Find the latest bookmaker offers available across all uk gambling sites Read the reviews and compare sites to quickly discover the perfect account for you.
Tuesday , 16 October 2018
Breaking News
Home > Sports Betting > Horseracing Betting > Winning distance not always what it seems
ITV Racing on TV

Winning distance not always what it seems

Last month, Bristol De Mai won the Betfair Chase by 57 lengths from Cue Card. Or did he? The official distance was 57 lengths. However, the winning distance was not measured in terms of actual horse lengths. The calculation was based on the time it took Cue Card to cross the line in second place. That time underwent a formula called the ‘lengths per second’ scale to decide the winning distance.

A length isn’t actually a unit of distance, it’s a unit of time. The lengths per second scale varies according to the code – Flat, all-weather or jumps – and the going. This makes sense because a horse running on good or fast ground is likely to finish a race faster than one on soft or heavy ground.

How a winning distance can vary

For Flat turf races the scale is six lengths per second on good or quicker, 5.5 for good to soft, five for soft or slower. It is six lengths per second for the all-weather tracks except for Southwell, which has a deeper surface. Thus, Southwell is five lengths per second. Over jumps, good or quicker equates to five lengths per second, good to soft 4.5 lengths, with four lengths for soft or slower.

Cue Card fished 14.25 seconds behind Bristol De Mai on heavy ground, hence the 57 lengths distance at four lengths per second. However, had the race been run on good ground, the distance would have been 71.25 lengths.

Strangely, the scale only varies according to the state of the ground. There is no adjustment for race distance. That can be confusing. Horses will be finishing faster at the end of a five-furlong sprint at Epsom than in a race over two miles or more. But if the ground is the same for both races, the same lengths per second scale applies. Likewise, on heavy ground, horses are more likely to finish faster in a two-mile hurdle than in a four-mile chase.

So, beware of the winning distance. It is not always what it seems.




About Chris Pitt

Chris Pitt is a racing historian and freelance journalist. He has written three books including 'A Long Time Gone', chronicling Britain's lost racecourses, and 'Go Down to the Beaten', stories of jockeys who didn't win the Grand National. He founded the Midlands Racing Club and was formerly racing correspondent for BBC Radio WM.

Check Also

Racing's funding

Sale of Towcester remains up in the air

Towcester was due to resume horse racing this week after its summer break. That is ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *