Thank you, Frank! Let\'s hope she stays up. And I didn\'t hurt your price, judging by the way the odds kept creeping up.

For a card that TGJB claimed didn\'t offer a lot to work with, I\'ll be shocked if he didn\'t have the P4 multiple times, and possibly the P5.
He liked the winner in the 2nd at 7-1, ditto for the 3rd, was concerned about Jack O\'Liam in the 4th etc.
Naturally, he also hated the Chad Brown who just ran 3rd at 4-5 in the opening leg of the P6.
Thanks for a great seminar TGJB, and hope you made enough early to play a solid P6 ticket.

Hey Frank,
What did you see in the 10? Thought he looked slow on TG.

I hear you on the assumptions, and I agree. But it seems pretty indisputable that different race tracks have different configurations and angles of banking on turns. It would be nice to get a scientific opinion on how/if this may affect distance traveled relative to different paths, independent of biomechanics, conformation etc.

Ha! I knew you were doing it to bust his chops, Richie, but it did get me thinking. And the arguments do not seem unreasonable. But with my 12th grade physics a distant memory, I\'m not the one to make the argument.

The angle of banking can be found online for most tracks. A quick Google search just directed me to a NYRA Saratoga fact sheet from 2013 that said the turns on the main track are banked at 4%. Twinspires has some of this type of info, as well.

TGJB,
Here is something Richie posted last year. Seems to indicate that not all turns are equal.
https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,88662,88662#msg-88662

Quiet Time on the Board, Some Light Reading (605 Views)
Posted by: richiebee (IP Logged)
Date: June 30, 2014 12:41PM

THERE WILL BE A QUIZ ON THIS AT THE T-GENERATE SEMINAR ON SATURDAY JULY 26

Dynamics of Turns in Horse Racing by Larry Wellman

This work was conducted in the mid to late 1990's.

Turn Dynamics:

A couple of weeks ago I posted an article relative to turns which had a mistake that I have now corrected. The post was in response to a question I received from Dr. Steve Roman relative to his observation that some horses out in the 3 and 4 path on the turn appear not to be handicapped by the extra distance traveled and actual look like they are handling the turns better then the horse on the rail. At that time I developed a spreadsheet to test his question. In the spreadsheet I allowed horses in the outer paths to increase speed to match the turn dynamics (forces) that the rail horse was experiencing. What the results showed was that the horses off the rail could run at a higher speed on the turn versus the rail horse. This extra speed increase would compensate for the extra ground covered. The net result was that the horse in the outer path actually only lost half what is the accepted standard. The standard is lose one length or 10-11 ft for each path removed from the rail.

Using my Energy Program I went in and tested some additional factors to show that a horse in the four path actually can run 6 furlongs faster then the rail horse when track and conformation parameters are match properly. The track I modeled is Laurel Park, which is a 9f track with 2.25f turns. I modeled a track with no track bias (resistance) around or across the paths. I did change two parameters that impact on turn dynamics. I modeled the proper conditions for a horse further from the rail so the extra distance does not handicap a horse. The two factors I adjusted are the bank angle of the turn and a factor called (beta) that represents the ankle pulley ratio as defined by Peter R. Greene (J. Biomech Vol 20, No7 pp667-680 1987). The ankle pulley ratio is a conformation parameter and represents the distance from the sole of the foot or hoof up to the ankle or fetlock on the horse. I used the number suggested by Greene since there is no publish info on horses. If the foot is allowed to roll into the turn the beta value will be reduced. So what I did was assume that the turn bank angle starts at zero in the one path and is 3.5 degrees in the 4th path. I
made the following assumption that the ankle pulley ratio is the maximum at the rail and reduced to zero in the four path. Below I will show the results of my program for both the path one and path four under the conditions I mention above. Path zero is if a horse ran on top of the rail while path one is the path a horse runs when on the rail. I modeled a 3.5 ft distance between paths. Each path away from the rail results in an extra 11 ft (3.5 X pi) traveled. I also show the time for a 6f race on a straight course having no turns.

Bank |------turn------|
Path Angle Beta 1/4 3/8 1/2 5/8 3/4
0 3.5 .27 24.55 36.15 48.35 60.85 73.50
1 3.5 .27 24.55 36.25 48.50 61.05 73.70
1 0.0 .27 24.55 36.25 48.60 61.20 73.90
4 3.5 .27 24.55 36.45 48.95 61.65 74.30
4 3.5 .00 24.55 36.35 48.75 61.25 73.85
Straight course 24.55 36.05 48.00 60.25 72.85

Simulation run with a .05 sec delta

Now when you compare the 1 path with 0.0 degrees bank against the 4 path with 3.5 degrees banking and zero ankle pulley ratio (beta=0) we see that the horse in the 4 path runs about same race time for 6f race although this horse runs 33 ft longer distance (on turn) then the one horse.

What this means is that correcting a horse speed figures using a standard of one length lost per each path away could actually over estimate the horse speed figures. To do a proper adjustment we would need to know the bank angle distribution across the turn, conformation of each individual horse, (how this horse handles turns), a track bias if it exist across the track. The beta term is also dependent on the type of shoes the horse is wearing, etc.

I think this address Dr. Roman\'s question along with some possible errors that could exist in some of the speed figure services that make adjustments for ground lost on the turn.

I did not limited the turn forces on a horse like I did in the spreadsheet I mention earlier. Adding this factor in could lead to even better performance when running away from the rail.

For handicapping you need to assess each horses ability to run on the turns.

Follow up question.

Jetaway brought up a question relative to the bank angle I assumed for the horse in the one path. I made the assumption to show the maximum based on the two conditions discussed. If you go back and look at the table you will see that even if the bank angle is assumed to be 3.5 degrees for both horses the horse in the four path will only run slower by less then one length (.15 sec) if this horse can handle the turn better (beta=0). Beta as I mention is a function of conformation. The equation I used with this term also involves the following terms: the bank angle, the heel over angle, and Froude number. Froude number is a non-dimensional speed parameter using the turn radius. Heel over angle is the arctan of the Froude number. The difference between bank angle and heel over angle is called the mismatch angle. If we assume a horse can run with zero mismatch in the turn the bank angle matches the heel over angle then we have the condition I show as beta=0 for the horse in the four path.

From the table we see that if the conditions were the same for both horses then the horse in the four path runs an extra 33 ft and it takes him and .60 sec more time to cover 6f about one length per fifth of a second. Now under conditions when the horse in the four path has the ideal conditions then he cover the extra distance in only .15 seconds (bank=3.5 deg) compared to the one path. Resulting in a difference of two lengths. This correction would be equal to about 5 Beyer speed points if they corrected for trip. In the Sheets or Thorograph system this would equal a point or two. I\'m not a Sheet
user so I\'m not sure on the exact number. The point is that any service that corrects for trip on the turns is adding some additional noise in there product. How do they know what the conformation (beta terms factor), the banking or track bias across the turn and around the turn. The beta term is determined from observations and varies within a population. Based on this new research I would look closely at figures that are adjusted for very wide trips. Maybe some of the sheet users can offer some observations about figures that look out of line when the horses raced wide. I personally never adjusted my speed figures in the 80\'s for trip. Add factors like wind and bad weather and we are really shooting in the dark.

BTW, all races are for zero gate runup.

Turns and Breakdowns.

Because of all the discussion about the breakdowns in the Jim Beam I decided to present some information about turn dynamics and the relationship to potential breakdowns. I did not see the Jim Beam so I do not know where on the track the horses breakdown, however the turn or the transition from the turn to the straight would be critical areas. I will present a factor which is a combination of two other variable that I model in my Energy Program. The first variable is related to bank angle and the lean angle of the horse in the turn. Included in this term is the ankle pulley ratio which relates internal and external moment arms within the ankle. Research conducted by Peter Greene (J. Biomechanics, Vol 20 No.7, 1987) estimated values in the .27 range for humans and the same value to be used for dogs and horses. The ankle pulley ratio is a conformation variable of the distal end of the leg: i.e. length of the pastern and the distance between the sesamoids bones. Shoe designs variables also play a part.
Since there is no research data on horses I will use Peter Greene number. The second term is related to turn radius and speed on the turn. Together the two terms can be treated
as an equivalent increase in weight carried on the turn. The values shown in the following table is the combined term. Any number greater then one results in higher weight carried. I will show two different turn radius: 2f and 2.25f turns. I have not
modeled tighter turns (1.5f) or larger turns (3f).

The data shown is for the horse a half-furlong into the turn around 2.5f to 3f into the race.

Turn Size: 2f or 420 ft radius.
Bank Angle, degrees
Beta 0 3.5 7.0
0 1.027 1.027 1.027
.27 1.0855 1.0711 1.055
.54 1.1428 1.1120 1.080

Turn Size:2.25f or 472 ft radius
Bank Angle, degrees
Beta 0 3.5 7.0
0 1.025 1.025 1.025
.27 1.0834 1.0670 1.051
.54 1.1390 1.1090 1.076

The bank angle of 3.5 degrees represents a grade of 6 percent across the track.
This would be a rise of 6 ft over a 100 ft. I used this number based on some private communications about track designs.

**It would be very helpful to have this information
presented in the DRF.

If a track has no bank on the turn and we used Greens\'s number for beta (.27) the horse will be carry the equivalent of an additional 100 pounds on the turn. Bank the turn to 3.5 degress and we get only additional 80 pound based on a horse and rider of 1200 pounds. Based on gait analysis a individual fore legs will be subjected to almost three times the full body weight of the horse during a stride. Now add the impact of the turns dynamics and the horse would see an a additional 300 pounds of load on one leg. Increase speed or reduce turn radius will result in higher numbers.

This is only part of the answer about breakdowns. Other variables such as shoeing, bandages, conformation, track, and the riders all come into play.

Trident Hero was about 25-1 with roughly 10 MTP when Brian Spencer, the excellent Fair Grounds public handicapper, touted him. I figured his price was going to get cut in half after that mention, and thought no more of it, until I checked the toteboard as he was well clear in deep stretch at 60-1!

Does anyone on this board know of any TG-like product for Australian handicapping? Any other advice on handicapping or visiting the Melbourne track would be appreciated, as well. I will be there next week for Super Saturday and feel completely unprepared.
Thanks in advance.

Same card (SAR - Thurs) Race 7 Horse 3, Bocelli. Missing Andromeda\'s Hero and Superfly.
I only catch the famous dams, but it might be happening with the lesser ones, too.

Paul/TGJB/TGAB:
DRF lists Pro Prado as one of the siblings to Friends Pro in the 8th at Saratoga. This horse is not listed in your \'Breeding\' section on the right side of the page. I believe he was on the Triple Crown Trail in 2004, and had some success as a 2YO, so this info could be useful.
I have occasionally noticed some \'missing\' siblings in the past, as well, but I\'ve been too lazy to point it out. Is this an Equibase issue?
Thanks.

Pretty impressive last figure from the filly, and no one seems to be talking about her. She obviously has her issues, and she is probably a bet-against on sheet theory, but she will have had 6+ weeks of rest, and only Royal Delta has run faster than she has.
JB himself said at a seminar on Labor Day Weekend that if he managed RD, he would skip the Beldame and point right to the Distaff/Classic. Well, Mott didn\'t skip the Beldame, RD ran big, and might be ready to regress (and she may yet run in the Classic).
In this loaded field, Awesome Feather could go to the post as the 3rd or 4th choice. Not bad for a filly that could bounce, and still win....

P-Dub:
The difference in weight carried between, say, 121 and 126 LBS is less than 5%. Anyone who uses these figs take such a differential seriously.
In any given race, there might be a horse that weighs 1000 LBS, and another that weighs 1200 LBS. That\'s a 20% differential. Don\'t you think that might be significant? I\'m not saying I would know how to use that information if I had it, but maybe I could come up with some methods to apply it, and it would certainly be interesting to look for patterns. I have always wondered whether a horse that weighs 100 LBS more than an opponent but carrying an additional 5 LBS, really is handicapped 1 TG point.
In any case,  the Hong Kong Jockey Club makes this information available to its bettors - why can\'t we do the same here?

You hit it on the head, Bob. The idea that the NYT is out to get horse racing or that Joe Drape doesn\'t love horse racing, is absurd. I\'ve seen him at the windows, so at the very least he likes the action; and you would have to be willfully ignorant to read his more straightforward beat reporting (and his posts in The Rail) and assume that he doesn\'t care about the sport.
Just because he, and the paper itself, are shining some light into the darker corners of the sport does not mean they are trying to destroy it. Maybe they just want to see it get better, and cleaner. Hardly a day goes by on this message board without a poster (or six) decrying cluelessness, corruption or callousness in the sport. Why do some here get so upset when Joe Drape points it out?

Byline is Joe Clancy, not Joe Drape, Richie.
The piece certainly read more \'literary\'(think Death in the Afternoon) than Drape\'s investigative pieces. I don\'t think the intent was to be critical of the sport, or the connections; in fact trainer and jockey were presented in a positive light; and Arcadius in a heroic one. Sometimes a journalist just wants a good story, even (especially) if it has a tragic ending....