Aeration and irrigation of caulfield track - Vic Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Aeration and irrigation of caulfield track - Vic Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Aeration and irrigation of caulfield track  (Read 844 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3409
O.P. « 2017-Jan-07, 06:06 AM »


Aeration and irrigation of Caulfield track

2KSKY is reporting that the Caulfield track has been aerated and irrigated (50mm) -- this needs to be clarified.

Many have sad memories of the 'aeration' of the Flemington track during a spring carnival.

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 11602
« 2017-Jan-07, 11:00 AM Reply #1 »
I'll continue to say it Peter, the aeration (normally with a Verti-Drain) isn't the problem, it's when they only do sections which causes the issues.  :whistle:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3409
« 2017-Jan-07, 11:06 AM Reply #2 »


Exactly -- we do not know what was done -- water in the holes presumably unsettles the under-surface -- the policy should preclude aeration for 2 weeks prior to racing

We will see as the day unfolds.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3409
« 2017-Jan-08, 08:26 AM Reply #3 »


Was the Caulfield track affected yesterday?

The times say 'yes'.

................for a track declared as 'good 4' and 'good 3' after the 4th, the overall and sectional times were more consistent with a 'dead' / soft 5' track .

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.

The point is underscored by a comparison with the times for Boxing Day at Caulfield when 34s were the go in most races.

There should be a clear ruling given to preclude 'aeration' and other tampering -- 'close cutting a lane' -- within 2 weeks of a race being run.

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 11602
« 2017-Jan-08, 08:25 PM Reply #4 »
Regardless, did you think the track played fair Peter?

For a guy who freely admits to doing bugger all form and relying on tipsters why do you care if it was a good 3 or 4  :what:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3409
« 2017-Jan-08, 09:28 PM Reply #5 »


For a serious punter the difference between a 3 and a 5 is the difference between winning or not.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 23666
« 2017-Jan-09, 07:21 AM Reply #6 »
But your not a serious punter. That has been established

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 11602
« 2017-Jan-09, 02:47 PM Reply #7 »

For a serious punter the difference between a 3 and a 5 is the difference between winning or not.

That doesn't answer my question as you admit to not doing the form, so why do you care?

Offline HarmersHaven

  • Open
  • User 1861
  • Posts: 175
« 2017-Jan-09, 02:56 PM Reply #8 »

Was the Caulfield track affected yesterday? The times say 'yes'.

Prove it. 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).

BOXING DAY
R1 - 1200m (BM78) on GOOD4 with 6r
R4 - 1100m (BM84) on GOOD3 with 9r
R6 - 1200m (LISTED) on GOOD3 with 10r

SAT 07/01
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

See above.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 23666
« 2017-Jan-09, 04:43 PM Reply #9 »
Thanks Hammers, I knew Peter wouldn't stand to account and had look myself.
Everything you put up from those 2 meetings in correct. Proving Peter is a charlatan.

Another factor would be the different rail positions as well.. A I saw recently, Peter will not stand up to us scrutinising his crap. He runs for the hills as he knows he's telling porkies to suit his agenda


Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 9663
« 2017-Jan-09, 09:13 PM Reply #10 »
Prove it. 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.


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.


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).

BOXING DAY
R1 - 1200m (BM78) on GOOD4 with 6r
R4 - 1100m (BM84) on GOOD3 with 9r
R6 - 1200m (LISTED) on GOOD3 with 10r

SAT 07/01
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.


See above.

Excellent post , willy's included 
 8-)
Thanks
I just have PM on ignore   :biggrin:

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 23666
« 2017-Jan-10, 07:17 AM Reply #11 »
rats. i don't have him on ignore as I feel his disingenuous posts have to be challenged. he's trying to destroy the industry out of his own sense of his personal worth
as we constantly see he falls apart under scrutiny.
I wonder if he posts this stuff on other forums? somehow I doubt it

Offline HarmersHaven

  • Open
  • User 1861
  • Posts: 175
« 2017-Jan-12, 11:07 AM Reply #12 »
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 trust that, by letting 72hrs pass since the above rebuttal and contributing nothing, whilst posting four other times across multiple threads in the interim, that you are going to put your hand up and admit to spreading mistruths and fallacy in order to serve your own purpose?

So which is it - a na´ve simpleton who doesn't know better or a disingenuous liar with ulterior motives?

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 23666
« 2017-Jan-12, 07:00 PM Reply #13 »
I suggest it's the 2nd  :bulb:

Offline Skybeau

  • Group 2
  • User 41
  • Posts: 1691
« 2017-Jan-13, 03:15 PM Reply #14 »
Peter on posts, he doesn't reply. Not his style to engage in debate.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 23666
« 2017-Jan-13, 05:19 PM Reply #15 »
That's because he can't handle his lies being exposed

Offline nemisis

  • Listed
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 427
« 2017-Jan-13, 10:01 PM Reply #16 »
Peter on posts, he doesn't reply. Not his style to engage in debate.
I'm going to defend P Mair on this thread.
He did respond early on but probably opted out when he seemed to be baited.

The thread is very relevant because of the Flemington fiasco.

I checked the stewards report and there did not appear to be any horses that jarred up, so I'll call it a rather forgiving good track.
That can only be good for the horses.

 
 
 

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3409
« 2017-Jan-14, 05:50 AM Reply #17 »


Another aeration initiative by the track manager

............. a somewhat garbled report on 2KSKY this morning included vague remarks about aerating the outside of the Flemington track.......... the intention being to stop any rush to the outside rail.

Perhaps if this 'rush' is a recurrent problem the outside lanes of the track could be replaced with sand 


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 23666
« 2017-Jan-14, 09:09 AM Reply #18 »
This is the only issue that Peter has been close to being right in. It's been covered in other threads way before Peter raised it and without the usual nonsense about "corruption"

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 11602
« 2017-Jan-14, 09:17 AM Reply #19 »

Another aeration initiative by the track manager

............. a somewhat garbled report on 2KSKY this morning included vague remarks about aerating the outside of the Flemington track.......... the intention being to stop any rush to the outside rail.

Perhaps if this 'rush' is a recurrent problem the outside lanes of the track could be replaced with sand

If that's the case Peter (I didn't hear it) then they will have a problem.

I'd be steering well away from any straight races  :bulb:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap