In the Bold Trease final at Sandown all five of the top picks ran slower time in the final than in the heats a week earlier.

I will leave out Poco Dorado, which was injured. The other four, Barcali, Black Impala, Ebby Ripper and Hot Tip ran between two and five lengths slower than in their heats.

Interference was modest, if that.

Please, no excuses. This happens in every major staying race in the country where heats and final are a week apart. Always has, except for a very occasional top dog - preferably one that is not a natural leader and therefore can pace itself.

Barcali, to take one example, and with the world's best trainer, had previously equalled its (faster) heat time but in that case it had a two week break beforehand. That should be mandatory for all such races.

You are just making yourself look more foolish with every word

Stick to the things you know about

David,

Nice to see a polite question. I was trying to be brief. My point was that a dog that customarily begins in the ruck and then progressively makes its way to the front is using up less petrol than one that spears out and goes like the clappers on the bunny for the whole trip. The classic example of the former is Sweet It Is but there are a number. It therefore tends to finish on at the end but also manages the 7 day backup fairly well.

Top dogs which cannot backup include Space Star and Xylia Allen (not just once but repeatedly), both of which normally lead in long races.

That LAW syndrome was mentioned by Dr John Kohnke when discussing the replenishment of reserves.

As for the slow track allegation - it does not stand up, which is not surprising as few trainers have spent half a century analysing form, and many must have failed arithmetic. Consider the Cup night ...

Barooga Brett BON 29.28. Its previous SPK runs were 29.08, 29.41, 29.37, 29.71, 29.40.

My Redeemer Cup Winner 29.38. Its previous SPK runs were 29.27, 29.43, 29.52, 29.77, 29.47 etc, etc.

In total, four of eight winners got under 29.60, which is fairly smart. Even the maiden winner ran 29.68 after previously doing 30.36 and 30.16.

Whichever way you look at it, that form cannot tell you that the track was slow.

Here's another reasonably common example of the principle. In 500s you might have a dog that is normally a slow beginner, and then storms home to great applause. Nice. But then there is one magical occasion when it jumps brilliantly to the lead and is hightailing down the back. Put down your glasses? Not always. Very often it runs out of puff and fades in the run to the post. It has run out of petrol.

I could go on and on as this has happened on multiple occasions over the past 10 or 20 years in heat and final staying races.

Of course, it is not precision science as dogs vary as does how they feel on the night or how they have been trained recently. But there is sufficient doubt that betting on those finals is fraught with danger. I would not touch them. And Barcali got there by the skin of its teeth. Still, others may like to gamble. So be it.

Times from Melbourne cup heats, to final (box order).
My Redeemer: Down .11
She's Gifted: Down .47
Dyna Harpa: Down .72
Notorious Mac: Down .95
Black Opium: Down .47
Poke The Bear: Down 1.12
Degani: Down .81
West on Augie: Down .55

Practitioners of glossolalia may disagree with linguistic researchers and claim that they are speaking human languages..

Richard, I am not quite sure what you are after with this.

First, as I have been saying, I have withdrawn from the detail of form analysis except for the odd special case. Second, you say "down" when you actually mean "slower". Third, sprints and staying races are not quite the same thing for post mortems or whatever (eg boxes would usually be more important in sprints). Fourth, even good beginners can vary their early section over a two length range, although that was not really applicable here.

Some casual comments might be ....

My Redeemer - I thought it did a terrific job to hold off Black Opium and then run away from it. That early head to head battle alone would tend to retard the overall time. Its box won the race.

Black Opium - a very young bitch with immaculate form met a better dog on the night. No doubt will get even better. Did weaken in the last 50m. (Digressing - do you know the Thompsons hold 26% of all track records in Victoria - 11 of 43?).

Poke The Bear - terrific galloper but not a flash beginner as a rule and had a bad box. $3.10 from box 6 was pretty silly.

More generally, there is a tendency amongst tipsters to pick the final winner on the basis of the best time in the heats. The Watchdog did that precisely for its first four selections. Sometimes it works out, often it does not. Reason - circumstances vary and dogs are not robots.

This brings up the principle of weighting a dog's chances on its best recent run, or the average of, say, its previous five runs. But dogs seldom repeat their best times so it's best to look at both. When in doubt, favour the average, especially for the 1st sectional, and then make sure you get the right odds.

The quickie explanations for slower times in the final would be that (a) finals are much more competitive and (b) with a field of quality dogs the leader(s) virtually always win. It is very hard to run down a top dog. The related point is that whatever the leaders do governs what the rest of the field can do.

A further illustration was in the Shootout where silly punters made the slow beginning Aston Kimetto a close 2nd fav at $2.80 in a 4-dog field. It ran last and should have been rated a $5 or $6 chance.

Another comparison between top quality sprints (500) and staying races (700) is that most of those sprinters can run out a pretty good 500 whereas relatively few 700 competitors can do the same. Stayers can also recover from an ordinary position but sprinters have no hope of doing that against good dogs. Whatever, the average dog reaches it top race speed over about 435m. After that they are all slowing down, some more than others.

In short, I saw nothing remarkable about the Melbourne Cup, but I did have something to say about the Bold Trease. I may "know nothing" and be talking "rubbish" but all I was seeing was a repeat of umpteen such races over the last 10 or 20 years. Repeated facts, that is, not opinions.

You may benefit from a glossectomy. Did GRV recommend one?

A glossectomy is the surgical removal of the tongue.

Exactly.

You cry to the Admins when you get upset and you get most of my posts removed ..

Back on Topic ........

You are a D!ck Head ..

Merry xmas

I forgot one significant point in my earlier summary of the Cup and Bold Trease.

There was considerable mention of rain from those who reckoned the track was slow. Yet rain would normally help speed up the track by consolidating the top surface - the particles stick together. That's why curators are forever watering the track.

Of course, deluges and slush are a different story but they tend to be limited to northern climes.

On the other hand, wind can be a hassle, especially for leaders and especially on straight tracks. For circle tracks it is harder to pin anything down as there are pluses and minuses.

Which reminds me that ages ago some tracks used to sport wind socks (by Ansett, if I remember correctly) so they would have offered some guidance, although not in any measurable sense. I would have thought that an alert authority would be looking to do a deal with an advertiser to put them up everywhere - possibly at the top of the home straight. For Healesville, it makes sense to add an anemometer as the direction and speed of the wind is hugely influential on times - and to publish that info on formguides.

I forgot one significant point in my earlier summary of the Cup and Bold Trease.

There was considerable mention of rain from those who reckoned the track was slow. Yet rain would normally help speed up the track by consolidating the top surface - the particles stick together. That's why curators are forever watering the track.

Of course, deluges and slush are a different story but they tend to be limited to northern climes.

On the other hand, wind can be a hassle, especially for leaders and especially on straight tracks. For circle tracks it is harder to pin anything down as there are pluses and minuses.

Which reminds me that ages ago some tracks used to sport wind socks (by Ansett, if I remember correctly) so they would have offered some guidance, although not in any measurable sense. I would have thought that an alert authority would be looking to do a deal with an advertiser to put them up everywhere - possibly at the top of the home straight. For Healesville, it makes sense to add an anemometer as the direction and speed of the wind is hugely influential on times - and to publish that info on formguides. That would be the professional approach and both trainers and punters would love it.

The point I am trying to make is that the Agree/Disagree buttons are not worth a pinch of ... anything. The related issue is that the objectors have no idea of how to analyse form - whether they are wonderful trainers or not - as proven by their comments.

did you also check out the wind speed at times plus the the amount of Ions in the air that night .
As you know a lot of fast times happen before or after a thunderstorm so did you add that factor into your calculations

I repeat again the track was very wet at times during the evening and windy which affected times. My view is that Barooga Brett would have gone close to breaking 29secs on a dry surface.

To my list of adjectives I can now add "ridiculous" and then you added a lie. There is no possible way you would have the faintest idea what "99% of trainers and punters" know or think. These days, you would be flat out finding a genuine punter anyway. Plenty of gamblers, though.

If I am wrong and the data is misleading then you can remain silent as nothing will change. If I am right then not only are you creating less reliable races but you are placing dogs in danger. At the end of that road you might find Boomeroo, well trained, experienced and not over-raced. After it won the National Distance Championship at Albion Park back in the last decade it collapsed and the vet had to put it on a drip for four days. They eventually brought it back to the track but it was never the same again.

It's a technical matter but, as best as I can understand it, the chasing urge outweighed its physical resources. Literally, it was what Dr Kohnke termed a "gutbuster".

That's the extreme but I wonder how many others have met with somewhat lesser challenges and people never quite realised what was going on.

You could note also that trainers with a top dog never race it (sprints or otherwise) more than once a week. For the lesser lights in the kennel racing two or sometimes even three times a week is not unusual, never mind that they don't do much good. Why the difference and what are they trying to gain?

And if Barooga Brett was that good, why hasn't he busted 29 sec before? He has had plenty of tries. So has My Redeemer.

Mate, show a little respect. I have been fooling around with this stuff for 50 years, intensively so over the last 25 with the help of monster computer databases. Included there is a utility which compares all runs at a meeting with historical data for the same dogs. It then comes up with an estimate of differences in track speed. I vet that to remove any unusual races or conditions (weather can change part way thru a meeting) before coming up with a final assessment which I then use to adjust all times for future reference. So, for later formguides I don't use what the book says but what my corrected times tell me. A big advantage there is that the computer has a much better memory than I do.

You and others have made several references to rain and a supposed slowing down effect on speeds.

It's hard to find references to this subject academically but here is one series of definitions of loam (it happens to address agriculture and gardening but it is the same stuff).

from Rainmachine.com

"Sandy Loam: Sandy loam soils have a high concentration of sand that gives them a gritty feel. In gardens and lawns, sandy loam soils are capable of quickly draining excess water but can not hold significant amounts of water or nutrients for your plants. Plants grown in this type of soil will require more frequent irrigation and fertilization. (Field Capacity: 0.45 in)

Loamy Sand: This soil type is normally made up of sand mixed with a majority of silt and clay. Many people prefer loamy sand soil for their gardening because this type of soil normally allows for good drainage. (Field Capacity: 0.35 in)"

Whatever the exact style of loam in use at Sandown or elsewhere, it will fit in there somewhere.

You can see the common denominator there is water flow - that is, its primary purpose is to let water move through the surface. Those all-weather properties are why it is used for greyhound tracks. Loam can handle normal rain, thereby avoiding pooling, but it also needs water to hold the surface together (the clay content helps in that). If there is no rain you must add it manually.

The sub-strata quality may also have some effect.

Overall, there is a range between no water (bad) and too much water (a deluge, also bad - like Wenty last night). In between we find the average greyhound track. In those cases, watering or rain is not only helpful but essential. That's why it is an integral part of all track maintenance systems.

So if it rained at Sandown that night it most likely quickened the track, not slowed it down. At worst it could have been line ball, a conclusion supported by the times the dogs ran.

Now there are people far more expert at surfaces than I am - not least a variety of curators at the tracks - so feel free to ask them.

A small rider - a very occasional dog does not like rain and its performance will be ordinary. I recall one that flatly refused to leave the boxes.

As a comparison, as a small kid, my old man used to take me with him to a tennis court comprised of en tout cas - essentially red brick dust. It could take an inch of water and then be fine for play 15 minutes later. But that's the other end of the spectrum.
So are the dust storms which swept across NSW and Victoria recently.

Rain, glorious rain.

PS: I have long petitioned authorities to include comments about weather and track conditions in the usual results pages. Instead all we get is this silly "Good" "Slow" nonsense. Sadly, no response but I live in hope.