Polytrack's days may be numbered at Del Mar

[Al Gobbi]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/21/polytrack-del-mar-dirt-/

[Track Collector]

Over the course of a year, I play a very high number of different tracks. Synthetic tracks like Del Mar are not on that list. That will likely change if Del Mar goes back to dirt.

While I can not speak as one who has read and studied all the statistics, I always felt that the comparison of synthetic vs. dirt was an unequal one, using older dirt tracks that perhaps had not been properly maintained vs. freshly installed synthetic surfaces. IMO new or renovated dirt tracks should be as safe as new synthetic tracks.


.

[horses4courses]

Suitably non-committal statement from Mr. Harper.
When's he running for public office?

[Stillriledup]

That would be amazing if they went back to dirt. Lets hope!

[horses4courses]

That would be amazing if they went back to dirt. Lets hope!

I'm not so sure about that.

For the last few years of the dirt at Del Mar, there were nothing but complaints.
They resulted from a high rate of breakdowns and fatalities.
I won't argue that an artificial surface is any safer than a well maintained dirt surface, although the stats do seem to give a slight edge to the carpet.

The overriding factor at Del Mar for any racing surface is the proximity of the ocean.
It's hard to lay down a surface there that is durable and safe.
Tides do have a role, even though their effect is deep down.

I'm pretty sure, though, that they regret ever installing the polytrack.
It wasn't worth the expenditure, and they would have been better served re-doing the dirt track.
The CHRB knew better, though. :rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

I'm not so sure about that.

For the last few years of the dirt at Del Mar, there were nothing but complaints.
They resulted from a high rate of breakdowns and fatalities.
I won't argue that an artificial surface is any safer than a well maintained dirt surface, although the stats do seem to give a slight edge to the carpet.

The overriding factor at Del Mar for any racing surface is the proximity of the ocean.
It's hard to lay down a surface there that is durable and safe.
Tides do have a role, even though their effect is deep down.

I'm pretty sure, though, that they regret ever installing the polytrack.
It wasn't worth the expenditure, and they would have been better served re-doing the dirt track.
The CHRB knew better, though. :rolleyes:

Horses who break down are usually 'problem' horses who shouldnt be racing in the first place. Sound horses rarely break down with no notice, most times, its the horses who have underlying problems.....i dont blame surfaces for those breakdowns, where's the proof that the horses who broke down on Del Mar's dirt wouldnt have also broken down on polytrack?

[VeryOldMan]

Help me out on the synthetic front - I see Presque Isle's very low breakdown stats on Tapeta and know that it isn't attracting high end horses; as a handicapper I have been throwing out PID because of short fields and horses showing up after lengthy layoffs to again race on the surface, but for the broader health of the sport are these synthetic surfaces really the problem? Just asking.

[horses4courses]

Help me out on the synthetic front - I see Presque Isle's very low breakdown stats on Tapeta and know that it isn't attracting high end horses; as a handicapper I have been throwing out PID because of short fields and horses showing up after lengthy layoffs to again race on the surface, but for the broader health of the sport are these synthetic surfaces really the problem? Just asking.

There are others here who could answer your question better than I can.
For me, though, I don't like the stuff.
In the past couple of years, I find when it comes to Del Mar, Keeneland, Arlington, etc., I stick mainly to turf racing.
The artificial is too inconsistent pace wise than dirt or turf.

If the artificial surfaces were significantly safer for horse and rider than dirt, then I would have less of a problem accepting it.
Problem is, they jumped into it without knowing whether it would really help.
They took a guess, and I think the main thing they did was to confuse matters for horse players, without really helping anyone else.

Presque Isle Downs?
I have the feeling that whatever surface they installed there, they would still find it difficult to attract high quality racehorses on a regular basis. JMO.

[dilanesp]

I'm not so sure about that.

For the last few years of the dirt at Del Mar, there were nothing but complaints.
They resulted from a high rate of breakdowns and fatalities.
I won't argue that an artificial surface is any safer than a well maintained dirt surface, although the stats do seem to give a slight edge to the carpet.

The overriding factor at Del Mar for any racing surface is the proximity of the ocean.
It's hard to lay down a surface there that is durable and safe.
Tides do have a role, even though their effect is deep down.

I'm pretty sure, though, that they regret ever installing the polytrack.
It wasn't worth the expenditure, and they would have been better served re-doing the dirt track.
The CHRB knew better, though. :rolleyes:

From a horse safety standpoint, they needed to install that Polytrack. And since I don't think the life of even one horse is a reasonable price to pay just to make people who take offense at artificial tracks happy, I continue to think it was a really good idea. The sport needs to be as safe as possible.

[thespaah]

I'm not so sure about that.

For the last few years of the dirt at Del Mar, there were nothing but complaints.
They resulted from a high rate of breakdowns and fatalities.
I won't argue that an artificial surface is any safer than a well maintained dirt surface, although the stats do seem to give a slight edge to the carpet.

The overriding factor at Del Mar for any racing surface is the proximity of the ocean.
It's hard to lay down a surface there that is durable and safe.
Tides do have a role, even though their effect is deep down.

I'm pretty sure, though, that they regret ever installing the polytrack.
It wasn't worth the expenditure, and they would have been better served re-doing the dirt track.
The CHRB knew better, though. :rolleyes:
Hmm. Aqueduct is nearly as close to the ocean( Jamaica Bay which outlets to the open ocean) as Del Mar. Those effects of which you write do not cause concern there.
Del Mar's old natural surface was a firm racing strip.
Dirt tracks with deeper surfaces and more cushion are the norm.
A similar dirt strip could be constructed at Del Mar.

[thespaah]

Horses who break down are usually 'problem' horses who shouldnt be racing in the first place. Sound horses rarely break down with no notice, most times, its the horses who have underlying problems.....i dont blame surfaces for those breakdowns, where's the proof that the horses who broke down on Del Mar's dirt wouldn't have also broken down on polytrack?
There isn't any. The rallying point for Poly was based on raw data.
The mfgrs commissioned a study to compare the frequency of breakdowns with no apparent quantification of the reasons why horses broke down.

[dilanesp]

There isn't any. The rallying point for Poly was based on raw data.
The mfgrs commissioned a study to compare the frequency of breakdowns with no apparent quantification of the reasons why horses broke down.

That's really not a meaningful criticism of breakdown statistics.

Let's assume it is entirely true that the "reasons" why so many horses break down are things like training techniques, bad breeding, drugs, etc. But nonetheless, those less sound horses break down less often on Poly than they do on dirt.

Unless you can establish that horse racing is actually ameliorating the "reasons" identified so that the horse population is sound enough to run on dirt, you are still going to be saving horses' lives by switching to Poly.

[Zaf]

Hmm. Aqueduct is nearly as close to the ocean( Jamaica Bay which outlets to the open ocean) as Del Mar. Those effects of which you write do not cause concern there.
Del Mar's old natural surface was a firm racing strip.
Dirt tracks with deeper surfaces and more cushion are the norm.
A similar dirt strip could be constructed at Del Mar.

Agree 1000 % . I want to predict which track will be the next to install an artificial surface. Any thoughts ? Hard pressed to come up with any. Funny the only 2 tracks I wager on in Kentucky are Ellis and Churchill. Polytrack's days are numbered everywhere ???

Z

[dilanesp]

Agree 1000 % . I want to predict which track will be the next to install an artificial surface. Any thoughts ? Hard pressed to come up with any. Funny the only 2 tracks I wager on in Kentucky are Ellis and Churchill. Polytrack's days are numbered everywhere ???

Z

Why do you assume that your personal wagering fetishes have anything to do with why a racetrack chooses to install an artificial track?

The last time I checked, Del Mar is actually one of the few racetracks in America that is consistently profitable, is very close to the top of the heap in daily average attendance, and has very bettable races with larger average field sizes than the other California tracks. It also happens to be one of the very nicest places in all of America to see a horse race.

In other words, they seem to doing quite well despite not having your money in their betting pools.

[thespaah]

That's really not a meaningful criticism of breakdown statistics.

Let's assume it is entirely true that the "reasons" why so many horses break down are things like training techniques, bad breeding, drugs, etc. But nonetheless, those less sound horses break down less often on Poly than they do on dirt.

Unless you can establish that horse racing is actually ameliorating the "reasons" identified so that the horse population is sound enough to run on dirt, you are still going to be saving horses' lives by switching to Poly.
Sure it is ..The data was not quantified.
The makers of Polytrack had an agenda. That is to make their product appear as a better alternative to natural soil.
And who says these horses break down less frequently on poly?
Are the amount of runners, races, conditions, distances and other factors included?
For example, are the number of races on each surface surveyed equal? Are the same race distances used. Are tracks which card more sprints used vs those which card more route races? Are "off" track races used vs races on poly. What about weather or temperature conditions?
I am always skeptical when an advocate for a particular product performs a comparison study.

[thespaah]

Why do you assume that your personal wagering fetishes have anything to do with why a racetrack chooses to install an artificial track?

The last time I checked, Del Mar is actually one of the few racetracks in America that is consistently profitable, is very close to the top of the heap in daily average attendance, and has very bettable races with larger average field sizes than the other California tracks. It also happens to be one of the very nicest places in all of America to see a horse race.

In other words, they seem to doing quite well despite not having your money in their betting pools.
Are we getting personal now?
Look, you prefer poly for whatever reason. Fine. Most others do not.
Santa Anita is the premier track in the US to have and artificial surface then return to dirt. In recent years, no other tracks have switched from dirt to artificial.

[dilanesp]

Are we getting personal now?
Look, you prefer poly for whatever reason. Fine. Most others do not.
Santa Anita is the premier track in the US to have and artificial surface then return to dirt. In recent years, no other tracks have switched from dirt to artificial.

There is no basis to think that most people hate artificial tracks, no basis to think that having one has hurt Del Mar, and every reason to think horses' lives have been saved down there.

YOU don't like artificial tracks, and you are within your rights to ignore Del Mar. But I don't think they care.

[dilanesp]

Sure it is ..The data was not quantified.
The makers of Polytrack had an agenda. That is to make their product appear as a better alternative to natural soil.
And who says these horses break down less frequently on poly?
Are the amount of runners, races, conditions, distances and other factors included?
For example, are the number of races on each surface surveyed equal? Are the same race distances used. Are tracks which card more sprints used vs those which card more route races? Are "off" track races used vs races on poly. What about weather or temperature conditions?
I am always skeptical when an advocate for a particular product performs a comparison study.

It's fine to be skeptical of manufacturer claims, but given this product has been used all over the world for several years, we have plenty of real world data and it is favorable to the artificial surfaces, especially the one at Del Mar.

[thespaah]

There is no basis to think that most people hate artificial tracks, no basis to think that having one has hurt Del Mar, and every reason to think horses' lives have been saved down there.

YOU don't like artificial tracks, and you are within your rights to ignore Del Mar. But I don't think they care.
I never stated nor implied 'hate'..Although, I believe if we were to take a non scientific poll here, I would say the general consensus is anti- fake stuff.
As far as the breakdown rates and to use your term "saved lives"...until you can produce some solid evidence to support your beliefs, I will remain skeptical.
There are obviously solid reasons why some tracks have been slated for artificial and never went there. Again, Santa Anita pulled the stuff out.
Keeneland has it only because that organization once owned a part of the company that markets Poly....Remington Park once had a surface called Equitrack"....They pulled that out and went to dirt.
In any event the studies I have searched have shown that in raw numbers catastrophic injuries to horses are lower on artificial surfaces. However, the data given compares the tracks as though the conditions were equal.
One important factor that is left out of the real vs synthetic debate is that we are dealing with live animals, not machines.
For example. A horse could race at Keeneland and sustain a slight injury that would be undetected going into the next start. Such injury could be the precursor to something more serious. In that horse's next start say at Churchill, the horse could sustain a catastrophic event as a result of the earlier injury. That statistic would then be used as a comparison for advocates of synthetic surfaces...See how this works..


"DEL MAR -- When a 3-year-old gelding named Burns was injured in the clubhouse turn of the Del Mar Derby on Sept. 4, jockey Patrick Valenzuela jumped off as quickly as he could. But there was no saving the thoroughbred, which suffered broken sesamoids and had to be euthanized.

It was the 12th fatality ---- and fourth on the Jimmy Durante Turf Course ---- at the 37-day Del Mar Thoroughbred Club meeting, which ended last Wednesday. There were eight fatal injuries on the synthetic Polytrack ---- two as a result of racing and six occurring in morning workouts. There were five total fatalities in 2010."..
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Sep/12/del-mar-increase-in-horse-deaths-attributed-to/
Now here's something fascinating....
The story above indicates a 37 day meet. This story below is from 2006. This is BEFORE Del Mar installed synthetic...One fewer fatality. 6 more race days. AND increased use of the track due to BHP and SA being unavailable for training.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/sports/othersports/29horses.html?_r=0

So....Based on these two independent stories state that for all the expense and all the support for Del Mar's synthetic surface being a significant life and injury saver, the data says otherwise.
I state this because those who are in lockstep support of synthetic surfaces imply that the artificial is significantly safer.

[thespaah]

It's fine to be skeptical of manufacturer claims, but given this product has been used all over the world for several years, we have plenty of real world data and it is favorable to the artificial surfaces, especially the one at Del Mar.
Synthetic may be used "all over the world" but the idea that is use is widespread is exaggerated.
Here is a list of tracks using all of the present synthetic in use.
Apologies for using wiki, but this is the only source that listed all of them....
Current types of synthetic surface products [edit]

Cushion Track

Installations: Santa Anita Park (removed), Betfair Hollywood Park & Toowoomba QLD.
Fibresand

Installations: Southwell Racecourse[4]
Polytrack

Installations: Lingfield Park, Wolverhampton, Kempton Park, Great Leighs, Dundalk, Chantilly, Marseille-Vivaux, Pau (CLOPF), Kranji, Mijas(CLOPF), Veliefendi, Turfway Park, Woodbine, Arlington Park, Del Mar Racetrack & Keeneland Race Course.
Pro-Ride
Installations: Flemington Racecourse VIC, Rosehill Racecourse NSW & Warwick Farm Racecourse NSW.
Tapeta
Installations: Golden Gate Fields, Presque Isle Downs and Meydan Racecourse.
Visco-Ride
Origin: Australia
Description of surface: Sand and fibre coated in Wax.
Installations: Flemington VIC (removed) Cranbourne VIC (removed) and Warwick Farm NSW (removed).

The count is 23 tracks....

[Tom]

Poly is more suited to Europe than the US. Their racing is mostly turf.When was the last time a track here went to poly? How many poly tracks left here?

[dilanesp]

I never stated nor implied 'hate'..Although, I believe if we were to take a non scientific poll here, I would say the general consensus is anti- fake stuff.
As far as the breakdown rates and to use your term "saved lives"...until you can produce some solid evidence to support your beliefs, I will remain skeptical.
There are obviously solid reasons why some tracks have been slated for artificial and never went there. Again, Santa Anita pulled the stuff out.
Keeneland has it only because that organization once owned a part of the company that markets Poly....Remington Park once had a surface called Equitrack"....They pulled that out and went to dirt.
In any event the studies I have searched have shown that in raw numbers catastrophic injuries to horses are lower on artificial surfaces. However, the data given compares the tracks as though the conditions were equal.
One important factor that is left out of the real vs synthetic debate is that we are dealing with live animals, not machines.
For example. A horse could race at Keeneland and sustain a slight injury that would be undetected going into the next start. Such injury could be the precursor to something more serious. In that horse's next start say at Churchill, the horse could sustain a catastrophic event as a result of the earlier injury. That statistic would then be used as a comparison for advocates of synthetic surfaces...See how this works..


"DEL MAR -- When a 3-year-old gelding named Burns was injured in the clubhouse turn of the Del Mar Derby on Sept. 4, jockey Patrick Valenzuela jumped off as quickly as he could. But there was no saving the thoroughbred, which suffered broken sesamoids and had to be euthanized.

It was the 12th fatality ---- and fourth on the Jimmy Durante Turf Course ---- at the 37-day Del Mar Thoroughbred Club meeting, which ended last Wednesday. There were eight fatal injuries on the synthetic Polytrack ---- two as a result of racing and six occurring in morning workouts. There were five total fatalities in 2010."..
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Sep/12/del-mar-increase-in-horse-deaths-attributed-to/
Now here's something fascinating....
The story above indicates a 37 day meet. This story below is from 2006. This is BEFORE Del Mar installed synthetic...One fewer fatality. 6 more race days. AND increased use of the track due to BHP and SA being unavailable for training.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/sports/othersports/29horses.html?_r=0

So....Based on these two independent stories state that for all the expense and all the support for Del Mar's synthetic surface being a significant life and injury saver, the data says otherwise.
I state this because those who are in lockstep support of synthetic surfaces imply that the artificial is significantly safer.

Santa Anita pulled the thing out because they couldn't get it to work right on top of their soil, for some reason. It wasn't any blanket condemnation of synthetics.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but Del Mar is a highly successful racetrack that had a ton of breakdowns and doesn't anymore, so they like Polytrack. It's not going anywhere, and it has nothing to do with any conspiracy.

Fortunately for you, the Breeders' Cup people don't like Del Mar for other reasons, so you can continue to ignore one of the best racing facilities in America because they installed a safer racing surface if you wish. They don't need your support.

[Stillriledup]

Poly is more suited to Europe than the US. Their racing is mostly turf.When was the last time a track here went to poly? How many poly tracks left here?

I think on the Poly front, we have Woodbine, Turfway, Del Mar and Arlington. Those are the 4 that come to mind as being Poly.

PID and GG are Tapeta, which is sort of a form of Poly and plays more like Poly than Hollywood's Cushion track does.

[RXB]

People can like or not like synthetic surfaces as they choose. But there's ample statistical evidence at this point that synthetic North American tracks as a group have much lower catastrophic injury rates than dirt tracks; it's not even close. And the trend is that the gap is increasing; the synthetics seem to be getting even safer.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/pdfs/supplementaltables_eid.pdf

[SandyW]

It's fine to be skeptical of manufacturer claims, but given this product has been used all over the world for several years, we have plenty of real world data and it is favorable to the artificial surfaces, especially the one at Del Mar.

Does the real world data also include that a lot more races are run on the turf vs the artificial surfaces outside the U.S.
Del Mar is a lot of fun provided you are there for the social event vs the racing.

[SandyW]

Yesterday we lost a horse Randino in the first race, whether or not this was considered a break down or a idiot move by Gomez whipping with the right hand when this two year old was up against the rail this will go in the breakdown on dirt category.

[Tom]

And had noting to do with the track at all.
The data is less then accurate on this, unless there are NO breakdowns.
And, would the number of breakdowns be the same had dirt been laid over a rebuilt cushion instead of poly? KEE dug halfway to china before they put in poly - the cushion was also changed.

[VeryOldMan]

People can like or not like synthetic surfaces as they choose. But there's ample statistical evidence at this point that synthetic North American tracks as a group have much lower catastrophic injury rates than dirt tracks; it's not even close. And the trend is that the gap is increasing; the synthetics seem to be getting even safer.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/pdfs/supplementaltables_eid.pdf

This.

It's worth developing the discussion whether synthetic tracks drive away bettors and therefore are bad for part of the lifeblood of the sport at this point (i.e., other than the slots/table games/etc. parts of racinos), but the evidence on breakdown rates is way in favor of the surfaces like Tapeta.

The racino subsidies distort this picture and make it very hard to figure out where this sport "should" be regarding synthetic surfaces. I look at the data re Presque Isle (a track I rarely play as a bettor due to the surface and short fields) and wonder. Just saying.

[RXB]

Yesterday we lost a horse Randino in the first race, whether or not this was considered a break down or a idiot move by Gomez whipping with the right hand when this two year old was up against the rail this will go in the breakdown on dirt category.

For starters, the breakdown will go into the synthetic category, not the dirt category. Hollywood has a synthetic surface.

Besides, the data doesn't involve just a few freak occurrences. It covers more than a million dirt races from 2009-12, plus about 200,000 races on synthetic and 200,000 on grass.

[Stillriledup]

People can like or not like synthetic surfaces as they choose. But there's ample statistical evidence at this point that synthetic North American tracks as a group have much lower catastrophic injury rates than dirt tracks; it's not even close. And the trend is that the gap is increasing; the synthetics seem to be getting even safer.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/pdfs/supplementaltables_eid.pdf

I don't want to sound insensitive, but how does a lower rate of catastrophic injuries help bettors pick winners and cash bets?

[RXB]

I don't want to sound insensitive, but how does a lower rate of catastrophic injuries help bettors pick winners and cash bets?

Did I say it did? Of course not, since that wasn't the point. But your fondness for posting nonsense just can't be held back.

[Stillriledup]

Did I say it did? Of course not, since that wasn't the point. But your fondness for posting nonsense just can't be held back.

Why is it nonsense, i just asked a question, if you dont know the answer or have an opinion, just say " i dont know" . Sorry for bothering you.

[SandyW]

I don't want to sound insensitive, but how does a lower rate of catastrophic injuries help bettors pick winners and cash bets?

As far as I am concerned you just hit the nail on the head, are we in this game to be boy scouts or to cash bets ?

[Stillriledup]

As far as I am concerned you just hit the nail on the head, are we in this game to be boy scouts or to cash bets ?

Thank you. :ThmbUp:

[VeryOldMan]

I don't want to sound insensitive, but how does a lower rate of catastrophic injuries help bettors pick winners and cash bets?

That wasn't RXB's point - it was just that the statistical evidence is clearly in favor of synthetics re breakdown rates. Whether synthetics are good or bad for this sport long-term is up for debate. Let's turn to that.

[Stillriledup]

That wasn't RXB's point - it was just that the statistical evidence is clearly in favor of synthetics re breakdown rates. Whether synthetics are good or bad for this sport long-term is up for debate. Let's turn to that.

Ok, fair enough.

[ronsmac]

I don't want to sound insensitive, but how does a lower rate of catastrophic injuries help bettors pick winners and cash bets?
I've had similar thoughts since Synthetics were installed in SoCal. IF it's all about safety and the horse, I've often wondered why we have horse racing at all.

[thespaah]

Santa Anita pulled the thing out because they couldn't get it to work right on top of their soil, for some reason. It wasn't any blanket condemnation of synthetics.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but Del Mar is a highly successful racetrack that had a ton of breakdowns and doesn't anymore, so they like Polytrack. It's not going anywhere, and it has nothing to do with any conspiracy.

Fortunately for you, the Breeders' Cup people don't like Del Mar for other reasons, so you can continue to ignore one of the best racing facilities in America because they installed a safer racing surface if you wish. They don't need your support.
Please point out where I stated or implied I "ignore" Del Mar...
It's a good race meet. I happen to think it's too long. Should be no more than 40 race dates. And the Racing Secretary should set the bottom claiming price at 25k. Lastly, there should be more route races carded.
I bet on Del Mar, but just the turf races and routes on the main track.
Anyway, you are a supporter of artificial surfaces. I am not. I don't like them because there is little empirical evidence that those surfaces are 'safer'. Also, the artificial tracks are inconsistent.

[VeryOldMan]

I don't like them because there is little empirical evidence that those surfaces are 'safer'.

I think the stats linked in the thread show that synthetics are statistically superior - I know stats reasonable well and have to believe these numbers pass any sort of regression analysis, but will leave it to the higher order quants to interpet:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/pdfs/supplementaltables_eid.pdf

The question remains whether synthetic surfaces are ultimately good for the sport - I see many of us shying away from betting on the underlying tracks and realize we are (supposed to be) the ultimate customers.

[Stillriledup]

I've had similar thoughts since Synthetics were installed in SoCal. IF it's all about safety and the horse, I've often wondered why we have horse racing at all.

I think that racing interests act as if the bettors care more about the safety of the horses than they do about winning their next bet. Sure, everyone would love to see no accidents or injuries, but not at the expense of their own bankrolls.

[Aner]

I think the stats linked in the thread show that synthetics are statistically superior - I know stats reasonable well and have to believe these numbers pass any sort of regression analysis, but will leave it to the higher order quants to interpet:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/pdfs/supplementaltables_eid.pdf

The question remains whether synthetic surfaces are ultimately good for the sport - I see many of us shying away from betting on the underlying tracks and realize we are (supposed to be) the ultimate customers.

Thanks for posting the fatality statistics. I had no idea so many horses die each year. 710 horses put down in 2012 boggles the mind. Turf = 94, dirt = 571, and synthetics = 45. This is a bigger problem than I had imagined.

[Tom]

Until you break it down by track and class, those number can be misleading.
For example, how many tracks have decade old cushions, how many of the breakdown were bottom level claimers, not likely to ever see turf or poly. How many dirt tracks in comparison to how many poly tracks? or turf courses.
The raw data tells no story.

[thespaah]

Until you break it down by track and class, those number can be misleading.
For example, how many tracks have decade old cushions, how many of the breakdown were bottom level claimers, not likely to ever see turf or poly. How many dirt tracks in comparison to how many poly tracks? or turf courses.
The raw data tells no story.
:ThmbUp:
Precisely the point I have been attempting to convey.

[thespaah]

Thanks for posting the fatality statistics. I had no idea so many horses die each year. 710 horses put down in 2012 boggles the mind. Turf = 94, dirt = 571, and synthetics = 45. This is a bigger problem than I had imagined.
Not necessarily a 'problem'...It's a lack of advancement of the technology and practice in the field of vet medicine.
It's just more humane to put down an animal that is insured.

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks for posting the fatality statistics. I had no idea so many horses die each year. 710 horses put down in 2012 boggles the mind. Turf = 94, dirt = 571, and synthetics = 45. This is a bigger problem than I had imagined.Since most of the racing in this country is conducted on DIRT, and the least racing is conducted on SYNTH, is it that hard to imagine why the numbers appear to be so much larger on dirt?

Yes, synth appears safer on a relative basis...but the raw numbers, of course, are going to look scary if only for the fact that most races are on dirt, so that is where most fatalities will occur as well.

[wiffleball whizz]

Since most of the racing in this country is conducted on DIRT, and the least racing is conducted on SYNTH, is it that hard to imagine why the numbers appear to be so much larger on dirt?

Yes, synth appears safer on a relative basis...but the raw numbers, of course, are going to look scary if only for the fact that most races are on dirt, so that is where most fatalities will occur as well.

There's less races on synthetic then turf?!?!??? Ummmmm I'll have to check that on that off top of my head I may respectfully disagree

I think there is more synthetic races then turf races by at least double

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think the stats linked in the thread show that synthetics are statistically superior - I know stats reasonable well and have to believe these numbers pass any sort of regression analysis, but will leave it to the higher order quants to interpet:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/pdfs/supplementaltables_eid.pdf

The question remains whether synthetic surfaces are ultimately good for the sport - I see many of us shying away from betting on the underlying tracks and realize we are (supposed to be) the ultimate customers.

Reading your comment and the one guy that said why have racing at all?You're right.No better example than myself about the racing industry plus synthetic tracks.In addition to locking me out of the 4th floor of Turfway,where I resided 5 days a week every meet from 2001-2005,largely because I'm Joe binoculars and actually like to watch the races,they put in synthetic and I hate it.And I don't just hate it a little.I think having a 3rd surface has muddied the water so much,that I don't bet Kentucky racing at all unless there is a big racing day.What does that say for the state of the game when the horse capital of the world is untouchable by a player?And I know I'm not alone.I only bet 10-20 K a year but I think my small fry azz is a staple these places need.Selling dollar dogs and beers isn't making them any money.The only people that bet synthetic tracks are ones that are forced to.Which reinforces the notion that players will eat whatever pile of $hit you put in front of them!Good for them!I'm out of their state and out of their game.Alienate us bettors some more!Let's see how ruthless you can be til the doors close!:cool:

[thespaah]

There's less races on synthetic then turf?!?!??? Ummmmm I'll have to check that on that off top of my head I may respectfully disagree

I think there is more synthetic races then turf races by at least double
There are just 23 tracks on the planet that have artificial surfaces.
Two ( Turfway and Woodbine) operate at extended periods during colder weather. During these months, ( Woodbine) turf racing is unavailable.
Turfway has no turf course. This skews the number of races on synthetic tracks away from turf.

[CincyHorseplayer]

There are just 23 tracks on the planet that have artificial surfaces.
Two ( Turfway and Woodbine) operate at extended periods during colder weather. During these months, ( Woodbine) turf racing is unavailable.
Turfway has no turf course. This skews the number of races on synthetic tracks away from turf.

Isn't this one of the stupidest ironies in the game?

[thespaah]

Isn't this one of the stupidest ironies in the game?
Oaklawn...No turf course. :rolleyes:

[CincyHorseplayer]

Oaklawn...No turf course. :rolleyes:

I know.It's as though every idea man in the industry is required to be lobotomized at birth to garnish title to come up with these pieces of poetic justice!:D

[wisconsin]

Oaklawn...No turf course. :rolleyes:

The name of the track is TURFway.

I know "turf" is an old school moniker for racing, but a silly name for a track with no turf racing by today's standards.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The name of the track is TURFway.

I know "turf" is an old school moniker for racing, but a silly name for a track with no turf racing by today's standards.

The Spaah wasn't trying to be antithetical to me.Oaklawn still has lawn in it.Valid comparison!

[Fager Fan]

I think the stats linked in the thread show that synthetics are statistically superior - I know stats reasonable well and have to believe these numbers pass any sort of regression analysis, but will leave it to the higher order quants to interpet:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/pdfs/supplementaltables_eid.pdf

I'd disagree that those stats prove that synth is safer because it's a simple number without any analysis. Each track that installed synth has a totally new (or very young) track including its base. These tracks should be safer than those with worn out bases. In addition, there are few synthetic tracks, and they had a higher than normal rate of top class horse running over them. Dirt tracks are far outnumbered by lower-level racing than top tracks and horses.

The JC doesn't seem particularly interested in giving us anything substantial in the data its collecting. Simple numbers don't do the trick.

By the way, the numbers don't appear to be right, either. Each category (by age, distance or surface) should add up to the same number of total deaths per 1000 starts. Instead, for example, they have almost 1 more death per 1000 starts for horses by distance than by surface.

[VeryOldMan]

I'd disagree that those stats prove that synth is safer because it's a simple number without any analysis. Each track that installed synth has a totally new (or very young) track including its base. These tracks should be safer than those with worn out bases. In addition, there are few synthetic tracks, and they had a higher than normal rate of top class horse running over them. Dirt tracks are far outnumbered by lower-level racing than top tracks and horses.

I look at the stats re Presque Isle - it isn't running high level horses. Far from it. Their Tapeta surface has been statistically superior on breakdown rates measured on any reasonable confidence interval.

Whether synthetic surfaces are good for the long term health of this sport is open to question, because many of us bettors shy away from races on synthetic surfaces.

[dilanesp]

No better example than myself about the racing industry plus synthetic tracks.In addition to locking me out of the 4th floor of Turfway,where I resided 5 days a week every meet from 2001-2005,largely because I'm Joe binoculars and actually like to watch the races,they put in synthetic and I hate it.And I don't just hate it a little.I think having a 3rd surface has muddied the water so much,that I don't bet Kentucky racing at all unless there is a big racing day.What does that say for the state of the game when the horse capital of the world is untouchable by a player?

The key point (other than the safety issue) is that this is your personal decision. I don't know how successful Turfway is, really. But I do know that Del Mar has a synthetic track and is one of the most profitable tracks in the country. And Del Mar and Hollywood Park both do fine in terms of betting handle (and Golden Gate is no worse than it ever was), which indicates there can't be THAT many of you out there. (And, of course, all over the world people bet lots of money on races on synthetic tracks, but what happens outside the US (and maybe Woodbine as well) doesn't seem to count for some folks around here.)

In terms of handicapping, I think synthetic surfaces have actually been great for the game. Introducing a new variable and making the game tougher is good, not bad, for handicapping. But I suppose your mileage may vary.

I can say one thing for certain. In the long term, synthetic surfaces are going to be adopted more and more for the same reason we see so much FieldTurf in football and so many Mondo and Tartan/Tartan derivative tracks in track and field-- because over time, the technology will get better and the surfaces will become safer and safer, and more like dirt. FieldTurf is far closer to real grass than the original AstroTurfs were, and the same thing will happen with horse racing surfaces.

So if you don't like synthetics, I have good news and bad news-- the bad news is there are going to be more of them, but the good news is that they are going to be less like Poly and more like conventional dirt.

[Fager Fan]

I look at the stats re Presque Isle - it isn't running high level horses. Far from it. Their Tapeta surface has been statistically superior on breakdown rates measured on any reasonable confidence interval.

Whether synthetic surfaces are good for the long term health of this sport is open to question, because many of us bettors shy away from races on synthetic surfaces.

That's one new track - compared to every dirt track, including all the crappy ones.

One cannot compare any set of simple numbers in horse racing. There are far too many variables as to the cause of breakdowns.

[Fager Fan]

but the good news is that they are going to be less like Poly and more like conventional dirt.

That's the only thing that matters. It's not just a betting matter, but an owner matter. The owners invest as heavily as the bettors, and a surface that brings mediocre horses closer together with exceptional horses isn't a surface trait that easily forgiven. If it runs like dirt, it can be called anything they like.

[dilanesp]

That's the only thing that matters. It's not just a betting matter, but an owner matter. The owners invest as heavily as the bettors, and a surface that brings mediocre horses closer together with exceptional horses isn't a surface trait that easily forgiven.

I actually don't really care about the owners. At all.

Without bettors (or some equivalent subsidy like Dubai oil money), they could own all the horses they wanted to, but they could only race for peanuts and all their investments would go down the toilet.

And that means making the game bettable is the only thing we can or should do for owners. If the game is bettable, they get decent purses to run for, which is all they are entitled to. If they have to lose lots of races because of big fields, or blanket finishes, or the inability to dope horses, or anything else, that's too bad. Nobody forced them to own racehorses.

The owners have been given a great benefit-- the subsidy of lots of legal bettors that allow them to do something that is a lot of fun. That's all we owe them-- nothing more.

[Fager Fan]

I actually don't really care about the owners. At all.

Without bettors (or some equivalent subsidy like Dubai oil money), they could own all the horses they wanted to, but they could only race for peanuts and all their investments would go down the toilet.

And that means making the game bettable is the only thing we can or should do for owners. If the game is bettable, they get decent purses to run for, which is all they are entitled to. If they have to lose lots of races because of big fields, or blanket finishes, or the inability to dope horses, or anything else, that's too bad. Nobody forced them to own racehorses.

The owners have been given a great benefit-- the subsidy of lots of legal bettors that allow them to do something that is a lot of fun. That's all we owe them-- nothing more.

You want no sport, then, and you may as well bet on computer-generated horse racing if randomness instead of syperiority is fine with you.

This disrespectful disregard for the owner will never serve handicappers well. The owners are the biggest of gamblers, putting up the whole horse as compared to just putting bucks on their nose. Owners are the friend to handicappers in the sport. They understand business and respect and appreciate the importance of the handicappers. Handicappers would do well to reciprocate, and then look to each other for support in the things that matter to both.

[thespaah]

I actually don't really care about the owners. At all.

Without bettors (or some equivalent subsidy like Dubai oil money), they could own all the horses they wanted to, but they could only race for peanuts and all their investments would go down the toilet.

And that means making the game bettable is the only thing we can or should do for owners. If the game is bettable, they get decent purses to run for, which is all they are entitled to. If they have to lose lots of races because of big fields, or blanket finishes, or the inability to dope horses, or anything else, that's too bad. Nobody forced them to own racehorses.

The owners have been given a great benefit-- the subsidy of lots of legal bettors that allow them to do something that is a lot of fun. That's all we owe them-- nothing more.
That is an incorrect attitude. We're( horsemen, owners, bettors track mgments) are all in this together.
The time for a meeting of those minds to share ideas and come to a consensus is NOW.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The key point (other than the safety issue) is that this is your personal decision. I don't know how successful Turfway is, really. But I do know that Del Mar has a synthetic track and is one of the most profitable tracks in the country. And Del Mar and Hollywood Park both do fine in terms of betting handle (and Golden Gate is no worse than it ever was), which indicates there can't be THAT many of you out there. (And, of course, all over the world people bet lots of money on races on synthetic tracks, but what happens outside the US (and maybe Woodbine as well) doesn't seem to count for some folks around here.)

In terms of handicapping, I think synthetic surfaces have actually been great for the game. Introducing a new variable and making the game tougher is good, not bad, for handicapping. But I suppose your mileage may vary.

I can say one thing for certain. In the long term, synthetic surfaces are going to be adopted more and more for the same reason we see so much FieldTurf in football and so many Mondo and Tartan/Tartan derivative tracks in track and field-- because over time, the technology will get better and the surfaces will become safer and safer, and more like dirt. FieldTurf is far closer to real grass than the original AstroTurfs were, and the same thing will happen with horse racing surfaces.

So if you don't like synthetics, I have good news and bad news-- the bad news is there are going to be more of them, but the good news is that they are going to be less like Poly and more like conventional dirt.

Actually the key point is not my preference for surfaces but that people like myself feel the same way and I represent a large group.These states eliminate themselves from serious betting.I get where you are coming from though.Synthetic tracks moves losers up.The more chaotic and random the game is,the more your average dumb as$ has a chance to win.The rest is just a mask to cover the ugly reality beneath.I've been around this game for 17 years and seen all kinds of BS.And this is coming from somebody that doesn't bet dirt hardly at all anyway.In the last 3 racing days I have bet 4 races on dirt.19 on turf.Main track racing can kiss my as$ for all I'm concerned!If you think it's a wise decision to alienate bettors from what should be the biggest handle states in the country,you represent the problem.What state are you from?Because there is no way I'm believing a single word of what you are saying without synthetic racing being shoved down your throat and you willfully oblige.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Let's talk a little reality here because what I'm hearing is that bettors and owners should be on the same page right?I agree with that.But the reality is that owners look down their nose at bettors and their highest ideal is slot money so we can be eliminated from the equation.I pointed out in my personal experiences some exceptions to the rule.But overall owners are unapproachable to a bettor and we are viewed with disdain,if not pure contempt.When this reality changes then the respect will be forthcoming.It's a two way street.You get what you give.I love this game.I love horses.I get love back from both.I've never heard owner 1 show respect for a bettor.

[thespaah]

Let's talk a little reality here because what I'm hearing is that bettors and owners should be on the same page right?I agree with that.But the reality is that owners look down their nose at bettors and their highest ideal is slot money so we can be eliminated from the equation.I pointed out in my personal experiences some exceptions to the rule.But overall owners are unapproachable to a bettor and we are viewed with disdain,if not pure contempt.When this reality changes then the respect will be forthcoming.It's a two way street.You get what you give.I love this game.I love horses.I get love back from both.I've never heard owner 1 show respect for a bettor.
By 'owners' you mean of racetracks?

[cj]

I look at the stats re Presque Isle - it isn't running high level horses. Far from it. Their Tapeta surface has been statistically superior on breakdown rates measured on any reasonable confidence interval.



But again, it is still a relatively brand new track. It is tough to compare it to a track that has been around with the same base for 50 years.

[Fager Fan]

Let's talk a little reality here because what I'm hearing is that bettors and owners should be on the same page right?I agree with that.But the reality is that owners look down their nose at bettors and their highest ideal is slot money so we can be eliminated from the equation.I pointed out in my personal experiences some exceptions to the rule.But overall owners are unapproachable to a bettor and we are viewed with disdain,if not pure contempt.When this reality changes then the respect will be forthcoming.It's a two way street.You get what you give.I love this game.I love horses.I get love back from both.I've never heard owner 1 show respect for a bettor.

What, owners want bigger payouts? Say it ain't so. It doesn't mean owners wouldn't prefer that racing stands on its own feet.

Have no idea how to respond to your unapproachable comment. How exactly are you approaching them?

[VeryOldMan]

But again, it is still a relatively brand new track. It is tough to compare it to a track that has been around with the same base for 50 years.

I agree that Presque Isle is a new track - but I was using it as a counter-example of a track that isn't drawing top-flight horses and yet still has a very favorable breakdown rate versus other tracks running the same quality level of horses.

I just feel like some people are whistling past the graveyard here - the statistical evidence on breakdown rates at synthetic tracks seems to be significant. Even if you disagree with that proposition - what if it is true? Where do we stand? I see a lot of bettors - admittedly including me - giving less action to tracks that have synthetic surfaces. What does that mean for the long-term health of this sport? What if they actually ARE safer for the horses? Is that just one of the costs of doing business here? I'm not trying to be a wise-guy - maybe it is. I'm just saying we shouldn't be quick to assume away the issue.

[wiffleball whizz]

Let's talk a little reality here because what I'm hearing is that bettors and owners should be on the same page right?I agree with that.But the reality is that owners look down their nose at bettors and their highest ideal is slot money so we can be eliminated from the equation.I pointed out in my personal experiences some exceptions to the rule.But overall owners are unapproachable to a bettor and we are viewed with disdain,if not pure contempt.When this reality changes then the respect will be forthcoming.It's a two way street.You get what you give.I love this game.I
love horses.I get love back from both.I've never heard owner 1 show respect for a bettor.

This is partly accurate is 150 percent accurate....the owners absolutely look down there nose at the bettors.....it's comical that they do this without us they got horses that have zero value...

These snobby owners take it out in wheel barrels from slot fueled tracks and think they have a right at all this money

Cincy u are so right on this issue and couldn't explain it better myself..

Among the most rotten owners are the owners of big time trotting horses....fathers good friend had a box at the M and whenever there was big stakes id be surrounded by filth owners and they were scum believe me when I tell u...::.id be 22 and these people would wonder why I'm sitting there by them....it was always I I I and me me me...

In all fairness I dont know many flat owners but I hear they are a little better to be around...

Cliff notes:

Horsemen look down at gamblers

[wiffleball whizz]

That is an incorrect attitude. We're( horsemen, owners, bettors track mgments) are all in this together.
The time for a meeting of those minds to share ideas and come to a consensus is NOW.

No we're not in this together....it's 2 different sides to this debate...the horsemen have to regard for us the player-----none

[thespaah]

No we're not in this together....it's 2 different sides to this debate...the horsemen have to regard for us the player-----none
And bridging that divide is the only thing that will save the game. Period.

[CincyHorseplayer]

What, owners want bigger payouts? Say it ain't so. It doesn't mean owners wouldn't prefer that racing stands on its own feet.

Have no idea how to respond to your unapproachable comment. How exactly are you approaching them?

Exactly.Thank you for defining the obvious.There has to be an approach.A premeditated gesture to be able to make conversation.An entitlement.This is why the idea of us being equals is a total farce.When there is live racing I hang out in the paddock half the day and I do ask questions.And if need be known,I dress smartly,can talk intelligibly,and don't look like some slob,and still get the dismissive BS all day.This is a nice theory on the owners behalf but it's BS.

[CincyHorseplayer]

This is partly accurate is 150 percent accurate....the owners absolutely look down there nose at the bettors.....it's comical that they do this without us they got horses that have zero value...

These snobby owners take it out in wheel barrels from slot fueled tracks and think they have a right at all this money

Cincy u are so right on this issue and couldn't explain it better myself..

Among the most rotten owners are the owners of big time trotting horses....fathers good friend had a box at the M and whenever there was big stakes id be surrounded by filth owners and they were scum believe me when I tell u...::.id be 22 and these people would wonder why I'm sitting there by them....it was always I I I and me me me...

In all fairness I dont know many flat owners but I hear they are a little better to be around...

Cliff notes:

Horsemen look down at gamblers

Thanks brother.I've been around this game plenty long and I think over the years that my passion and money count.None of them ever ask for my opinion.I just don't understand how if we are equals we never speak?!I don't buy it.We know their horses better than they do.They wan't slot purses so we can be eliminated and they have guaranteed income.They hate us.We remind them of everything that is wrong with them.Most of them are business people.You get to be successful by being ruthless.So these as$holes have something to respect when we are ruthless back!Nothing more my man.They are nothing without us.

[wiffleball whizz]

If you ever want to hate people sit in the boxes at the meadowlands and listen to the snobbish stakes horse owners....I sit in the boxes there and they look at me like what am I doing there:...they are such slime it's disgusting...they have attitudes like they are better then Everybody else

Again without us gamblers they can wipe there ass with there horses its us that bet horses and the slot players that make this game survive..

Im sorry I'm not worth 20 million and own 22 stakes caliber horses....they are really rotten human beings

[Greyfox]

Im sorry I'm not worth 20 million and own 22 stakes caliber horses....they are really rotten human beings

C'mon.
In one breath you're saying they are rotten, and in the other you're saying you want to be like them.
I've seen some snobbery among some owners for sure.
They purchase horses as status symbols, more than any true interest in racing.
You might also find the same class conscious types in the seats of sky boxes or private viewing rooms at NHL games too. But they are in the minority.
The vast majority of owners are like you and me.
They sit down to shit too.
I find the vast majority of owners are pretty good down to earth people.
Besides, if they weren't putting up the big bucks to purchase horses and pay trainer and feed bills, we wouldn't be playing the game.
wiffleball whizz - cut them some slack. There are more good eggs who own horses than the hoity toity types, in my experience.

[wiffleball whizz]

C'mon.
In one breath you're saying they are rotten, and in the other you're saying you want to be like them.
I've seen some snobbery among some owners for sure.
They purchase horses as status symbols, more than any true interest in racing.
You might also find the same class conscious types in the seats of sky boxes or private viewing rooms at NHL games too. But they are in the minority.
The vast majority of owners are like you and me.
They sit down to shit too.
I find the vast majority of owners are pretty good down to earth people.
Besides, if they weren't putting up the big bucks to purchase horses and pay trainer and feed bills, we wouldn't be playing the game.
wiffleball whizz - cut them some slack. There are more good eggs who own horses than the hoity toity types, in my experience.


In one breath I was saying there rotten and the other breath I was saying sorry im not worth 20 million....that was supposed to be sarcastic

Sure there are owners out there that have tons of class....hard to imagine there are people nicer then Bob and Beverly Lewis they seemed like great people

I'm talking from a harness point of view there are some real snobs out there

[Greyfox]

I'm talking from a harness point of view there are some real snobs out there

I don't play harness races and haven't had any experience with harness owners.
Having said that my guess is that there are snobs in every group, but they are in the minority.

[wiffleball whizz]

When these owners win a big race and get interviewed it wouldn't hurt to thank the bettors for there support....the cops wouldn't come arrest them if they gave the players a shoutout

[Greyfox]

When these owners win a big race and get interviewed it wouldn't hurt to thank the bettors for there support....

That knife cuts both ways.

When is the last time you heard a bettor who just cashed a big ticket thanking or praising an owner ?

[wiffleball whizz]

That knife cuts both ways.

When is the last time you heard a bettor who just cashed a big ticket thanking or praising an owner ?

That's not a real fair comeback....there's really nothing for us to thank them for...guess it falls under the which came first the chicken or the egg...

I'm not sure it's our job to thank them

[thespaah]

That knife cuts both ways.

When is the last time you heard a bettor who just cashed a big ticket thanking or praising an owner ?
Hmm. At some tracks, the fans in attendance applaud when the winning horse returns to winners circle.
I have never met any real well to do owners, so I cannot form an opinion.
In my short tenure in the harness business, I met a few trainers. Some were not very pleasant. Some were downright nice guys.

[classhandicapper]

I just feel like some people are whistling past the graveyard here - the statistical evidence on breakdown rates at synthetic tracks seems to be significant. Even if you disagree with that proposition - what if it is true? Where do we stand? I see a lot of bettors - admittedly including me - giving less action to tracks that have synthetic surfaces. What does that mean for the long-term health of this sport? What if they actually ARE safer for the horses? Is that just one of the costs of doing business here? I'm not trying to be a wise-guy - maybe it is. I'm just saying we shouldn't be quick to assume away the issue.

IMO, a free market would eventually sort it all out (but keep in mind we don't have that in racing).

If the players prefer dirt, that will push things in the direction of dirt because they generate the revenue by betting.

If the owners can't keep their horses as sound on dirt as on synthetics, they will push back in the other direction because fewer owners will be willing to eat the larger losses.

If we settle on dirt and horses are breaking down at unacceptably high levels, then we'll have animal rights organizations screaming bloody hell.

It will all sort itself out eventually, but we could probably skip a few steps if we just did the right thing by making all tracks as safe as possible.