World record in the Pan Am? Really?

[Jeremy Jet]

I timed it twice off of a Twinspires replay, and recorded 2:24 and change both times. We all know about the timing issues at Gulfstream. A horse that had never previously earned a Beyer of better than 90?

Anyone else skeptical?

[horses4courses]

The record was broken there a week ago.
Didn't last long......

[Jeremy Jet]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

The record was broken there a week ago.
Didn't last long......

Good point, and that underscores how unlikely it is that the times are correct.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Jet

Good point, and that underscores how unlikely it is that the times are correct.

It's not a good point. He's wrong.

[Jeremy Jet]

Originally Posted by the little guy

It's not a good point. He's wrong.

Ah, he was referring to the CA record. That's fine, but I remain highly skeptical of the GP record, especially given that it supposedly eclipsed the one just set by a horse that raced downhill for part of the race.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Jet

I timed it twice off of a Twinspires replay, and recorded 2:24 and change both times. We all know about the timing issues at Gulfstream. A horse that had never previously earned a Beyer of better than 90?

Anyone else skeptical?

There's a 200' run-up.

I haven't gone over the race yet.

[cj]

Since race timing is now done by Trakus, can't really blame the timer. Could it just be the course is rock hard? Sure looks like it.

[Jeremy Jet]

Originally Posted by cj

Since race timing is now done by Trakus, can't really blame the timer.

That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the fractional times on the GP turf course are frequently inaccurate.

With regard to the condition of the turf, yes, GP tends to be on the hard and fast side. However, I have a hard time using that as an explanation for this supposed "world record".

[cj]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Jet

That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the fractional times on the GP turf course are frequently inaccurate.

With regard to the condition of the turf, yes, GP tends to be on the hard and fast side. However, I have a hard time using that as an explanation for this supposed "world record".

This meet? I haven't seen the issues I've seen in past seasons.

I'm just saying if something is amiss, it is amiss with Trakus, not the teletimer. It isn't an odd assertion at all. Trakus times are the official times.

[Jeremy Jet]

There are two components to an accurate final time, the timing system itself, and the distance. When the rails at Gulfstream are moved in and out, it changes the distance that horses travel, assuming a static starting point. That is why, of course, some tracks (e.g. Arlington) use "about" distance designations when the rail is out. Fair Grounds turf course records are all listed as "about" distances, and therefore cannot be confused with precise distances.

For obvious reasons, records recorded at "about" distances are not the same as records recorded at precise distances. So if the Trakus timing system was accurate in this particular case, I would question the actual distance traveled by the horses.

It is ludicrous to imagine that a horse like Twilight Eclipse is comparable to Hawkster, and yet we are to believe that the former just ran faster than the latter (which held the world record on a downhill course at SA for close to 25 years)?

I don't think it's credible.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Jet

That's a rather odd assertion, considering that the fractional times on the GP turf course are frequently inaccurate.

With regard to the condition of the turf, yes, GP tends to be on the hard and fast side. However, I have a hard time using that as an explanation for this supposed "world record".

Where is the evidence that the times are inaccurate?

[cj]

I will work on the card tomorrow.

I explain, you change to "it must be the distance". Trakus gives the exact distance traveled. Checked the Trakus site?

You also didn't answer about fractions being "off" this meet.

[Jeremy Jet]

Originally Posted by cj

I explain, you change to "it must be the distance". Trakus gives the exact distance traveled. Checked the Trakus site?

You also didn't answer about fractions being "off" this meet.

First of all, I didn't "change" anything – I simply elaborated.

I have not followed the GP meet closely (out of the country for some time), but have seen a couple of grossly inaccurate fractions posted in turf races. I didn't bother to compare them with the undoubtedly "adjusted" splits that were used for official charts. There is no way that GP (or any other track) can provide accurate split timing at "about" distances.

I do admit that splits are not directly related to this particular issue, other than to make the point that if Hawkster had been in the race, he would have been 10 lengths in front for at least 10f., and would have won with ease. In the beaten field when he set his WR were Great Communicator, Pay the Butler, Lively One, Pleasant Variety, etc. None of them got in a blow, and all were far more accomplished than Newsdad.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Jet

I timed it twice off of a Twinspires replay, and recorded 2:24 and change both times. We all know about the timing issues at Gulfstream. A horse that had never previously earned a Beyer of better than 90?

Anyone else skeptical?

I looked at the Equibase replay.
Here's what I saw. I stopped and started and reviewed the video.
I used the clock at the bottom of the screen. It appears when the cursor is rolled over the bottom of the image..
Anyway. The horses break at the 12 second mark. The winner crosses under the wire at the 2.41 mark..SO that's 2.29 to run the race.
Except, the gate is 200 feet from the timer.
So even of the first horse is in a dead sprint from the gate it at best would be going 30 mph after 200 feet because it had not reached full speed yet.
30 mph is 44 feet per second. BUT, the first horse was not running a constant 30 mph yet. Even at an even 44 fps, it would have taken nearly 5 seconds for the first horse to start the timer. I am thinking it probably took more like 6 to 6.5 seconds to cover the initial 200 feet. I can say this because the first quarter was a little over 24, seconds. So the first eighth was a little over 12 seconds.
The fractions were logical. The last 4f was covered in 47.11. The 3rd and 4th quarter miles were just a hair under 24 seconds.
The last was unreported...
If anything I don't think there is a timer issue. I think they may have a measuring issue.
The race in this case is not 1.5 miles. It may be less. But not much.
I guess the only way to find out is to walk the course with a wheel and measure it. The question I have is where is the track measured. Is it at the rail? The 4 path?..Anyone?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by cj

Since race timing is now done by Trakus, can't really blame the timer. Could it just be the course is rock hard? Sure looks like it.

Yes..There was a lot of dust kicked up. Indicating a dry course.