Race Distances - Racing Post Weekender

according to last weeks results section in the weekender the advertised race distance is the same as normal but the first line of the analysis states the increased distance.race distances and times are the same as racing post results

I wouldn't be worrying too much about, "extra yardage, " - through rails movements in Jump races.

ALL the horses do NOT 'hug the rails' as in Flat races - with many going wider in order to avoid potential fallers and dodgy jumpers.

Now having races advertised as 1m 7f 212yds  - and then the rails movement makes the actual race distance 2m 56yds is an absolute NONSENSE.

BOTH distances are considered to a bloody 2m race - FFS - have been for decades - and STILL will be for decades to come. ...

- and 2m 56yds at Catterick will seem far stiffer to the runners than 1m 7f 212yds at Towcester.

POINTLESS interference with the status quo.

no one disputes that but if the rails have been moved the horses are running over further whether u hug the rail or not therefore winning times and those who calculate the average per furlong per track would obviously like to know

Surely accurate race distances are a good thing.  Can't for the life of me think why somebody wouldn't want them.  Not all horses hug the rail of course, but that's hardly the point is it?  Indeed, it's not the point at all as race distances aren't measured along the rail I don't think.

Race distances are now measured from a continuous line 2 yards out from the innermost possible running rail. So in effect the advertised distance is the same as though every horse were to hug an imaginary rail 2 yards out.

Before 1 June 2015 NH distances were calculated using a surveyor's wheel roughly in the centre of the track and rounded to the nearest half-furlong.

To be honest, I preferred the old method. There was a real art in generating NH speed figures in those days. If you put in the time and effort to work out what was going on, and tweak published standard times accordingly, you got a genuine edge. But under the new method, as Timeform acknowledged, even they are now able to produce speed figures.

https://www.timeform.com/horse-racing/features/rowley/rowleyfile-investigates-the-remeasurement-of-jumps-racecourses-652015

Why the f can't they adjust the starting positions so that the race distances are correct?

Although the distance changes are noted here, http://www.britishhorseracing.com/race-info/fixtures/fixture-updates/#!/going, is the record of changes maintained anywhere?

If you did that, you would end up with something like a 30-yard run to the first fence on some courses. E.g. the 2m chase start at Wincanton.

Maybe that would work. I wouldn't have a clue how to be a jockey. But I would guess there's a reason why a certain distance is allowed to the first fence.

Stow_judge

Rail movements, and thus increased, or decreased, Race Distances are shown in the ANALYSIS section of Race Results on racingpost.com  - and likewise, in the Results section of the WEEKENDER.

Thae movements for the whole meeting are shown at the head of the ANALYSIS for the FIRST race of the meeting.

That the only place that they used to show them - However, thankfully, they now also show any rail movements for EACH individual race at the head of each INDIVIDUAL race result.

It only took them about 2 years to come around to that way of thinking.
------------

You need to be a subscriber to racingpost.com in order to view Race  ANALYSIS, though -
- or fork out £3.10p for the WEEKENDER.

- or, if you are really keen ... do Both

Thanks