Rails out on Aqueduct's Turf Course

[jbelfior]

TGJB--

You may have already touched on this topic, so forgive me if I am bringing up old stuff. It would be new to me and perhaps other new members.

Due to the condition of Aqueduct\'s turf course last Saturday, the rails were out 18 feet. I found it curious that the horses who broke from the outside posts (e.g TAMS TERMS,BLAZING FURY, SLEW VALLEY, REQUEST FOR PAROLE) all ran off the board while the top 2 finishers enjoyed an inside trip.) Now this could have just as easily happened if the rails were not out, however I would ask if more credit is given to an outside trip under these circumstances. SLEW VALLEY is a good example here since he raced widest the entire way.



Thanks,
Joe B.

[TGJB]

Ground loss is Pi times radius, a relationship which doesn\'t change with the size of the circle (and it was interesting that Donaldson got this right in his book from the 30\'s, when so many have gotten it wrong since). This means that no matter how tight the turns a horse loses ground versus the horse inside him of Pi times a path (just over the width of a horse) for each turn, which as it happens is about the length of a horse.

I don\'t know the  distances of the races you refer to, but here\'s a thought-- they move the rails out but still run an exact distance, meaning the turns are bigger, and the staightaways shorter (18 foot rail means about 56 feet more on each turns, that much less straightaway per turn to compensate). It\'s possible the run to the first turn is shortened enough to make it a little harder for outside horses to drop over and save ground before they get there.

[jbelfior]

TGJB--

The race in question was the Knickerbocker Hdcap run at 1 1/8 m. I like the idea of the \"longer\" turns and shorter straightaways making it that much more difficult for the outside posts. There were some nice horses out there that were no factor at any point in the race. If I remember correctly, none of the posts 8 and out were able to cut inside to save ground.

An interesting tidbit to remember in the future regarding Aqueduct\'s turf course.


thanks for your response,
Joe B.

[texasturfmaster]

TGJB  
Are there courses out there that compensate for the added distance when a temp rail is put up by say, adjusting the position of the starting gate?

If so, are they sophisticated enough to adjust the run-up to match the run-up from the normal gate location?

[TGJB]

For those who may not already know it, the listed distance for a race is the distance for which the time is measured, not the distance from the gate to the wire. In other words, the distance from the first teletimer beam (the \"start\") to the final one, located at the finish line. The starting gate is positioned at varying distances before the first beam, giving horses a running start (run-up), typically about 60 feet at American tracks, although it varies greatly.

If the distance is listed as exact (as opposed to \"about\"), the timed distance should be exact, failing a screw-up. In other words, there are electric eyes for the start and fractions that are placed at different positions for all 3 turf rails at the NYRA tracks-- as you move the rail out you lengthen the track, and must move the start forward to make up the ground lost on the turn.

This does not, however, mean the horses are running the same distance, since the gate may or may not be in the same position relative to the \"start\". Every track has its own way of doing things, and they don\'t always do it the same way. I mentioned one in an earlier post-- when there is no rail on the Belmont inner turf, the gate at 1 1/16 is backed up into a chute where there is no room for a \"normal\" run-up. The horses therefore are moving at less than full speed when they break the beam, resulting in slower fractions and final times.

[jbelfior]

TGJB--

That\'s interesting regarding Belmont\'s turf. I had read about that in Litfin\'s book and am still amazed when Tom Durkin describes the opening quarter under these circumstances as \" in a dawdling 25 over the firm going.\" Perhaps someone should explain to him what\'s going on.



Good Luck,
Joe B.

[texasturfmaster]

Thanks for the input on the NYRA tracks.  I\'m guessing that places that do not change the location of the start to compensate for the temp rail probably stick out like a sore thumb to TG.

[dodie]

For what its worth, Joe Tackach (of \"Beat the Beam\" body language fame) makes a big deal out of the fact that the S. Cal tracks DO NOT adjust when moving the rails out.  Claims to have diligently watched the proceedings at all 3 tracks, and has never seen any compensating movement initiated.  Given the fact that he\'s a very earnest guy and supposedly makes his living by being very observant, it may be worth noting.  As a follow on question, for so. cal at least, wouldn\'t it be worth noting rail psn next to a horse\'s so cal turf no., or at least putting an anotation in the race summary section.  Since TG has observers at the track anyway, it would probably be useful information.  Actually factoring the rail psn into the number may be too much to ask, but a rail psn note would enable us to make an adjustment to a number, or at least give us another \"tie-breaker\" peice of info.  Given the small margins more common in turf race finishes, the info would probably be worth the extra work.  Just have your observers confirm that in fact the timer beam psns aren\'t adjusted for rail psn, then put some sort of shorthand note in the race summary.  
   I seem to remember some sort of discussion in Ragozin\'s book about them sneaking onto the NY turf courses and doing some sort of measurements; can\'t remember if this had anything to do with rail psn or not.
  In any event, I\'m sure other tracks don\'t adust for rail psn, meaning they run further with the rail out, which theoretically means the times should be slower, thereby effecting final no.\'s
  I\'m really thinking we might be on to something here, at least for us so cal turf race specialists.

[texasturfmaster]

Dodie,

I do not believe that they compensate at the Texas tracks either.  I do not watch them first hand, but I can tell from calculating the par times with the temp rail up at various distances.  It is strikingly obvious.

I do not want to speak for Jerry, but I am reasonably sure that all of this info is factored into the figure already.  It is relatively easy to do.

[TGJB]

Run-ups and ground loss are indeed reflected in the figure, so I don\'t see what adding rail info would add. And again, if the distances are listed as exact, the timer positions as well as fractional and final times should be as well.

In general, raw time is less important for turf races than dirt ones (how\'s that for a blanket statement). Because the courses are mostly faster than dirt ones and the pace slower (sometimes a lot slower), the final times are much more pace sensitive, leading to all those \"pace\" designations you see on the sheets, and significant figure adjustments. Fortunately, grass horses are a lot more figure consistent than dirt horses, and once you have your data base tight you rely less and less on turf race times, and more on the horses (the whole field, not just the winners). A good example of this takes place with the about distances at Calder-- they don\'t have electric eyes set up for the fractions at about distances, so there is no way to know what the pace is like. But with the horses that have a solid figure history, it\'s right to go with them, and not the teletimer, when the two are in conflict.

This situation, I would add, takes place in almost every race in Europe.

[jbelfior]

TGJB--

Your comment that turf horses are a lot more figure consistent than dirt horses is certainly evident to anyone who has utilized any type of speed figures/performance ratings.

What I have found is that a majority of sheet players who play grass races stick to this notion like glue. As such, they are less forgiving of a poor grass figure even if it happens to get stuck within a very strong pattern. I\'ll use two prime examples that occurred recently although I would hazard to guess that others on this site can name plenty more. Both examples led to significantly higher odds than the horse would have been if analyzed in the entire context of his turf figures.

One was LUNAR SOVEREIGN when he paid $22 in winning the Man of War off of the poor showing in the Sword Dancer and BETTER TALK NOW ($15)who won the Knickerbocker off of a poor figure at Keeneland. Perhaps a poor turf figure within a strong pattern can be ignored if the price is right. My guess is that turf horses will bounce back to their overall solid figs quicker than their dirt counterparts. Any thoughts on this?


Good Luck,
Joe B.