THE remark “you only worry about time when you are in jail” has generally been attributed to racehorse trainer Luca Cumani, with the implication being that such considerations as one horse running faster than another do not really matter.

Cumani is a shrewd cookie who probably knew full well that he was being glib where racing is concerned. A knowledge of times explains much of what has gone on and can aid greatly in predicting what may yet happen.

We are not in jail, but Lockdown Life does at least present an opportunity for a refresher of some of the fundamentals of time analysis. With time on our hands, what better time to think about time, as it were?! Time is just another way in which to compare the abilities of different horses. If one horse is superior to another it is likely to show that by reaching the line ahead of that other: that is, by running faster and returning a quicker time.

Meaningless

The problem is that time without context is all but meaningless. A winning time of, say, 1m 40.0s may be phenomenally good on one occasion and dismally bad on another.

Context is provided by comparing the times recorded with a set of times standardised for the course and distance at which the horses are running. These standardised times are, in theory, achievable by the same calibre of horse, whether the course in question is Leopardstown or Limerick, or the race is at six furlongs or two miles.

Compiling standard times is a complicated process, which I will not go into here. I hope to publish my own standard times soon on a dedicated website.

In order for those comparisons with standard times to be meaningful, the differences need to be converted into pounds and adjusted for the weights carried, for any weight-for-age considerations and for the apparent ability of the horses involved.

The last-named is best quantified in ratings, which are weights-based also, so that all the key elements are now on the same weights-based scale.

Example

Perhaps the best thing to do now would be to give a real-life example, for which I have chosen the first day of Irish Champions Weekend at Leopardstown last September. In order to keep things manageable, I have considered only the seven-furlong races (of which there were two) and eight-furlong races (of which there were three). See Table 1.

There is a lot to pick through here, so I will take each component at a time.

Distance (in furlongs) and time taken by the winner (in seconds) should be self-explanatory, as now should be standard time (in seconds). The difference (in seconds) between standard time and time taken – such as Current Option running 0.48s under standard time – follows simply from that.

The trickiest aspect is the “as lb” one, which converts that difference in time into pounds. For the purposes of this exercise I used Timeform’s published methodology, which is to multiply that difference by 1500 (the figure you get if treating one second at 60 seconds as being equal to 25lb) and then divide by the actual time taken. The calculation should be somewhat more complicated than that, but it serves its purpose here.

Thereafter, you need to adjust for the weight carried (including weight-for-age in the above example) and the apparent ability shown. Horses carrying more weight run slower than those that do not, and athletically superior horses are capable of running faster than those that are not.

“Ability” is the rating the horse appeared to run to in winning. This is a significantly better option than using blunt instruments like “class pars”. The ability figures quoted are my own, but you could use commercially available options or estimate your own from official pre-race ratings.

Which takes us to the second tricky calculation: the “gives” one. This brings together all the preceding weights-based figures to come up with a going allowance based on the overall time for the race in question.

Slower times in the context of what might be expected will result in higher figures here, and quicker times will result in lower. You add the “as lb” figure to the “ability (lb)” figure then subtract the “weight + wfa (lb)” figure. The convention is to add 140 lb (10st 0 lb) to the result – which has been done here – but it does not strictly matter so long as that constant is the same in all cases.

The next step is where some skill and interpretation comes in handy. It is highly likely that at least one of the races under consideration has been truly-run and reflects the ability of the winner in question.

To achieve this, you could pick the lowest value in the “gives” column. In this case, I have chosen the joint second lowest figure of 97. This is the going allowance for the races listed.

That means that Space Traveller’s and Current Option’s times are considered to be right up to what could be expected of horses of their quality, carrying the weight that they did, that Blissful and Mogul ran 25lb and 31lb respectively slower than could be expected, and that Iridessa ran 3lb quicker than could be expected.

If a going allowance of 94 were chosen instead, the “fast/slow” figures (the differences between the going allowance and the “gives” figures) and the winning timefigures would all be 3lb lower. Timefigures go up or down in unison in line with the going allowance being used.

With a 97 going allowance, Iridessa is considered to have run 3lb quicker than suggested by her form, or a time-based figure of 116 compared to a form-based rating of 113.

If subsequent events point to this being too generous, then that going allowance can be lowered, but it should be realised that not only would Iridessa’s rating go down, so would those of the other winners on the card.

Calculations

So far, we have considered only timefigures for the winners, each of them inextricably linked to all the others. In order to get timefigures for beaten horses we need to perform some of the same calculations on a by-horse basis.

Let’s look at that Coolmore ‘Fastnet Rock’ Matron Stakes won by Iridessa in more detail.

Those individual times have been taken from the official electronic ones given in some results services, but it is possible to approximate them from the winner’s time and the margins between the horses.

By applying the 1500 multiplied by difference between actual time and standard time, with the result divided by the actual time, we discover that Iridessa was 2lb better than Hermosa (-28 compared to -26), 3lb better than Just Wonderful, and so on.

As we have already decided, at least provisionally, that Iridessa is worth a 116 rating based on time then it follows that Hermosa is 114, Just Wonderful is 113, and so on, as far down the field as we wish to go.

The above assumes that all horses carried the same weight compared to weight for age. In this case, that is true. But if, for instance, the runner-up carried 10lb more than the winner, that would need to be reflected in their time-based figures.

The subsequent win of Iridessa in the Breeders’ Cup Filly and Mare Turf and the previous wins of Hermosa in the 1000 Guineas at Newmarket and the Curragh suggested a positive view was justified. The overall record of Just Wonderful (who was hooded for the first time in this race) less so.

Pitching your figures at the right level, and tweaking them as more information becomes available, requires skill, which comes with experience. But that Iridessa ran a good (or better than good?) time is difficult to dispute.

She ran the fastest of three at a mile on the day, and that includes being 5lb faster (after weight carried) than the smart Space Traveller achieved 35 minutes earlier in winning a Group 2.

Sectionals

By contrast, Mogul and Blissful were notably slow. That does not mean they are poor horses, but that they ran overall times that are unlikely to be reflective of their true abilities. Sectionals would shed more light on the degree to which their overall times were compromised by an inefficient pace, but such analysis would be the subject of a different article.

Both good and poor horses can run poor times, but only good horses can run good ones. If you identify a good overall time – such as Iridessa’s – it is very likely to be confirmation of superior ability as well as of the reliability of the form.

Weight

Before signing off, a few words about weight, which is central in much of the above. Some time analysts choose not to include it, but they are wrong.

Weight matters – Newtonian physics told us that centuries ago – though precisely how much it matters in any given horse racing setting is difficult to ascertain. “Difficult” is not a reason to ignore it altogether, for it is as much a part of the context as is ability or the time recorded itself.

Some have pointed to the good performance of higher-weighted horses as proof that physics does not apply. But that is exactly the result you would expect if the amount of weight assigned to offset differences in ability was insufficient, which it is.

This is perhaps a subject for another article, too!