NYRA meeting

[Robert Goren]

http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/Jan252013b.shtml

"In total, the Board today:

Voted to authorize NYRA to seek a reduction in race days for the inner-trackessential to that meet at Aqueduct, including seeking approval for legislative changes reduction
Voted to form a search committee to fill the position of Equine Veterinary Medical Director for NYRA
Voted to authorize the establishment and organization of NYRA’s Mortality Review Board
Established a three-year-work plan for the board with eight major goals:

Establish, oversee, and support an optimal management structure and leadership for NYRA
Implement best practices to protect equine health and safety
Optimize the racing experience for NYRA customers
Enhance quality of thoroughbred racing at NYRA tracks to maintain NYRA’s traditional position of national leadership
Judiciously employ new technologies to the benefit of the wagering public
Optimize NYRA relations with its host communities, racing organizations, and relevant governmental entities within New York State
Ensure that NYRA’s operations provide a safe working environment for its employees and support vibrant local and state-wide economies
Prepare NYRA for re-privatization




Approved NYRA’s 2013 operating and capital budget
Approved a schedule for remaining 2013 Board meetings which calls for meetings on February 27, May 15, August 28, and December 4
Designated a records access officer and records access appeals officer for NYRA "
I noted in red what I thought were the two most interesting parts. I am not sure how good idea the first is, but I support the second. The third one ( in green ) shows that they have accepted the problem that many posters have denied they have and will work to correct it. Another major step forward.

[PaceAdvantage]

The third one ( in green ) shows that they have accepted the problem that many posters have denied they have and will work to correct it. Another major step forward.Huh? How in the world does what you highlighted in green translate to "they have accepted the problem"....what problem? That horses sometimes die while racing?

You do realize this happens at about the same frequency at most every other track not named Aqueduct, Belmont or Saratoga, correct?

[rrpic6]

Huh? How in the world does what you highlighted in green translate to "they have accepted the problem"....what problem? That horses sometimes die while racing?

You do realize this happens at about the same frequency at most every other track not named Aqueduct, Belmont or Saratoga, correct?

Is there someplace we can check on the mortality stats of horses at all tracks, NYRA included of course?

RR

[PaceAdvantage]

Is there someplace we can check on the mortality stats of horses at all tracks, NYRA included of course?

RROf course there will be some tracks with better mortality rates than others. That's why I said "most every" and not "all."

Is there someplace I can check to see that NYRA has an unusual mortality rate?

[rrpic6]

Of course there will be some tracks with better mortality rates than others. That's why I said "most every" and not "all."

Is there someplace I can check to see that NYRA has an unusual mortality

rate?

Hopefully someone here can answer your question as well as mine.

RR

[Robert Goren]

You are still denial. They set up a board to review the problem. That shows they know they have a problem. If you read the entire article, you would see that they are looking for answers including artificial turf for AQU inner.

[PaceAdvantage]

You are still denial. They set up a board to review the problem. That shows they know they have a problem. If you read the entire article, you would see that they are looking for answers including artificial turf for AQU inner.No, I'm not in denial. I am quite aware, and quite disturbed, that horses break down, are injured and sometimes die during a race. I am also quite aware, and quite disturbed, that jockeys are injured and could be killed during such accidents.

I'm also quite aware that this happens all over the United States and in fact all over the world.

So what exactly am I in denial about? Can you show me that horses are dying at a higher rate at NYRA when compared to the rest of the USA?

Where do you base this claim that there is a problem? There is a UNIVERSAL PROBLEM with the sport...one that has existed from pretty much the very beginning of horse racing...one that has existed pretty much from the beginning of the invention of the horse itself.

Nobody is in denial. I can only speak for myself, but I would call it being rational. Not being in denial.

Being in denial would be if I would sit here and tell you horses don't die while racing on NYRA tracks.

In fact, I would turn it around on you and say you're in denial when you look to single out NYRA when in fact this is a problem that exists everywhere.

Your post makes it seem like NYRA was the last track in the country that is looking to set up a Mortality Review Board...when in fact, as far as I know, they are the first, although I wouldn't be surprised if these types of reviews go on elsewhere, but receive little or no publicity.

So they should be applauded, and not condemned by you like they have been dragging their feet, in denial of some "problem" which anyone who has followed the sport for more than a week knows exists EVERYWHERE.

[Robert Goren]

Just because NYRA may or may not have a higher morality rate does not mean they don't have a problem. Race as whole has a problem. NYRA has decided to see if there is something about theirs. It is major step in the right direction for them and hopefully for racing as a whole. As one of NYRA's harshest critics, I have nothing but praise them taking this first step. It shows that they want to be leader in industry. It is too bad that some people are so caught up in defending the past that they are not willing to move forward to make racing a better sport as NYRA has decide to do.

That being said, that was not the most important thing to come out of the report by a long shot. The preparing for re-privatization is. That is a real game changer for NY racing and is bound to be met resestance by some.

[PaceAdvantage]

As one of NYRA's more inaccurate critics,FTFY

It is too bad that some people are so caught up in defending the past that they are not willing to move forward to make racing a better sport as NYRA has decide to do.Now you're just making stuff up. Then again, that's why the FTFY was required above.That being said, that was not the most important thing to come out of the report by a long shot. The preparing for re-privatization is. That is a real game changer for NY racing and is bound to be met resestance by some.But re-privatization should have come as no surprise to one of NYRA's (most inaccurate) harshest critic. Re-privatization was part of this whole process (and publicly known to be) from the very beginning.

[Robert Goren]

No, I'm not in denial. I am quite aware, and quite disturbed, that horses break down, are injured and sometimes die during a race. I am also quite aware, and quite disturbed, that jockeys are injured and could be killed during such accidents.

I'm also quite aware that this happens all over the United States and in fact all over the world.

So what exactly am I in denial about? Can you show me that horses are dying at a higher rate at NYRA when compared to the rest of the USA?

Where do you base this claim that there is a problem? There is a UNIVERSAL PROBLEM with the sport...one that has existed from pretty much the very beginning of horse racing...one that has existed pretty much from the beginning of the invention of the horse itself.

Nobody is in denial. I can only speak for myself, but I would call it being rational. Not being in denial.

Being in denial would be if I would sit here and tell you horses don't die while racing on NYRA tracks.

In fact, I would turn it around on you and say you're in denial when you look to single out NYRA when in fact this is a problem that exists everywhere.

Your post makes it seem like NYRA was the last track in the country that is looking to set up a Mortality Review Board...when in fact, as far as I know, they are the first, although I wouldn't be surprised if these types of reviews go on elsewhere, but receive little or no publicity.

So they should be applauded, and not condemned by you like they have been dragging their feet, in denial of some "problem" which anyone who has followed the sport for more than a week knows exists EVERYWHERE.Actual NYRA started down this road last year when it move back to the outer track early and made some changes to claiming and purse stuctures. It was the first time I have seen a track respond to this problem in any matter what so ever. You and others were denying there was a problem back then even as NYRA was working to fix it. NYRA was out front on this issue while others were denying there is even a problem by quote stats from third rate tracks that match AQU's. AQU is not some third rate track running a bunch of broken down horses like they do here in Nebraska. It should have better numbers because they have better and sounder horses racing there. NYRA realised that even if somes other did not. I praise NYRA for realising they had a problem and starting down the road to correct it. I also praise NYRA for looking at ways to make the inner track safer. In the long run that is what has be done. They can't expect more good horses to race on it if it has a morality rate as high as it is. I love nothing more than to see AQU attract a lot of the good horses that now spend the winter at GP because NY is lot more friendly to the win dirt bettor(me) than Florida. They can send the bad unfit ones that they still have off to Parx or Fonner or where ever and add to the good sound ones they now have. Making the inner safer is major step in making that happen.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actual NYRA started down this road last year when it move back to the outer track earlyHaven't you already been proven wrong on this statement? I haven't been around much the last couple of weeks, so I could be wrong on that one...but I'm back now, and won't fail to point out another one of your potential "here let me post this and see if it sticks" song and dance numbers.

And please point out how I was DENYING there was a problem? Horses breaking down are a FIXED CONSTANT PROBLEM of the sport in general. It's kind of like denying it's dark outside at night and bright outside during the day. So I can't possibly see how I or anyone else could deny that racing accidents where horses die aren't a problem for the sport.

You should have never publicly admitted that you enjoy posting stuff just to get a rise out of people, although it wasn't tough to figure out from the very beginning with you.

[OTM Al]

They can send the bad unfit ones that they still have off to Parx or Fonner or where ever and add to the good sound ones they now have. Making the inner safer is major step in making that happen.

This isn't making it safer, this is just making it someone else's problem. Raising the bottom level, changing purses, changing drug rules. All those things have done is make it someone else's problem. This is not solving anything. So in the end, what is your point?

[PaceAdvantage]

I would just like to point out (to those rolling their eyes at yet another NYRA-based thread that has turned into a bit of a tussle) that this thread could have taken on an ENTIRELY different tone had Detective Goren simply omitted one little bit at the end...a sentence I believe was the purpose of him starting this thread in the first place...he's good at what he does...but that doesn't mean what he does is good... :lol:The third one ( in green ) shows that they have accepted the problem that many posters have denied they have and will work to correct it.Emphasis mine.

[Robert Goren]

FTFY

Now you're just making stuff up. Then again, that's why the FTFY was required above.But re-privatization should have come as no surprise to one of NYRA's (most inaccurate) harshest critic. Re-privatization was part of this whole process (and publicly known to be) from the very beginning. You can criticize all you want, but I don't like it when someone changes a part of what say to fit their purposes. If you disagree with what I post say so after the quote. This FTFY business is for twelve year olds. I really thought you were above that childish behavior. I have not nor would I ever do that to another poster.
Although I have heard rumors of re-privatazation of NY racing and seen posts here saying that might happen, this is first time I have seen it on the record. In this case, for me, seeing was believing. I did not believe it was actually going to happen because as the conservatives point out all the time, once the government gets it hands on something, it seldom lets go especially when one of us democrats is running the government as is the case in NY state. It well may be the first time that has ever happened.

[PaceAdvantage]

Giving NYRA back control from the state was always publicly part of the 3-year plan (I think it was a 3-year plan floated by Cuomo...correct me if I'm wrong on the plan length, as no doubt you will). And it isn't exactly re-privatization, as they were never private to begin with. They have always been a quasi-government not-for-profit organization.

Accusing people of being in denial who aren't in denial isn't exactly very adult of you either, now is it Detective?

[Robert Goren]

I almost left out the greening of a part of the quote. I now wish I had. I started the tread with idea of saying that NYRA was now doing somethings I approved of. Some how that seems to have gotten lost because of some poorly worded responses by me. I am sorry that they led the thread to get off track.

[Tom]

I wanna hear more about the artificial turf they are considering!

[Al Gobbi]

I wonder how much will be stripped from NYRA (ie: VLT money, etc) by the time the three years are up?

[OTM Al]

I wonder how much will be stripped from NYRA (ie: VLT money, etc) by the time the three years are up?

This will all depend on the attempt to get real casinos in NY. That happens, no more VLTs and thus no more payments.

[Robert Goren]

I wonder how much will be stripped from NYRA (ie: VLT money, etc) by the time the three years are up?Hopefully all of it. Slot have helped purses and reduced the number of handicappers most places where have been allowed. There is no real evidence that the slot fueled purses have increased flield size. They certain have not at AQU.

[VeryOldMan]

Is there someplace I can check to see that NYRA has an unusual mortality rate?

This predates my joining this board, so perhaps you already discussed this graphic back when the underlying article came out. There was some criticism of the methodology used, as I recall. NYRA tracks are right around the average.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/24/us/for-horse-and-jockey-risks-vary.html

[the little guy]

Hopefully all of it. Slot have helped purses and reduced the number of handicappers most places where have been allowed. There is no real evidence that the slot fueled purses have increased flield size. They certain have not at AQU.


You consistancy in never being right about anything is remarkable.

[OTM Al]

You consistancy in never being right about anything is remarkable.

Stunning really. I believe he must just like to see what he writes in print as he absolutely refuses to pay any attention to what he is told.

[PaceAdvantage]

This predates my joining this board, so perhaps you already discussed this graphic back when the underlying article came out. There was some criticism of the methodology used, as I recall. NYRA tracks are right around the average.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/24/us/for-horse-and-jockey-risks-vary.htmlA quick glance (and unless I'm reading it wrong) shows that Saratoga is the most dangerous track in NY...what will the Detective do about them apples? Then again, the NY Times data gathering is rather suspect.

It's also interesting to note how dangerous Hollywood Park is (with its artificial track) compared with the rest of California...you would think Del Mar and Hollywood would be much lower.

Also surprising to see how "safe" much smaller DIRT tracks (where presumably much cheaper horses run) like Suffolk Downs and Finger Lakes appear to be when consulting this NY Times chart...

[Robert Goren]

You consistancy in never being right about anything is remarkable. Are you saying the field sizes have increase over last year at at AQU. I bet AQU most days and that does not appear to be the case. I am not the only one who has posted that fields sizes are down this year at AQU. Are you calling them liars too.

[OTM Al]

Are you saying the field sizes have increase over last year at at AQU. I bet AQU most days and that does not appear to be the case. I am not the only one who has posted that fields sizes are down this year at AQU. Are you calling them liars too.

Let's try this one last time, though I don't know why. In #20 you said

"There is no real evidence that the slot fueled purses have increased flield size."

Incorrect. Fields sizes were up last year until....

1) Claiming races below $12,500 were eliminated
2) Purse size was restricted to no more than 2x (and the recommendation now is 1.6x) claiming level.

This year bute administration was moved from 3 days to 14 days out from the race resulting in shippers being down dramatically and horses stabled in NY racing elsewhere.

Your logic says NY has slots but fields are down so slots money does nothing. You have ignored every other factor out there that has nullified the effects of having slots. Keep your eye on Laurel if you don't believe me.

[Tom]

And if they were to removes all those things and have larger field, he would be the first one to bitch about them not caring about the horse safety.

[Robert Goren]

Two things caused high morality rates. Running unfit cheap horses and problems with the surface. I think even during the inner track season, NY has a pretty good horses in pretty good shape racing. That is one of the reason I bet it. It should have one of the lowest morality rates in the country. When it doesn't, it say that there is a problem with surface and/or with the quality of the horses racing. Clearly I think its is the surface because I think the quality of the horses is very good. GP has good 3 yo races, but it also has a lot of Calder horses. If you take out the the 3 yo races and few stakes races, AQU has better horses running. SA is clearly better. Other than that AQU has the best horses racing this time of year. They are clearly step up from N.Cal, Tampa, FG, Parx and Oaklawn. You may think different. I realise that running in very cold weather causes problems with surface. If they are looking at an artificial surface, that in its self says the powers that be realise they have a problem. Even more so, since it is pretty clear that a lot of bettors refuse to bet artificial surfaces including Keeneland and HP. I think most people would agree it would hurt their handle. How many thread have this site complaining about Artificial Surfaces?

[Robert Goren]

Let's try this one last time, though I don't know why. In #20 you said

"There is no real evidence that the slot fueled purses have increased flield size."

Incorrect. Fields sizes were up last year until....

1) Claiming races below $12,500 were eliminated
2) Purse size was restricted to no more than 2x (and the recommendation now is 1.6x) claiming level.

This year bute administration was moved from 3 days to 14 days out from the race resulting in shippers being down dramatically and horses stabled in NY racing elsewhere.

Your logic says NY has slots but fields are down so slots money does nothing. You have ignored every other factor out there that has nullified the effects of having slots. Keep your eye on Laurel if you don't believe me.You take a look at Parx and tell me you see anything close to large fields of quality horses that their slot inflated purses should bring. You seem to think the 6 horse fields of $7500 claimers that AQU was running last year a good thing. I don't think so. I like the new drug rules. AQU's purses are high enough to attract more horse in spite of the new drug rules. If they aren't, then racing is in a lot trouble because it sending a message loud and clear to the bettors that a lot of trainers won't race were drug rules are tight. From a bettor's point of view that is a very bad message for the sport to be sending.

[Robert Goren]

And if they were to removes all those things and have larger field, he would be the first one to bitch about them not caring about the horse safety. You damn right I would. I think should have both larger fields and those rules. I don't think that is too much for a bettor to ask, do you? I don't think we should have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

[PaceAdvantage]

A quick glance (and unless I'm reading it wrong) shows that Saratoga is the most dangerous track in NY...what will the Detective do about them apples? Then again, the NY Times data gathering is rather suspect.

It's also interesting to note how dangerous Hollywood Park is (with its artificial track) compared with the rest of California...you would think Del Mar and Hollywood would be much lower.

Also surprising to see how "safe" much smaller DIRT tracks (where presumably much cheaper horses run) like Suffolk Downs and Finger Lakes appear to be when consulting this NY Times chart... I'm the last one to put stock in anything the NYT publishes, however, I find it curious that our good detective has ignored the fact that, according to the NYT at least, Aqueduct is relatively safe. Maybe he can use his theory to explain why Saratoga seems to be the unsafe track, according to this article at least...

[Robert Goren]

If indeed SAR is the most dangerous track NYRA runs, then there something wrong with surface because it runs the best quality and presumably the soundest horses of any of the NYRA tracks. I say again, if track has a high morality rate, there are only two possible causes, Either they are racing unsound horses or there is something wrong with the surface. Just because a track is small doesn't mean it has a bad surface or if track is a big name doesn't mean that it has a good racing surface. Some of you seem to want imply morality rates are random. I don't believe that is the case. Sure good sound horses break down once in a while, but they do it lesser numbers than unsound horses. When you have good sound horses running, the track should have very low morality rates. When that track doesn't, there has to be a reason. The people in charge of track maintenance generally know what is happening but are not allowed to talk about it. They can't always correct it during the meet. It is up to track management to make sure it is fixed during the time when track isn't running.
It obvious to even most casual bettor that the AQU inner has problem because of its ever changing bias. The weather effects track bias, but not generally to the extent that it does the AQU inner. It is a money making opportunity for me, that does not mean I am cold hearted about the effects on the horses. The "NYRA can do wrong crowd" would rather have more break downs than necessary than admit that there is problem.

[Al Gobbi]

The problem I have is if a synthetic surface is installed at AQU, what is to stop the state or board from putting one in at BEL or SAR?

[duncan04]

The problem I have is if a synthetic surface is installed at AQU, what is to stop the state or board from putting one in at BEL or SAR?

If they only put it in to replace the inner track surface then I doubt it will replace any main track surface

[Stillriledup]

Of course there will be some tracks with better mortality rates than others. That's why I said "most every" and not "all."

Is there someplace I can check to see that NYRA has an unusual mortality rate?

Im losing you here, what does the mortality rate of 'every other track' have to do with NYRA and why would NYRA care about mortality rates at other places? It seems that they are more concerned with making their own place safer, im not sure what their concern about safety has to do with other places.

[therussmeister]

I'm the last one to put stock in anything the NYT publishes, however, I find it curious that our good detective has ignored the fact that, according to the NYT at least, Aqueduct is relatively safe. Maybe he can use his theory to explain why Saratoga seems to be the unsafe track, according to this article at least...
This thread was about fatalities, but the linked article was about injuries. Can it be the ratio of fatalities to injuries is not the same at each track, and therefore some tracks might have a high injury rate, but low fatality rate?

[OTM Al]

This thread was about fatalities, but the linked article was about injuries. Can it be the ratio of fatalities to injuries is not the same at each track, and therefore some tracks might have a high injury rate, but low fatality rate?

Or just maybe that in some places the horses running are a heck of a lot more valuable than other places so they are vanned off instead of just being sprayed down and allowed to rest a bit before they are walked off....

[VeryOldMan]

This thread was about fatalities, but the linked article was about injuries. Can it be the ratio of fatalities to injuries is not the same at each track, and therefore some tracks might have a high injury rate, but low fatality rate?

I posted the underlying link and agree that the data was about "incidents" - the reporters were trying to analyze serious problems, not just fatalities. One obvious issue is that "vanned off" at the low end tracks near me pretty much always means "euthanized on track"; could well be different at Saratoga, e.g. Still - there were some interesting data points; the Tapeta track at Presque Isle has a remarkably good record, e.g. Data struck me as directionally correct but I wouldn't put a lot of emphasis on small differences in the incident rate.

[PaceAdvantage]

It obvious to even most casual bettor that the AQU inner has problem because of its ever changing bias.Where do you come up with this stuff?

The "NYRA can do wrong crowd" would rather have more break downs than necessary than admit that there is problem.Not gonna work Bobby. I know you're just typing that for effect...to get a rise...you can't possibly believe such nonsense. Please stop trolling. I'm running out of patience with you.

[PaceAdvantage]

Im losing you here, what does the mortality rate of 'every other track' have to do with NYRA and why would NYRA care about mortality rates at other places? It seems that they are more concerned with making their own place safer, im not sure what their concern about safety has to do with other places.Follow along. Bobby claims AQU is less safe than other tracks. That's why I bring up other tracks. I'd like to know just how exactly more unsafe it is (if it is, which I doubt).

Anecdotal evidence isn't very accurate...ever...

[Robert Goren]

This thread was about fatalities, but the linked article was about injuries. Can it be the ratio of fatalities to injuries is not the same at each track, and therefore some tracks might have a high injury rate, but low fatality rate? Actually when I started the thread that was not what I wanted. I wanted the thread to be about the positive changes that NYRA is making. I was really up beat they were doing somethings especially the movement toward privatization. To me that was the big news although some people seemed to think it was old news. I hope it actually happens.
I want NY racing to return to the time when it was not only had the best tracks in country, but nobody was even close. It was that way when I started following this sport. It been a while since there has been a wide gap between NY racing and some other places. I want the best horses racing at AQU rather than at GP or SA. If weather was really the issue as to where the best horses run, they all be at Delmar all year long. You can't beat the weather there. I think having great racing in NY is good for racing like the Yankees being good every year is good for MLB. I think the best racing should be where there are the most bettors near by. Even this age of the internet, geography still matters.

[Robert Goren]

Follow along. Bobby claims AQU is less safe than other tracks. That's why I bring up other tracks. I'd like to know just how exactly more unsafe it is (if it is, which I doubt).

Anecdotal evidence isn't very accurate...ever... What you are saying is that NYRA is wasting its time and money because the inner at AQU is already as safe as anyplace else? The NYRA board and I think otherwise. There are worse tracks than the AQU inner, but there are also safer ones. That is why NYRA is looking at making it safer. If there was no problems what so ever, they would not be looking at it. Their actions speak louder than any chart or anecdotal evidence. I applaud NYRA for looking into the safety of the inner rather just pretending there isn't a problem.

[Gallop58]

Hijacking your thread a bit here, but it's interesting that all this discussion on the NYRA 3 year plan is on the injury stuff Section II, while I would have thought section III f) would get more airtime here....

III. Optimize the racing experience for NYRA customers
a. Improve maintenance and cleanliness of Aqueduct immediately and develop a plan to address relevant concerns at Belmont and Saratoga so that the plan is agreed on prior to their openings in 2013.

b. Employ new technologies and other creative methods to communicate with NYRA customers; cultivate and engage new and existing customers/audiences for all NYRA products.

c. Review list of potential capital improvements and prioritize based on need,affordability and return on investment. For example, prioritize the physical environment needs such as heating at Aqueduct, dormitory improvements at all tracks, improvements for Saratoga 150, “Long Shots” facility, public address systems, televisions and other areas.

d. Make improvements in security to protect racing integrity, wagering security, NYRA visitors and employees.

e. Review concessions, the NYRA website, and the TV operations and strategy.

f. Review options for reducing takeout and expanding wagering menu.

[Stillriledup]

Follow along. Bobby claims AQU is less safe than other tracks. That's why I bring up other tracks. I'd like to know just how exactly more unsafe it is (if it is, which I doubt).

Anecdotal evidence isn't very accurate...ever...

It seems like a post about NYRA own house cleaning and fixing what they think they need to fix, i didnt see anything there that talked about other tracks.