Given that every race at every track on every surface is run at an approximate distance, it is particularly ludicrous that some turf races are actually labeled an "about distance!" I have always declined to announce or reference it, as my respect is too great for the intelligence of ... well, at least this handful of contributors.

I can assure you the majority of the racing world takes U.S. "world records" with the proverbial grain of salt.

As they should!

Sure you could, but it would be a lot of work. Think of it this way, the timer starts when the first horse hits the beam. The race is 9f. The winner is already 5 lengths behind at that time. So, he basically ran 9f and 5 lengths in the final time, not 9f. Or, you could deduct the time it took him to get to the wire from his time.

However, not sure that is really a good answer either. What if the horse is just notoriously slow? If the run up today is 20 feet, he won't be five lengths behind. If it is 120, he might be more. The whole things is just screwy. Just time the races so all horses are timed for the same exact distance. It shouldn't be this hard.

it's impossible to disagree with the basic premise that a uniform standard for timing races would be a good thing. but i'm not sure this is the worst thing ever from a handicapping viewpoint.

it's more difficult to make a good figure if you aren't on the gate crew. but unless you're seriously overvaluing the first split how much does this actually matter?

if the first fraction is an unreliable variable would it be a bad thing to just ignore it and substitute lengths ahead/behind?

From a figure making standpoint, If the timing of our races was handled the proper way ... it would be a huge headache initially, until enough races are run at every track and distance and all the relationships between distances for each place are re-established by the computer databases.

It would royally suck for the first several months, but after that period of misery, and after all the sample sizes rack up at every track and distance, you would definitely get a little more precise figures down the road.

The real problem for doing this the sensible way, would be that the accurate fractions would look completely foreign to jockeys, horsemen, racing fans, and even a great many of the bettors. It might take awhile for people to adjust, but eventually you'd be hearing Tom Durkin saying "he just drilled an eye-popping opening quarter in TWENTY THREE and FOUR!!!, a SIZZZZLING pace here!"

He almost never gets it right anyway in regards to fast and slow.

I'm that guy when watching Dubai racing and hearing the first 400m in a 1600m race went in 25 flat...LIGHTNING FAST.

CT classic time thoughts?

Internal fractions had to be wrong.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ces?source=rss


The Chicago-area track announced April 25 that it will revert to its former starting position for those races and use the oval's traditional finish line. The starting gate is to be placed between the finish and the sixteenth pole past, using a significant run-up to the pole that triggers the timer