simply override the internal splits and simply use START and FINISH as the lone cells in the sequence, to ensure that the actual time of the race is in fact accurately tele-timed.

Other tracks may elect to manually input the internal (missing) split by changing that specific cell to gather information from a 'manual punch' by the operator as opposed to the mechanical (malfunctioning) cell itself.

Tracks vary on their protocol - but most places are adamant that any race considered 'hand timed', which includes a race in which the sequence is interrupted by a 'manual punch', is an 'illegitimate time' - and can not be relied upon as accurate, particularly for important data such as track records.

So, that may account for those tracks that prefer to 'tele-time' accurately, but without internals. The solution is to fix the tele-timing cells promptly and if you don't have a cell for the proper split - get one, hand time it and call it as much, or stop running the distance.

Thanks for reading all seventy eleven paragraphs if you are still here.

[andymays]

johnhannibalsmith good first post and welcome!

[BlueShoe]

No surprise as to the runaway winner in this short field derby,both in total number and percentage of short field races;Golden Gate.What a mess;bah.

[Alan Wight]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

The sensors and beams are usually well maintained, but can easily become misaligned due to weather or other circumstances. They can be prematurely tripped by birds, rain, droplets from water trucks, an obscure angle of the sun - you name it. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

What happens when a riderless horse trips the beam first?

[beertapper]

this should be a metric that HANA uses...

is there some way to create a weighted average ?... some tracks have really short meets

not surprised at tampa being the best... good track and looking forward to opening day this winter

[andymays]

Originally Posted by cj

As Cincy says, the times at 1m40y are a joke. No way is it a safety issue unless they don't have basic maintenance equipment.

Finally got a response from Thistledown and this is it:

Andy,

According to Director of Racing Bill Couch, Thistledown does not card races at a mile and 40 yards. When you see a race at a mile and 40 yards, it's because a race that was scheduled for a MILE attracted a field of over 10 horses. A rule change, prompted by the riders, dictates that mile races go to a mile and 40 yards when the field is large. Mile races with 10 or more starters get to the first turn too quickly for the jockeys who feel it's a safety issue.

As for mile and 70 yard races, Mr. Couch says trainers want them. He said that such races are huge with horsemen, who think a mile and a sixteenth ( which is 40 yard longer) rates a distant second compared to mile and 70 yard races.

Bob Roberts
Thistledown publicity

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Alan Wight

What happens when a riderless horse trips the beam first?

Most systems use a 'run switch', a simple toggle that the operator switches 'on' when all horses are loaded to activate the system. Since there is a slight run-up distance from the gate to the first pole, hopefully the operator can toggle the 'run switch' off before a horse breaks the beam.

If the horse breaks loose, or more commonly depending upon where he/she stands during the load, the starter crosses the beam prior to dispatch, the operator toggles the run switch back to off and then resets the timer before the start and tries again.

That part can get a little hairy with a starter that stands behind the gate until just prior to the last horse loading and then walks out to the cord, which they invariable place in close proximity to the START cell. But, once the operator is familiar with a starter's nuances and is quick with the system, it usually isn't terribly difficult to orchestrate the method...

...you better get smooth and proficient or you take a heap of abuse from folks watching and typing from home...

[cj]

Originally Posted by andymays

Finally got a response from Thistledown and this is it:

Andy,

According to Director of Racing Bill Couch, Thistledown does not card races at a mile and 40 yards. When you see a race at a mile and 40 yards, it's because a race that was scheduled for a MILE attracted a field of over 10 horses. A rule change, prompted by the riders, dictates that mile races go to a mile and 40 yards when the field is large. Mile races with 10 or more starters get to the first turn too quickly for the jockeys who feel it's a safety issue.

As for mile and 70 yard races, Mr. Couch says trainers want them. He said that such races are huge with horsemen, who think a mile and a sixteenth ( which is 40 yard longer) rates a distant second compared to mile and 70 yard races.

Bob Roberts
Thistledown publicity

So why not just care 1m 70 yard races? Totally asinine response from the track. But, it proves my point. Jockeys concerns, trainer concerns, but no concern for the bettor.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by beertapper

this should be a metric that HANA uses...

is there some way to create a weighted average ?... some tracks have really short meets

not surprised at tampa being the best... good track and looking forward to opening day this winter

actually tampa should lose a couple h.a.n.a. points per this thread though because i think they just started carding those hokey 1m 40y races in the past year or two.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

So why not just care 1m 70 yard races? Totally asinine response from the track. But, it proves my point. Jockeys concerns, trainer concerns, but no concern for the bettor.

A very astute observation; you are hitting on all cylinders. Also run-ups don’t make any sense because the starting gate is supposed to align the horses for the start.

Also the timing beam can be brought to point that is a tangent line across the front of the horses in the gate and once the gate is open it is every horse for itself

[DanG]

Originally Posted by KingChas

The last thing I want to see in horseracing is total conformity.
Ala the baseball stadiums of the 70's.Philly,Cincy,Pitt etc.

Fair point.