|
Neil,
Interesting post.
In UK we have or did have a new kind of Jockey Club
penetrometer that as well as poking into the ground has a twisting action to
represent the shearing action of a horse's hoof pushing into and turning in the
turf. Problem is that a hoses hoof impact is some 2 tonnes and goes some 14
inches down and wide into the turf and subsoil. A man operated pentrometer
cannot replicate these forces to that depth so you tend to get the Ellerslie
problem of soft on top with a firmer drier layer below which resists the
penetrometer from penetrating (as a soft reading). From surface observations of
the race, mud and grass is being thrown up and it certainly looks soft but the
race times may give an impression that the whole ground support is actually a
bit faster than what the eye sees. Conversely, when the top crust has dried out
but it is still soft below race times are far slower than the good-firm
observations on the surface. We don't get the penetrometer readings anymore. The
only way to test the current going is by galloping and timing locally stabled
horses over the track. Maybe you could get somewhere by moisture content
readings to a given depth. All too much bother in UK.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:41 AM
Subject: [racebase] Ellerslie track
Hi RaceBasers,
Following the discussion we had
on the Ellerslie track ... here's a
piece from this morning's
Herald.
Regards
Neil F
By Mike Dillon
You may not get a penetrometer reading for Ellerslie tomorrow as a
guide to your $300,000 Pick6 investments.
And that will be a good
thing.
The Auckland Racing Club is making a brave stand against what
it sees
as a flawed system of advising the punting public of its track
conditions.
The club is bound by racing regulations to provide a
track
penetrometer reading tomorrow morning, but after last Saturday's
debacle the club is investigating its options in defying that ruling.
The ARC has for some time been disillusioned by the penetrometer.
Last Saturday it came up with a 3.2 easy reading when clearly it had
to be worse than that.
Sticking to strict policy, the ARC posted
its 3.2 reading, but after
racing began the official rating quickly
changed to soft then, with
little rain to worsen the conditions, it was
later downgraded to
heavy.
Punters who had invested on the second
half of the programme assuming
the conditions were only easy were robbed.
When this week's Wednesday penetrometer reading said the track was
just into the soft range and nearly as good as easy, ARC racing
manager Butch Castles said enough was enough.
"We'd had
30-something mls of rain since the finish of racing on
Saturday night so
the track could not have improved from heavy, yet
the penetrometer was
telling us it has."
As a result the ARC has already defied normal
practice by not posting
a penetrometer reading on its fields on the NZ
Thoroughbred Racing
website.
"We've been telling trainers and
everyone else that has enquired what
our opinion of the conditions are."
Castles is aware providing an opinion rather than a fact-based
reading is not ideal.
"But what do we do when we know that by
giving the penetrometer
reading we are providing misinformation?
"I'm not happy guessing, but what's the option?
"In hindsight,
what we should have done last Saturday morning when
the reading came up as
3.2 is post it as 3.7 or 3.8 and soft, but
where is the integrity in
that?"
Late yesterday Castles was attempting to arrange a horse to
travel
into Ellerslie late today to gallop on the course proper and have a
senior jockey declare an official track condition.
Despite the
penetrometer reading to the contrary, the Ellerslie track
is heavy - it's
simply a matter of how heavy.
Punters looking at the big Pick6 need to
know.
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
