The Effect of Age on Thoroughbred Racing Performance
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › NCBI › Literature › PubMed Central (PMC)


Abstract

Using a dataset of 274 male Thoroughbred racehorses in the United States, we study the effect of age on racing performance. Beyer speed figures, which are uniform measures of racing performance across distance and racing surface, are utilized in this study. A system of equations is estimated to determine quadratic improvement and decline in racing performance. We find that a typical horse’s peak racing age is 4.45 years. The rate of improvement from age 2 to 4 1/2 is greater than the rate of decline after age 4 1/2. A typical horse will improve by 10 (horse) lengths in sprints (less than 1 mile) and 15 lengths in routes (one mile or greater) from age 2 to 4 1/2. Over the next five years the typical decline is 6 lengths for sprints and 9 1/2 lengths for routes.

Looking at the tables in this research I'm pretty certain that the WFA scale favours 3 yr old considerably especially at this time of the year over staying distances (most 3 yr olds competing in the Arc would be between 3.25and 3.75 years) and although the research shows that horses peak speed is 4.25 years and 4.5 years the edge is no more than 2 Beyer points which translates to around 5 lbs.Its a possible explanation for the bias towards 3 yr olds. And the decline in natural speed after 5 explains the disadvantage for older horses.

I agree that 3yos are generally favoured with the wfa scale and I'm pretty sure on average horses are maturing earlier. My point is Treve was racing against 3yos last year on the same wfa scale so she's at no more of a disadvantage this year than she was then. I'm not saying she's improved but I see no evidence whatsoever of even the slightest decline so her chance is in no way diminished just because past stats are seemingly not in her favour as a 5yo. Whether last year's form proves good enough this year is another matter of course.

I'm pretty certain that she has not performed at the same level as she did in 2013 which is why her price has no juice in it at 2.0

I suppose it depends on whose ratings you use. That suggests that she has declined since her first Arc win but realistically that seems very unlikely and in my view it's more a reflection of the wfa scale artificially bumping up the ratings of 3yos, also maybe the win was slightly overrated by some. Her times definitely haven't gone backwards ignoring wfa allowances.

She got close to it in the Vermeille. Problem is, did that effort bring her on or set her back?

It's possible and like you say we won't know for sure until next week. While we're all looking for impressive performances we're also aware that an impressive run can be a double-edged sword. In view of the slow time it's much less likely to have bottomed her than if the race had been truly run and she'd won in that fashion. What impressed me more than anything was the enthusiastic way she went about it. At the age of 5 it would be no surprise if she needed a bit more persuasion than in the past to really put it all in, however it was just the opposite with her.

I will let her run unbacked at 2.0 or less. if she drifts to a better price, then i will reconsider

her price has no juice in it at 2.0

That is the other point I'm trying to make, just because her price has no juice in it does not mean she's too short or the wrong price. There may be no value in her price, given that it's still ante post rules I don't believe there is, but that's not the same as saying she's the wrong price. I believe she's roughly about the right price which means no bet, as yet.

You can talk about regression to the mean - her spectacular 2013 success was never going to be repeated.

You can say she was weak last season and got a dream trip around when the big day came, and the challenge was weak - Note Flintshire, Kingston Hill.

But, Ultimately, and it seems so obvious to have to say it, but it is the crux: to beat her you have to finish in front of her ! That's where the speed angle comes in and how the race unfolds. Look for something that can outrace her on the straight and she'll be beaten - poor old Flintshire and Kingston Hill, for all their admirable qualities, couldnt't match the finishing speed of Treve.

Others in the race do - Found does, and on that same stretch of Turf.

If he gets the ground, then Golden Horn most certainly does,

I hear that the finishing straight at Longchamp dries out much better than the rest of the course, interested parties await news on this front.

I maintain that Treve is in better form than ever, the fact is that no 3yrld as got within 6 lengths of her this year, I do agree that the evidence is limited and no surprises that she did beat them, but we must remember that Arabian Queen(did not stay) and  Sea Calisi were disapointing, the overal picture is not clear with Golden Horns 10f formlines, a distance not relevant to the Arc distance and for my money GH needs further than 10f to be seen at best, Found is totally the dark one in the field, but her overal  record(all those 2nds) perhaps explains the bigger prices available, but it possible she could prove better at 12f also.The older generation always represent proven Group form , the 3yrlds nearlly always unexposed, the problem is disecting the older Generation and there exists no perfect method, how far backwards have they gone or improved? GH beating  TGG gave a good impression, but  missing the King George and Gosdens comments about Golden Horn Bareley staying 12f very confusing. Treve was the class Filly of her Generation by a long way, Golden horn as been beaten by a average 3yrld filly this year at 10f. Treve should be fav at about 9/4 - 5/2 , it is the Arc not a maiden at Southwell ffs. Do you layers not want too trade?

next weeks weather forecast looks lovely,could it be a fast ground arc?

Take those French ground predications with a pinch of salt, reckon they all served their apprenticeship at Haydock. Wait until Saturdays card for a better description, hopefully some of the time boys on here will give a more accurate forecast.

Figgis
Kincsem, ignoring for a moment the fact that very few Arcs are actually run on what we'd call 'fast' ground, what is your explanation for the conclusion that a low draw is of more importance on 'fast' ground in the Arc?

Apologies for the late reply.  I was in shock reading about Sandown's 25k bet.

Extract from an e-mail I sent to someone on a French forum
Longchamp is a clay soil course (sol argileux).
When the ground in firm the ground cracks. http://www.brignais.com/photo/art/default/2589931-3653880.jpg?v=1294140988
When the ground is soft or heavy it is sticky. http://i.imgur.com/4rxy9DT.jpg
This gives a very big difference in race times: Danedream (2011) 2:24;49; Solemia (2012) 2:37:68  …. difference 13.19 seconds is very big.
My garden is clay soil.  In the summer it is like a rock.  In the winter it is like glue.
I broke a fork prong breaking dry clay soil in my garden.

Winning time, draw, field

Time    Year    Draw    Runners
159.10    1984    17    22
159.00    1992    14    18 .... "soft", slow by 8.50
158.50    1999    4    14 .... "heavy", slow by 8.00
157.90    1993    9    23 .... "heavy", slow by 7.40
157.68    2012    6    18
157.30    1988    4    24
156.10    2001    15    17
155.30    2010    8    18
155.20    1981    14    24
154.50    1998    7    14
152.30    2003    14    13
152.04    2013    15    17
151.80    1995    7    16
151.40    1991    12    14
151.10    1994    2    20
150.80    1989    16    19
149.90    1996    5    16
149.80    1990    10    21
149.50    1985    4    15
148.80    2008    1    16
148.50    2007    6    12
148.30    1971    7    18
148.10    1983    6    26
148.00    1980    6    20
147.40    2005    6    15
146.30    1987    10    11
146.30    2009    6    19
146.30    2006    4    8
146.05    2014    3    19
145.80    2000    7    10
145.00    2004    5    19 .... "good", fast by 5.50
144.70    2002    3    16 .... "good", fast by 3.80
144.60    1997    2    18 .... "good to firm", fast by 5.90
144.49    2011    2    16 .... "good", fast by 6.01

"very few Arcs are actually run on what we'd call 'fast' ground" ... that is the problem with racecourses.
They will not call the ground fast.
"good" probably means good for growing grass.  "good" tell us nothing about the ground.

Look at the draw of the winners.  The faster the time the lower the winner's draw.
Remember that pacemakers can be drawn low, and 100/1 outsiders can be drawn low.
Just pick the good horse that is drawn low.  The poor horses will be left behind.
When a high drawn horse wins on fast (1987; 2000) look at the field size - almost always small.

12 Irish Derbys were run in under 2:30.00
18 Arcs were run in under 2:30.00
I know 2400m is a little less than 1m4f (about 15.3 yards, probably 0.8 sec)

I am giving stuff away here.  The ground can be very fast, and it is difficult to overcome a bad draw (high) in a fast Arc.
Look at Kingston Hill in the 2014 race, drawn 20 "Worked across from widest draw and tracked leader"
He raced prominently.  But he used up his resources getting into a prominent position.
Trave looked good powering away in 2014 beating Taghrooda (draw 15) and Kingston Hill (draw 20).

Perhaps you might say the winner, drawn low, did not race prominently, and appeared to give away the low draw advantage.
What happens is the winner is still fresh, tends to hug the rail, and can come with an impressive looking late run past tired horses.

John Gosden has never won the race kinscem do you know his runners and how they have got on, you know every other stat so this one should be easy

They will not call the ground fast.
"good" probably means good for growing grass.  "good" tell us nothing about the ground.

I agree they will not call it fast but I would include good to firm as fast ground in this instance and, as we've said, French descriptions are notoriously poor, usually stating the ground is softer than it is. Maybe their idea of soft is different than ours but even allowing for that they can be wildly inaccurate. At best they're generally a margin softer than a time based description of the ground. If they say it's soft it'll be more like good to soft, good to soft will be more like good, etc.

I also agree that 2011 was definitely what we'd call good to firm, although there are definitely some question marks about the accuracy of that final time. On time based evidence I would say last year's race was the fast side of good, borderline good to firm ground, which only leaves five races on your list that were run on ground faster than that.

I'm not saying your ideas on the draw are wrong but this is a very small sample size from which to draw firm conclusions. Of the slowest times on your list yes the slowest two were drawn 17 and 14 but then the next four were drawn 4, 9, 6 and 4, so that's hardly compelling evidence. Only one winner from the whole list was drawn 1.

I acknowledge that there appears to be a rough trend towards lower drawn horses and faster times on those bare stats, but when actually comparing the stats with the prices of the horses involved and how well they were fancied I don't see anything that screams there was an obvious draw bias for those results on the better ground.

it is difficult to overcome a bad draw (high) in a fast Arc

Wouldn't it be more likely that it may be difficult to overcome a bad draw in a fast run Arc rather than how fast the ground is? Surely it's the relative pace that they're travelling rather than how fast the ground is. There have been many Arcs run on decent ground that have been still run at a slowish early pace.

I should have said I don't see anything that screams there was any more of an obvious draw bias for those results on the better ground. Not that there is no bias at all. Obviously if there's a horse that is better ridden very prominently then it has to be a severe disadvantage to be drawn very high. However, if the horse is going to be held up behind I wouldn't see a high draw as a big handicap and it would be at the mercy of luck in running like any hold up horse in the race, although I still think the best horse usually wins.

There is , of course, a blindingly obvious reason why this should be so i.e why lower drawn horses will run faster times.The closer to the rail, the less distance there is to travel.For a course which is a semi-circle the calculation using pi would be approx 1.57 (half pi) times diameter (i.e draw position say 1.5 metre per draw place.) A horse travelling say 5 places wide all the way round would travel 11.8 metres further than one travelling against the rail. Thats about 4 lengths or so. If Trakus figures were available (they are at Meydan) we would see how far each horse has gone.

Look at Kingston Hill in the 2014 race, drawn 20 "Worked across from widest draw and tracked leader"
He raced prominently.  But he used up his resources getting into a prominent position.
Trave looked good powering away in 2014 beating Taghrooda (draw 15) and Kingston Hill (draw 20).

Perhaps you might say the winner, drawn low, did not race prominently, and appeared to give away the low draw advantage.
What happens is the winner is still fresh, tends to hug the rail, and can come with an impressive looking late run past tired horses.


Brilliant Work, Kincem

Ok, let's take a look at the horses on the list with the fastest times that were drawn in single figures. Starting with Danedream, most of us underrated her on the day but surely nobody is seriously trying to say her facile win was the result of a draw bias? Likewise Peintre Celebre who went of a well backed fav before demolishing his field. Sinndar went off a well backed 6/4 2nd fav to the 4/5 Montjeu. Sinndar was drawn 7, Montjeu 10, I doubt anybody could seriously say the draw affected the result. Next is Treve, some may choose to believe she won in 2013 because she was favoured by being drawn on high on softish ground then was the recipient of a favoured low draw last year, others like me will just accept she was the best horse in the race on both occasions.

Rail Link was drawn 4 of only 8 runners, I can't believe anybody would try to argue a draw bias in those circumstances. Sea The Stars went off the most strongly fancied Arc runners in years, the strongest I can remember anyway, I doubt much of that confidence was due to his no6 draw. I've left the two more arguable cases until last, Marienbard and Bago. Marienbard was just under 16/1 so could be considered a bit of a shock, although he went there after a couple of wins in Germany so it's also possible he was underrated. Some people think the higher drawn Sulamani was an unlucky loser, maybe he was. Bago won at odds of 10/1 but in an open year with a 9/2 fav it couldn't be called a shock result, whether he won because of his draw is debatable.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

There is , of course, a blindingly obvious reason why this should be so i.e why lower drawn horses will run faster times.

Yes, but that definitely does not explain why a low draw is more of a bias on faster ground, which is what is being discussed. The lower drawn horse will be saving ground and in theory running a relatively faster time (all other things being equal, which of course they aren't always) whatever the state of the ground.

figgis

If you find controversy in a statement that on the whole horses which travel less distance will finish in a faster time than those which travel a greater distance, as a result of the draw, then you will argue about anything. The stats are just proof of that simple truth. Its not rocket science.

Anyway, I know that you could start an argument in an empty room.

Figgis
I'm not saying your ideas on the draw are wrong but this is a very small sample size from which to draw firm conclusions.
Of the slowest times on your list yes the slowest two were drawn 17 and 14 but then the next four were drawn 4, 9, 6 and 4, so that's hardly compelling evidence.

A low draw is an advantage on fast ground (and obviously a high draw a disadvantage).
On slow ground a high draw is a lesser disadvantage.  A horse suited to slow ground can overcome it.
On slow ground I expect the winner's draw to look random.  It doesn't matter much where he/she is drawn.
The "compelling evidence" is the low draw of winners on fast ground.  I am taking a fast time as meaning fast ground, and ignoring the returned going description.

Figgis
Of the slowest times on your list yes the slowest two were drawn 17 and 14 but then the next four were drawn 4, 9, 6 and 4, so that's hardly compelling evidence.

Pointing out the draw position of winners on soft is meaningless.
A high draw on soft is a disadvantage, a lesser disadvantage.
My opinion is: a low draw is a big advantage on fast ground.

Figgis
Only one winner from the whole list was drawn 1.

As I said above, you can not make slow horses drawn 1 run faster.
These are the drawn 1 horses, the races ordered from fastest to slowest

year    time    Fast draw fin  odds ......name
2011    144.49    1    1    10    10/1.... HIRUNO D'AMOUR
1997    144.60    2    1    3    16.2/1....BORGIA
2004    145.00    3    1    2    7.3/1....CHERRY MIX
2000    145.80    4    1    6    7.5/1....SAMUM
2014    146.05    5    1    11    8/1....AVENIR CERTAIN
1987    146.30    6    1    10    100/1 couple ....SHARANIYA
2006    146.30    7    1    4    4/1....HURRICANE RUN
2009    146.30    8    1    2    20/1....YOUMZAIN
2002    146.70    9    1    4    131/1....CALIFET
2005    147.40    10    1    6    3/1....SHAWANDA
1980    148.00    11    1    6    70/1.....NICHOLAS BILL
1983    148.10    12    1    6    7.75/1....STANERRA
1971    148.30    13    1    12    95/1....MISTER SIC TOP
2007    148.50    14    1    9    108/1....DRAGON DANCER
2008    148.80    15    1    1    1.62/1....ZARKAVA
1985    149.50    16    1    4    100/1 couple.....SUMAYR
1990    149.80    17    1    15    33/1....MISTER RIV
1996    149.90    18    1    6    47/1....LE DESTIN
1989    150.80    19    1    15    100/1 couple....HARVEST TIME
1994    151.10    20    1    3    14/1....APPLE TREE
1991    151.40    21    1    3    6.8/1....PISTOLET BLEU
1995    151.80    22    1    12    33/1....TOT OU TARD
2013    152.04    23    1    16    100/1 couple....VERY NICE NAME
2003    152.30    24    1    3    2.6/1....HIGH CHAPARRAL
1998    154.50    25    1    6    100/1 couple....FRAGRANT MIX
2010    155.30    26    1    5    4.5/1....FAME AND GLORY
2001    156.10    27    1    5    4.8/1....MILAN
1988    157.30    28    1    12    100/1 couple....SARHOOB
2012    157.68    29    1    4    150/1....HAYA LANDA
1993    157.90    30    1    22    11.8/1....USER FRIENDLY
1999    158.50    31    1    2    3.6/1....EL CONDOR PASA
1992    159.00    32    1    11    26/1....MASHAALLAH

“100/1 couple” means coupled odds horses where I assumed the lesser horses in the couple group are 100/1

32 horses drawn 1:  finished 1x1st; 3x2nd; 4x3rd; 4x4th; 2x5th; 6x6th = 20 finished in the first six.
The average odds of the 12 who finished outside the first six was 60.4/1 (and that 60.4/1 included a 10/1; 8/1; 11.8/1)
Another way of stating the figures is:  only three horses (a) drawn 1 (b) with odds under 12/1 .... finished outside the first six.
.... OR only three good horses drawn 1 finished outside the first six.  One of those, User Friendly, got a bump early and trailed the field the whole way.

You say I have a very small sample size.  I don't have a sample size of hundreds of races, only 34 races and 586 placings.
There were 93 Arcs, and stalls were not used before the late 1960s, and stall position/draw was often not reported in the results.
Reporting the draw was a regular occurence only from 1980.  The sample size is (and must be) 34 races, so about 11 slow, 11 good, 11 fast ground.

Drawn 1: One winner: Zarkava
Drawn 2: Four winners: Detroit; Carnegie; Peintre Celebre  (2nd fastest time); Danedream (record time)
Drawn 3: Two winners: Marienbard; Treve (5th fastest time)
Drawn 4: Three winners: Tony Bin; Montjeu; Rail Link (7th fastest time)
Drawn 5: Two winners: Helissio; Bago (3rd fastest time)

Of the 16 fastest races where I have draw info, 15 winners were drawn 7 or lower (1x1; 2x2; 2x3; 2x4; 1x5; 5x6; 2x7; 1x10,  average field size 15.2).
(The winner drawn 10 was in a small field of 11, one drawn 7 was in a field of 10).
This suggest to me the bigger the field and the faster the going the greater importance a low draw.

One thing I do with "my ideas" is I post the data here.  People can make up their own minds from the data.

This suggest to me the bigger the field and the faster the going the greater importance a low draw

I know that's what it suggests to you. I am simply asking you for an explanation to back up the stats, why there would be more of a low draw bias on faster ground? So far I have not seen one valid explanation put forward. I know there are occurrences that can't always explained but we're not contemplating the meaning of life here, just asking for an explanation about stats in a horse race, this ought to be possible.