Are Racehorses Improving, Part 1A

[TGJB]

Part one of this discussion raised some questions that prompted me to have a follow-up conversation with NYRA track superintendent Jerry Porcelli. Some quick points, and I\'ll get to part two as soon as I can.

1-- During the 80\'s many tracks on the East Coast switched from clay bases to limestone bases.

2-- The percentage of sand was increased at Saratoga and Aqueduct in 1988. They upped the percentage at Belmont around 1994, and the percentage gradually increased on its own due to the way the track was maintained until Porcelli became in charge in 2002. He changed the maintenance routine, and they monitor sand content now closely.

3-- When Najran ran the 1:32:1 mile at Belmont on opening day this Spring, the cushion was 3 1/2 inches. Jerry added half an inch of cushion that night, but it was tough to make an immediate comparison because it rained overnight. By the next week, following the dark days, the track in Jerry\'s estimation was the same as it was the day Najran ran, save for being deeper-- meaning soil content was the same,and moisture content (which Jerry measures by taking a piece of the track, weighing it, baking it, then weighing it again) was roughly the same. In fact there was some variability in the track speed that week, but the range was from about 5 to 10 points slower than the day Najran ran, meaning 1 to 2 seconds different at six furlongs. (By the way, you\'re not going to believe this, but there is one figure maker who assumes the track stays the same speed overnight unless it rains).

That was with the addition of 1/2 inch of cushion. As I mentioned in part one, Jerry says the cushion Secretariat and others raced over in New York in the 70\'s ranged from 2 3/4 to 3 1/4 inches, or about another half inch less than Najran raced over. How fast would Najran gone over that track?

It would be interesting to get detailed information from other tracks, and to see if it is possible to work out some similar correlations. Even so, those correlations can only be valid for comparative purposes  if all other things stay the same, and as we have seen, they do not. I don\'t know the nature or number of changes at each individual track, but I know enough not to assume things stay the same, which is the only way you could compare raw times from different eras.

And all of this, of course, is why we make performance figures-- to compare horses that run under different conditions, on different days.

Great stuff. Thanks.

[Mall]

Again, Mr Porcelli sounds like he has intelligence & judgment, which is why I suspect he would be one of the 1st to appreciate how much better he could do his job, & perhaps even how important the info might be to figure makers & handicappers, if he could objectively measure the composition & characteristics of the track. This could be done on a race by race basis, with the info available in real time, using a Pratt meter, invented by the MIT Engr who developed Tapeta for M.D. How many yrs have horsemen been saying that there is a dead spot on the backstretch at Del, that Kee causes horses to run down, etc,etc. One of the things a Pratt meter measures is uniformity, so a track super would know if the steps he or she was taking were having the same effect on all parts of the track, as well as whether horsemen complaints were valid. It would improve safety for the jockeys & horses, & comparing times & tracks across the country & on different dates would no longer be as difficult. There have been discussions with one track about allowing a Pratt meter to be used on an experimental basis at the next meet. If it\'s use is approved, perhaps other tracks will understand the benefits, & my prediction that this technology will not see widespread use during my lifetime will turn out to be wrong. I certainly hope so.