question about this work out
 

i get stable alerts from brisnet...what does the TT mean ?
"worked 4f TT ft in :50.00 B (38/50) at BEL"

I know at Woodbine it means "Training Turf" course

The TT stands for "trainer time". Sometimes workouts go unclocked by the paid clockers and they must rely on a trainer's "word" for published workouts. Needless to say, special notation is used to alert people to the possibility of "human error" as far as the raw times go.

This workout in particular, is somewhat dubious as the splits (38/50) suggest he smoked the final 1/8th in 12 seconds flat to get a :50.00 clocking after a relatively slow initial 3f in 38.

the workout was listed on a dirt surface. thanks a lot. i thought the 38/50 meant the time was 38th fasted at the workout distance out 50 horses to work.

wouldnt (38/50) mean he had the 38th fastest of 50 workouts at that distance on the day?

Like I said, "human error".

My bad. I'm used to the Racing Form's notation.

To be perfectly honest, the BRISNET style is very confusing. Were the dogs up or something, cuz why else would there be the abbreviation for feet and inches right before the workout time (4f TT ft in)?

TT I do believe means on the "training track" . Like Santa Anita has a 6 1/2 a bit more training track and you can work horses on it , alot of people do when it gets close to Pamona time.

How did you get the splits?

The workout was listed on the dirt training track.

I'm pretty sure "ft" stands for "fast" as in a fast track, and "in" isn't an abbreviation for anything..

Right. It is just the word "in" saying "in 50.00 secs. breezing"

38/50 means he was the 38th astest of 50 to work. Split times are not given for works. TT usually means training track.

my understanding:

he worked 4 furlongs(4f) on the training track(TT), which was in fast(ft) condition in 50 seconds flat breezing (B) which was the 38th fastest of 50 workouts on that day (38/50) at Belmont (BEL)

I believe Brisnet's abbreviation for training track is "tr.t"

I have a question to add to this. Are places like Keeneland going to ever use their expensive tracking system for training times? Seems like this should be the standard, doing away with alot of those 'human errors', and if they already have the system in place, why not use it?

ALostTexan

The old "beam" system is more precise than the Trakus system and they choose not to use it, I assume due to the extra manpower requirements. I'm not sure the Trakus system is any less manpower intensive, probably more so as a beacon (The "chip") needs to be placed on the horse in addition to all the other data gathering tasks involved with the old system.

BillW, what do you mean by the 'beam' system? I haven't been around the game long enough to know this...

ALostTexan

The system that is used to actually time the races (light beam).

Actually the whole process is vulnerable to error from a rigorous quality assurance standpoint. From proper ID of the horse, intended distance of the work, to the precision of hand timing by the clockers and accurate recording of the data. After you get all this resolved and get accurate figures recorded, then as a handicapper you have to be concerned with the intent of the trainer/exercise rider. Was the horse being pushed 93% or 82% etc. :confused:. Personally I try to understand the spacing (in days) and distance pattern employed by the trainer and mostly ignore the times.