Lost in the Maze: How British Racing’s Fragmented Sectional Timing Keeps Punters Paying

For over 40 years, the promise of sectional timing has hung over British racing as the tool that could transform punter insight and elevate the sport into the data-driven age. Back in the 1980s, legendary broadcaster and journalist Brough Scott was one of the first to champion sectional timing, calling for split times and performance metrics that would allow racing fans to see what really happens across each segment of a race. The goal was to replace guesswork with data, offering punters deeper insights into each horse’s strengths and weaknesses. Fast-forward to today, and despite Scott’s early advocacy, British racing’s sectional timing remains frustratingly fragmented—leaving fans still struggling to make sense of the numbers.

While Simon Rowlands, another advocate of sectional timing and regular columnist for At The Races, has continued to highlight the value of these metrics, the racing industry’s implementation has left much to be desired. Rowlands provides his own analysis of sectional times, but the lack of standardisation across the industry makes meaningful, consistent comparisons difficult for even the most dedicated fans. Rather than a unified, accessible system, punters are presented with a patchwork of metrics from various providers, inconsistent formats, and incomplete data. It’s enough to make anyone question if this fragmented approach has been designed to extract as much money from punters as possible by keeping them in the dark.

The Fragmented Reality: Confusing Data and Missed Insights

Sectional timing in British racing is, in theory, supposed to offer clarity on how a horse performs at different stages of a race. Yet the current reality is a disjointed mess, split between various providers—primarily Total Performance Data (TPD) and RaceIQ—each with its own method for presenting data. This lack of standardisation means that key metrics like stride frequency, and peak stride length differ from one provider to the next. For punters trying to analyse performance, this is like receiving a series of puzzle pieces from different manufacturers—none of which quite fit together.

The difficulty doesn’t end there. On Racing TV, for example, RaceIQ’s data is presented in static PDFs, which, for anyone hoping to make sense of sectional timing, are as helpful as looking through a muddy window. These static files don’t allow fans to sort, filter, or compare information easily, forcing them to pore over countless pages without the ability to draw meaningful conclusions. This clunky format makes it nearly impossible to spot trends, assess a horse’s performance under different conditions, or compare metrics across races.

At The Races: A Glimmer of Progress, but Still Limited

In an industry where clarity is rare, At The Races stands out as a platform that’s at least made strides toward accessibility. Simon Rowlands’ columns on the site are a significant step in making sectional timing data more approachable and digestible. Rowlands has been instrumental and the beacon in breaking down the data for fans, offering a model of what sectional timing analysis could look like if properly supported by a consistent data framework. He regularly points out the benefits of sectional timing, highlighting how metrics like stride patterns, pace, and sectional splits can transform punters’ understanding of a race.

At The Races also consolidates data from multiple providers, creating a far more user-friendly platform than Racing TV’s PDFs. By making sectional timing data available in a clearer, more navigable format, At The Races offers punters a better chance at gleaning insights from the numbers, but not very accessible for future race analysis. However, even their best efforts can’t fully compensate for an industry-wide failure to standardise data output. Rowlands and At The Races may be doing their best to simplify sectional timing, but without a consistent system, punters still face an uphill struggle to compare performances across horses, tracks, and races. My attempted discussions with RacingTV have fallen on deaf ears regarding their poor presentation in PDF format.

The Glaring Omission: Speed Duration at Peak

One of the most valuable metrics missing from British sectional timing is speed duration, particularly at peak. Knowing how long a horse can sustain its top speed would offer a crucial insight into its stamina, shedding light on whether it’s built for short sprints or can sustain performance over longer distances. This kind of data would be a game-changer for both punters and trainers, offering a direct measure of endurance that could refine betting strategies and race-day preparations.

Why this essential metric isn’t included is perplexing. With peak and subpeak speed duration data, punters could make educated predictions about how a horse will handle specific race conditions, giving them far more insight than current split times or peak stride lengths allow. Without it, the system feels incomplete—almost as if the racing industry is withholding the very information that would allow for informed decision-making. Instead, punters are left relying on fragmented metrics and paying more for data that provides only part of the picture.

Is Fragmentation by Design?

For punters, it’s hard not to feel that this fragmented approach is designed to extract as much money as possible. The current system forces fans to rely on commercial providers like TPD and RaceIQ, each offering data in proprietary formats that aren’t fully compatible across platforms. This lack of cohesion leaves punters without a clear, consolidated view of a horse’s performance, pushing them to spend on multiple services just to try to make sense of it all. Racing fans who thought they’d paid for sectional timing through the Horse Racing Levy Board are now being asked to pay even more, subscribing to services that deliver only a fractured picture of the data they were promised.

Rather than delivering a straightforward, cohesive system, British racing’s sectional timing feels engineered to maintain the industry’s hold over data access, making it harder—and more expensive—for fans to piece together a coherent analysis. This fragmented data landscape means that each new provider has its own revenue stream, each report its own price tag, and each data package its own limitations.

Brough Scott’s Vision vs. Today’s Reality

Reflecting on Brough Scott’s vision from the 1980s, it’s hard to imagine this is what he had in mind. Scott advocated for sectional timing as a way to demystify racing and make performance analysis accessible to everyone, not just insiders with special access to proprietary data. His goal was to enrich the sport by offering transparency and letting fans and punters in on the intricacies of a race. But today’s reality, with sectional data split between incompatible formats and inaccessible metrics, falls far short of that vision.

Scott saw sectional timing as a leveller, a way to bring more fans into the fold with clear, accessible insights. Instead, British racing’s approach has made sectional timing a barrier, pushing data behind paywalls and proprietary systems that create more confusion than clarity. It’s a far cry from the transparent, accessible system Scott had envisioned.

A Way Forward: A Call for Standardisation and Transparency

If British racing is serious about making sectional timing a valuable asset for fans and punters, it’s time for a complete overhaul of its approach. The Levy Board and racing authorities must mandate a standardised output for all sectional timing data, ensuring that metrics like split times, stride lengths, and—crucially—speed duration are measured and presented in a uniform format across all providers and platforms. With a single, cohesive system, racing could finally deliver on the promise of sectional timing, giving fans the insights they need without requiring them to pay extra for fragmented data.

Imagine a centralised platform, accessible to all, that consolidates key metrics in a sortable, filterable format, allowing fans to compare performances across races, horses, and tracks. Such a system would enable punters to make informed, data-backed decisions without needing to purchase additional data from multiple sources. It would also empower trainers to identify each horse’s optimal conditions, transforming sectional timing into a tool that benefits the entire sport.

Conclusion: Time to End the Fragmentation and Deliver on Data

British racing’s sectional timing system, as it stands, feels like a poorly executed promise, with fragmentation that seems engineered to keep punters paying for every piece of data they’re missing. With incompatible formats, missing metrics like speed duration, and static PDFs that make analysis a chore, the current system is far from the accessible tool Brough Scott envisioned. Even with Simon Rowlands’ expert columns and At The Races’ efforts to consolidate data, the broader industry’s failure to standardise and streamline sectional timing limits its value.

If British racing wants to honour Scott’s vision and make sectional timing a true asset for fans, it needs to stop prioritising fragmentation and start building a unified, transparent platform that offers all the data punters need in one place. This is the data revolution British racing has been waiting for—and it’s long past time to make it happen.

Because as it stands, sectional timing isn’t a leveller; it’s a profit machine, designed to keep fans chasing incomplete information. It’s time for British racing to give punters the full picture and finally make sectional timing the transformative tool it was meant to be.