Was the Caulfield track affected yesterday? The times say 'yes'.
Back it up with some factual statistical analysis. Just because you say it to be, does not make it true. Time and again you have been found to be nothing more than a blubbering, blustering hot-air merchant who is also a self-admitted gambling addict. Chalk this up to instance number 1,364.
The sectionals -- all bar one being 35/36 say 'affected' -- 34s are the measure of a good track: and the 'overalls' all also consistent with an affected track.
More dribble. Using sectional times as clumsily as this to measure state of going is as lazy as it is ill-conceived. Talk me through the races of Black Caviar, where she was racing on a fast surface (32-33sec last 600m), Hay List was running on a Dead surface and the rest of the field were all running on Heavy10's - all in the same race. Time and time again.
The point is underscored by a comparison with the times for Boxing Day at Caulfield when 34s were the go in most races.
I actually had a look at the comparison between Caulfield Boxing Day (pre-aeration) and Caulfield 07/01 (post-aeration), where the track was affected because you say 'the times said so'. Feel free to pick holes in anything that follows, and by 'pick holes', I mean, debate with logic and reason, not throw grenades and then hide for a week:
- I only considered sprint races (1100m/1200m) from both cards, thus negating 'race-pace' issues, stop-start tactics etc. For mine, sprint races are run more genuinely.
- I ignored R1 from last Saturday, a 2YO race, where three of the runners were first-starters, two having their 2nd start and one was having its' third. Fair to exclude the babies I think.
- This left three races on each day and coincidentally x25 runners on each day also.
- I concentrated on the last 600s, but recorded the 600-400, 400-200 and 200-WP sectionals to give the sample size increased validity (x75 sectionals both days).
R1 - 1200m (BM78) on GOOD4 with 6r
R4 - 1100m (BM84) on GOOD3 with 9r
R6 - 1200m (LISTED) on GOOD3 with 10r
R2- 1100m (BM70) on GOOD4 with 9r
R3 - 1200m (BM84) on GOOD4 with 6r
R6 - 1100m (BM84) on GOOD3 with 10r
So comparing the cards, it would be fair to say that Boxing Day had the three stronger races, so they should've run faster times.
And comparing the weather, Boxing Day was a comfortable 29.3c where last Saturday was an oppressive 36.7c, so you'd expect the horses to run faster times on Boxing Day given chance of heat stress last Saturday.
Even comparing the wind charts, the winds on Boxing Day were lighter and from a more racing-neutral direction than last Saturday, so again, you'd expect Boxing Day to be faster.
Then there's that dastardly aeration you speak about, so once again, you'd expect Boxing Day to be markedly quicker than last Saturday.
So with everything in Boxing Day's favour, please explain to us all why the average L600 sectional on Boxing Day (11.48s) was only 0.01secs quicker than last Saturday (11.49s)?
Why 50% of all readings on Boxing Day were between 11.19-11.75, whilst the same metric from last Saturday compared favourably at 11.27-11.61?
And even your lazy measure, the L600, was 34.43s on Boxing Day and 34.46s last Saturday. Only 0.03s difference.
Better-class horses, cooler day, less wind, non-aerated track and in your world the track was off and therefore there are integrity issues. Whereas in the real world, hardly a difference could be measured.
Can you post the comparative last 600m from those 2 meeting you claim are so starkly different, please