 |
|
09-08-2017, 01:31 AM
|
#452
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
|
They were spread out pretty good, maybe just got frisky the 2nd Q, or one of these hurricanes we've been having passed through
If you want to talk about passing smell tests, the folks over at Brisnet need better quality control on their pace figs. They are downright ludicrous WAY too often , especially in turf races at odd distances.
Last edited by AltonKelsey; 09-08-2017 at 01:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
09-08-2017, 09:26 AM
|
#453
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
PARX 09-05-2017 R6
Are we supposed to believe these fractions?
|
The chart has fractions of 24.42, 48.67, 114.55, 139.22 and 142.24
http://www.equibase.com/static/chart...090517USA6.pdf
If those are not correct please let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2017, 09:25 AM
|
#454
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,825
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2017, 11:00 PM
|
#455
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 915
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
|
At least trakus data is actually available on that race, and seems reasonable enough, albeit a little quick on the close.
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2017, 11:09 PM
|
#456
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,825
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SG4
At least trakus data is actually available on that race, and seems reasonable enough, albeit a little quick on the close.
|
For some reason Trakus is quicker most of the time. Some of the fractions in other races have big gaps between the two as well, especially race 5.
|
|
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 01:38 AM
|
#457
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
|
Noticed that one realtime, teletimer somehow posted 138 and change. and the chart now says N/A and has NO final time. Trackus time was posted 'correctly' right away
|
|
|
|
|
09-23-2017, 03:01 PM
|
#458
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,825
|
Noble Damsel another cluster for NYRA today.
|
|
|
|
|
09-24-2017, 01:00 AM
|
#459
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 710
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Noble Damsel another cluster for NYRA today.
|
I would say so.
|
|
|
|
|
09-25-2017, 10:27 AM
|
#460
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,236
|
Six furlong time is 109.45 in the chart.
|
|
|
|
|
09-25-2017, 02:00 PM
|
#461
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,825
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubercapper
Six furlong time is 109.45 in the chart.
|
Yes, the timing company adjusted it from the video. In my opinion that isn't right either, but I know that isn't your guys job to split hairs like that.
A much closer time to reality is 1:09.87, which may not seem like that much but when you are calculation final fractions on turf it is a huge difference.
Last edited by cj; 09-25-2017 at 02:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2017, 02:28 PM
|
#462
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 209
|
Not a timer malfunction but a beaten lengths error in Timeformus. Laurel OCT 1 race 6 #5, he was beaten by 6 and a half not 1 and a half in his previous race.
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2017, 03:24 PM
|
#463
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,825
|
Thanks. We get that from Equibase and catch some of them, but not all. I'll get it taken care of ASAP. Looks like they updated with correct data but we did not.
Last edited by cj; 10-01-2017 at 03:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2017, 09:42 AM
|
#464
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,825
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trips
Not a timer malfunction but a beaten lengths error in Timeformus. Laurel OCT 1 race 6 #5, he was beaten by 6 and a half not 1 and a half in his previous race.
|
Kind of funny the horse won in retrospect.
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2017, 11:45 PM
|
#465
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,943
|
I wish I could do this stuff myself, but I don't have the required skills/equipment. The splits of race 1 at SA on 10/5/17 just don't seem correct. The 2nd call, half mile in 45:70 after an opening quarter in 23:16 just looks highly unlikely, particularly when the entire field was reeling in the pace setter. The winning time of 1:33:57 in a race where all but the last place straggler finished within 5 lengths 1st place to 7th place in an N2L claimer would result in a potentially significant key race.
If it's correct, we could be looking at 4 or 5 of these horses running a sub 23:00 second quarter of a mile turf race that would be expected to disintegrate under normal conditions, but instead kept together.
Looks very, very suspicious.
Thanks in advance to anybody that has the skills/equipment/time to review this timing and report a corrected timing for other interested board members. If it's correct, sorry for wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Rate This Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
