Warren Williams, then Doomben Track Manager, in a file photo from a few years ago, with a penetrometer on the Doomben course proper. These days Williams is employed by Queensland Racing to oversee all racetracks in the State.

In last Friday night’s Justracing story entitled “Two champions on course at Doomben tomorrow – and what is going on with the Doomben penetromer,” I wrote “Sean Bridges from Doomben has sent through the 3pm track report for Doomben and he has advised that the track is currently a dead 4 with a penetrometer reading of 4.4. There has been 2mm of rain in the last seven days and no irrigation has been applied to the track in the last seven days. Now I rang Sean Bridges straight away upon the issue of this report, as by my historical Sectional Times data, Doomben cannot possibly have a 4.4 penetrometer reading and be a dead 4 track. In fact I asked him if he meant 5.4, as Doomben historically should be racing on a fast track at 4.4. To back me on this vitally important issue, last Saturday week (22/5/10) Doomben started (on race morning at 7am) with a penetrometer reading of 4.95 and was rated as a dead 4 track for the first five races, then it was upgraded to a good 3 after Race 5. The previous Saturday (15/5) it had a penetrometer reading of 5.10 (at 7am on race day) and after Fab Fevola won Race 1, the track was upgraded to a good 3, so I don’t know what is going on at Doomben with the penetrometer readings. Sean Bridges reiterated to me that “4.4” was the right reading (when I rang him on the matter). The other thing that amazes me, is if the Doomben track was rated by stewards as a good 3 track after Race 5 last Saturday afternoon (22/5) and only 2 mm of rain has fallen on the track since last Saturday (22/5) and that 2mm fell on Tuesday, how the hell can the track possibly be any worse than a good 3 today at 3pm? The Doomben dews must be 'equivalent to dumping 20 points of rain' on the track, like one Ipswich committeeman told me once, but I did laugh at him over that stupid statement, as I grew up on a farm, so I have a fair idea about dews. So read into that Doomben track report what you will. Sorry to confuse readers on the issue, but I don’t take the penetrometer readings, I just keep a record of what is advised by track staff, so abnormalities stick out like the proverbials.”

I have subsequently spoken to Sean Bridges at the Doomben track last Saturday afternoon (Doomben 10,000 day) regarding my Friday night article - and to that end, it is my considered opinion that the track at Doomben has had consistent penetrometer readings for the last five years, until the last few weeks. So as everything that is written here is able to be backed up with facts, here is a list of Doomben penetrometer readings from that track in the last 12 months. In reading this, remember what I queried in Friday night’s article was that the Doomben track, with a penetrometer of 4.40 last Friday at 3pm "cannot possibly be a dead 4 track" historically. So in the last 12 months at Doomben these have been the penetrometer readings at 7am on race morning – with the accompanying track rating that was assessed to it by stewards.

Whilst it is acknowledged that a penetrometer reading is unique to each individual course, Doomben hasn’t moved recently, or been dug up, so there is no logical reason why the penetrometer readings shouldn’t at least be consistent.

Irrespective of people who have an opinion that penetrometer readings are "a waste of time", I vehemently disagree with that notion, as I have noted over a long period of time, that if an accurate penetrometer reading is issued on a race morning - on a day that we are certain no rain will fall subsequent to that penetrometer reading being issued – that many horses will perform within a certain penetrometer range. For instance, historically, if a Doomben penetrometer starts off on race day at say at 4.60, or below, with a fine day and a forecast high of say 30 degrees, that track will race as a fast track later that afternoon - and horses will be capable of running very fast overall times.

Cast your eye over the aforesaid and you will note inconsistencies in the historical track rating when lined up to the specific penetrometer reading of last Friday afternoon at 3pm when, with a penetrometer reading of 4.40, the track was a “dead 4” - yet any other time in the last year that the penetrometer reading was within cooee of 4.40, it is a “good 3” track – and in fact on numerous occasions when the penetrometer reading is 4.90 inclusive, or slower (ie that means the penetrometer reading is 4.90 or higher), it is also rated a “good 3” track.

To read the interesting and informative penetrometer article that former Australian Racetrack Manager Warren Williams wrote for this website some years back all you have to do is click HERE. In fact Warren Williams ability with racetracks is held in such high esteem that he is now employed by Queensland Racing to oversee all racetracks in the State.

You will also note that after the 22/8/09 meeting the penetrometer readings started to get rounded up or down to the nearest 10.

As early as last Saturday afternoon, I advised the club that I would put up a story for the public, outlining Doomben penetrometer readings for "at least the last 12 months" - and to that end, Sean Bridges wrote the following to give the club's view on the 4.40 penetrometer reading that was issued last Friday. Sean wrote:

As I said to you on Saturday, I agree that a Dead 4 rating with a Penetrometer of 4.4 was “out of the norm” for Doomben, but there may be a couple of things to consider:

1) The track was inspected the day prior by Bill Shuck, John Hackett and Warren Williams who all believed the track was on the worser side of good. This assessment was made before the a Penetrometer reading was determined.

2) Following 7mm of rain overnight the Penetrometer was recorded at 4.7 and the Stewards reassessed the track as a Dead 5.

3) Following another 4mm before race one, the track was again reassessed and downgraded to a slow 6, a rating it held all day. Although a follow-up Penetrometer was not carried out I would have expected it to be no greater than 4.9 -5.0. Keeping this in mind, we are both aware that a 4.9 or a 5.0 does not fit in with the Doomben Penetrometer slow scale.

4) After race one, many experienced jockeys were queried on the condition of the track and all and sundry believed the track was a definite slow 6.

5) The final wash up of the day was that the track was correctly rated as a Slow 6.

So my point is that Saturday’s race meeting goes to show just how subjective track assessments are and how we cannot be 100% reliant on one tool to form a categorical assessment on a racing surface. What would be more useful to punters and industry people would be if track assessments become more detailed featuring a forthright description on how the track will play on the day, as well as Penetrometer readings and rainfall/irrigation. For example, Doomben on Saturday:

“ Today the track for Doomben is rated a Slow 6 with a Penetrometer of 4.9 and 11mm of rainfall in the last 12 hours. Although we expect the track to chop out slightly, we believe that there is a reasonably solid base under the turf surface and horses will be able to get good footing throughout the day. Therefore it is our belief that the horses without wet track form will not be overly disadvantaged and reasonable times should be run during the race meeting.”

The above mentioned is my personal thoughts on track assessments and I believe we have a long way to go before a method is settled on that appeases all parties.