DEL MAR continues to thrive

[carlonr]

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/04/del-mar-successful-meeting-/

[dilanesp]

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/04/del-mar-successful-meeting-/

Yep. Best track in the country, in many ways.

They aren't getting the Breeders' Cup, however (Santa Anita basically has a lock on that right now), and it would be a bad idea for them to get rid of the Polytrack. The previous dirt tracks were absolutely deadly for horses, and if they ripped out the Poly, they'd probably have to just reinstall it after a couple of years if the breakdown rate returned to what it was when they raced on dirt.

[pandy]

I agree. The Del Mar dirt track was brutal on horses.

[carlonr]

Once the turf course is widened (work has already started) to accommodate 14 horses by next season, the avg field size and handle will get even larger.

[thespaah]

Why could they not just install a dirt track that wasn't like asphalt?
Make it a deeper track with a better cushion?
Not a fan of artificial tracks.
And yes, the old Del Mar dirt surface was a rock hard....well it WAS asphalt.
I wonder why no one ever tried to correct it before deciding to install Poly.

[Stillriledup]

I agree. The Del Mar dirt track was brutal on horses.

So, you're saying that the horses who broke down on the dirt were all 100% sound and the dirt was the only reason they broke down?

[dilanesp]

So, you're saying that the horses who broke down on the dirt were all 100% sound and the dirt was the only reason they broke down?

I'm not sure what your point is. That if the dirt was only 99.99 percent of the reason they broke down it didn't need to be replaced with Poly.

Horses are alive today because that switch was made. Isn't that enough?

[dilanesp]

Why could they not just install a dirt track that wasn't like asphalt?
Make it a deeper track with a better cushion?
Not a fan of artificial tracks.
And yes, the old Del Mar dirt surface was a rock hard....well it WAS asphalt.
I wonder why no one ever tried to correct it before deciding to install Poly.

They were trying stuff every year, actually. It wasn't reducing breakdowns.

Then they went to Poly, and breakdowns are way down.

You don't have to be a fan of artificial tracks. But Del Mar is an example of a successful one.

[Stillriledup]

I'm not sure what your point is. That if the dirt was only 99.99 percent of the reason they broke down it didn't need to be replaced with Poly.

Horses are alive today because that switch was made. Isn't that enough?

Here's my point.

A large percentage of the horses who break down, do so because they're racing when they shouldnt be. The majority of breakdowns are not caused by surfaces. What we also don't know is how the pre race "Scrutiny" changed once Poly was installed...who's to say they werent more vigilant to make sure that no "dangerous" horses were entered?

When you go thru the trouble and expense to change surfaces, you're also going to be more vigilant at which horses get into the gates.

There are a lot of stats we don't hear about, like the horses who get injured on poly but don't actually die....we also don't know how many horses who race on poly, ship to dirt and get injured specifically because of the switch in surfaces, there's no way to know why a horse breaks down, there are many factors involved but people only seem to care about 1) IF a horse breaks down and dies and 2) what was the surface. There's a lot more to it than blaming the surface, many of these breakdowns are from horses who have pre-existing conditions.

[rastajenk]

A large percentage of the horses who break down, do so because they're racing when they shouldnt be. Is this conventional wisdom, or are you just making shit up again? For what it's worth, a trainer recently told me that it was his observation that more breakdowns occur with fit-and-ready runners that are going full out, and that the ouchy ones instinctively protect themselves by travelling more carefully.

[pandy]

Whether you like racing on Poly or not, in my opinion, overall it does appear to be a safer surface than dirt, especially at Del Mar. I think the industry stats prove this. But, that being said, dirt isn't the problem, that I'll admit. The problem is most likely a combination of inbreeding and breeding for speed and drugs. However, a well maintained artificial track appears to produce less bad breakdowns than dirt tracks, which makes sense for several reasons.

I recently interviewed Chuck Coon, one of the nation's top track surface guys. We spoke in length about maintaining cushion on a track. Rain and snow are the toughest things to control because both wipe away the cushion, either through drainage or by scraping the track, and then it has to be replaced (and it can be loose when replaced and take several days to get it right again).

With a synthetic track, the water goes directly through and there is less loss of cushion during inclement weather. Cushion does have to be added from time to time, but not to the degree of what has to be done on dirt tracks, especially after inclement weather.

At Del Mar and the now defunct Hollywood Park, the track maintenance crew eventually got real good at maintaining the surface and these surfaces have proven to be significantly safer than the dirt tracks they replaced.

[thespaah]

So, you're saying that the horses who broke down on the dirt were all 100% sound and the dirt was the only reason they broke down?
Always a good question to open an important discussion.
I think that is a legitimate topic.
One will read threads on places like PA. They will read stories in the print media.
The one common thread regarding breakdowns is that the injuries are invariably blamed on track conditions. Or the track itself.
Never do we see in depth research on the overall heath of a horse at the time of the breakdown. No one ever goes "let's perform a necropsy to see what caused this animal's catastrophic injury"...
Yes these procedures cost money. Yet so does the rebuilding of a race track surface.
From a financial standpoint, perhaps doing a random study on race horse injuries that result in euthanasia is not practical.
One thing is for sure. The finger pointing has to stop.

[thespaah]

I'm not sure what your point is. That if the dirt was only 99.99 percent of the reason they broke down it didn't need to be replaced with Poly.

Horses are alive today because that switch was made. Isn't that enough?
Who did the research and how did they come to the conclusion that the track was 99.99% at fault?
See this is why this debate should be had.
No one wants to examine the horses to see if they were suffering health issues which led to their demise.
Loo, I am not implying there are not issues with racing surfaces. There are. My point is I want BOTH sides of the story to be examined.

[thespaah]

I'm not sure what your point is. That if the dirt was only 99.99 percent of the reason they broke down it didn't need to be replaced with Poly.

Horses are alive today because that switch was made. Isn't that enough?
That is an opinion.
No research was ever done to come up with hard evidence to support your claim

[thespaah]

They were trying stuff every year, actually. It wasn't reducing breakdowns.

Then they went to Poly, and breakdowns are way down.

You don't have to be a fan of artificial tracks. But Del Mar is an example of a successful one.
What "stuff"?
See this is the kind of thing that gives message boards a bad name.
Someone posts a statement presented in the form of a conclusion when it is either that person's opinion or it is conjecture.
Unless you were there working on the crew at Del Mar and have first hand knowledge, or you have news items that confirm Del mar management was "trying stuff", then you really don't know. All you are doing is making your case in support of artificial racing surfaces.
My point is real dirt can be just as good if not a batter racing surface than artificial if the track management has good maintenance policies in place. It's very simple.

[thespaah]

Whether you like racing on Poly or not, in my opinion, overall it does appear to be a safer surface than dirt, especially at Del Mar. I think the industry stats prove this. But, that being said, dirt isn't the problem, that I'll admit. The problem is most likely a combination of inbreeding and breeding for speed and drugs. However, a well maintained artificial track appears to produce less bad breakdowns than dirt tracks, which makes sense for several reasons.

I recently interviewed Chuck Coon, one of the nation's top track surface guys. We spoke in length about maintaining cushion on a track. Rain and snow are the toughest things to control because both wipe away the cushion, either through drainage or by scraping the track, and then it has to be replaced (and it can be loose when replaced and take several days to get it right again).

With a synthetic track, the water goes directly through and there is less loss of cushion during inclement weather. Cushion does have to be added from time to time, but not to the degree of what has to be done on dirt tracks, especially after inclement weather.

At Del Mar and the now defunct Hollywood Park, the track maintenance crew eventually got real good at maintaining the surface and these surfaces have proven to be significantly safer than the dirt tracks they replaced.
Now that is important to a discussion such as this.
The dirt vs artificial debate will rage onward.
However, you cited an expert in the field. And what is in your post is pretty convincing.
Now, does that mean I will support Poly 100%...Nope.
I am not buying the Poly = superior/ dirt=inferior argument.
I think the track supers can learn from this.
One issue is the cushion vs the drainage.
My question is why is there nothing being done to improve the conditions that create the problems described above by Mr Coon?
Would it not be incumbent for the management people of dirt tracks to go take a page out of the "Poly Drainage book" and use it to improve their situation?

[pandy]

Whether you like racing on Poly or not, in my opinion, overall it does appear to be a safer surface than dirt, especially at Del Mar. I think the industry stats prove this. But, that being said, dirt isn't the problem, that I'll admit. The problem is most likely a combination of inbreeding and breeding for speed and drugs. However, a well maintained artificial track appears to produce less bad breakdowns than dirt tracks, which makes sense for several reasons.

I recently interviewed Chuck Coon, one of the nation's top track surface guys. We spoke in length about maintaining cushion on a track. Rain and snow are the toughest things to control because both wipe away the cushion, either through drainage or by scraping the track, and then it has to be replaced (and it can be loose when replaced and take several days to get it right again).

With a synthetic track, the water goes directly through and there is less loss of cushion during inclement weather. Cushion does have to be added from time to time, but not to the degree of what has to be done on dirt tracks, especially after inclement weather.

At Del Mar and the now defunct Hollywood Park, the track maintenance crew eventually got real good at maintaining the surface and these surfaces have proven to be significantly safer than the dirt tracks they replaced.

I meant to say, Dan Coon. Chuck is his father.

By the way, here is some of the column that was originally published in drf.com/harness and this part pertains to thoroughbred racing and breakdowns: (column excerpt below)

I asked Coon about the increase in breakdowns in Thoroughbred racing and he offered some of his views.

"In my opinion, they should not race with a rail," he said. "It's dangerous for both the horses and riders. When we suggested eliminating the hubrail at harness tracks years ago it was met with a lot of opposition. Horsemen resist change; that I can tell you. But fortunately the sport did remove the hubrail and it's a lot safer. I've spoken to jockeys who believe that it would be hard to control the horses if the rail wasn't there, but they train around the cones all the time with no problem.

"The Thoroughbred starting gate is also dangerous and a lot of horses get injured at the start, either in the gate or by accelerating out of a flat-footed start. I was at Keeneland a few years ago, we were testing pacers on the synthetic surface there. I tried to get Thoroughbred trainers to let me start a race with the mobile gate but they refused. It will probably never change, but you don't need to race Thoroughbreds out of a gate like that.

"Another factor is the six-furlong and shorter one-turn sprint races, which are tough on horses. They have a few hundred feet to hit top speed then they slam into a turn. Generally speaking, I think that horses will stay sounder if they race more in routes than sprints. And with training, American horses usually run the same way when they race and train. Their training should really vary, train them clockwise some days and counter-clockwise other days, like they do in Dubai, to balance the stress on their legs."

Coon stressed that the key to keeping pacers and trotters sound is the cushion.

"Even though the cushion on harness tracks isn't that deep, it has to be maintained," he said. "The tracks that do a good job of maintaining the cushion are going to have sounder horses."

Coon experimented with racing pacers over the synthetic surface at Keeneland several years ago. A synthetic surface would slow the races down and give the closers a better chance. It could be a good idea for harness racing. I asked him if he felt that a synthetic racetrack could be used for harness racing.

"Yes," he said, "you can race Standardbreds on a synthetic surface. But when we tried it at Keeneland it probably added five seconds to the times, and the breeders didn't like that. They said, 'Hey, we have to sell these horses.' But to a gambler or racing fan, what's more important, a competitive race, or a fast time? I think that's the question that has to be asked."

[dilanesp]

That is an opinion.
No research was ever done to come up with hard evidence to support your claim

The breakdown numbers speak for themselves.

Dirt lovers love dirt for reasons having nothing to do with safety. I don't think you would favor Poly even if there was conclusive proof that it was safer. Am I wrong?

[dilanesp]

What "stuff"?
See this is the kind of thing that gives message boards a bad name.
Someone posts a statement presented in the form of a conclusion when it is either that person's opinion or it is conjecture.
Unless you were there working on the crew at Del Mar and have first hand knowledge, or you have news items that confirm Del mar management was "trying stuff", then you really don't know. All you are doing is making your case in support of artificial racing surfaces.
My point is real dirt can be just as good if not a batter racing surface than artificial if the track management has good maintenance policies in place. It's very simple.

The increase in breakdowns at Del Mar occurred over several years. Each year, track officials told the media they were trying to fix it.

Unless they were lying, we know that it was only switching to Poly that reduced the breakdowns.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dirt lovers love dirt for reasons having nothing to do with safety. I don't think you would favor Poly even if there was conclusive proof that it was safer. Am I wrong?Damn right. We absolutely crave the high that goes with watching a thoroughbred racehorse snap both front legs, compound-style, struggle to get up on their newly formed bloody stumps, while simultaneously hoping the jock gets tossed over the inside rail and roll downhill into the infield lake.

Could you be any more absurd with your assumptions?

[pandy]

I think what dilanesp is saying is true. Some horseplayers just hate poly racing and really don't want to hear if its safer or not, they just want dirt racing. Personally, I prefer dirt racing but I realize that done right, poly is safer.

[thespaah]

The breakdown numbers speak for themselves.

Dirt lovers love dirt for reasons having nothing to do with safety. I don't think you would favor Poly even if there was conclusive proof that it was safer. Am I wrong?
Ya know what, I am though with you. I cannot stand people who make assumptions regarding what others may think.

[dilanesp]

Ya know what, I am though with you. I cannot stand people who make assumptions regarding what others may think.

Del Mar's breakdown numbers are dramatically down with Poly. If you still think they should run on dirt, by definition, you think other things about dirt are more important than safety.

[thespaah]

Del Mar's breakdown numbers are dramatically down with Poly. If you still think they should run on dirt, by definition, you think other things about dirt are more important than safety.
Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.
Since you decided to open the door, you are once again making an assumption.
Was there a part of "I'm done" that you did not understand?

[Stillriledup]

Is this conventional wisdom, or are you just making shit up again? For what it's worth, a trainer recently told me that it was his observation that more breakdowns occur with fit-and-ready runners that are going full out, and that the ouchy ones instinctively protect themselves by travelling more carefully.

"Making up shit again"? If you want to discuss some other thread where i "made stuff up" maybe you ought to bump that thread and we can discuss it there?

As far as your "for what its worth" its not worth much. I watch a lot more replays than your "Trainer friend" and i see horses who break down and what they looked like on their previous replay and thier previous gallop out, many times, its not a pretty sight. Its not the horses who are "hard to pull up" on the gallop outs are not the ones breaking down in their next start.

You do have an interesting point about the ouchy horses who are instinctively protecting themselves, but from my observations, horses who look "shot" on the gallop outs are the "usual suspects" to break down in a subsequent start not long after the shaky gallop out or shaky performance.

[Stillriledup]

The breakdown numbers speak for themselves.

Dirt lovers love dirt for reasons having nothing to do with safety. I don't think you would favor Poly even if there was conclusive proof that it was safer. Am I wrong?

Bettors are trying to win bets and trainers are trying to make sure their runners don't break down, lets not confuse the two.

[Stillriledup]

Del Mar's breakdown numbers are dramatically down with Poly. If you still think they should run on dirt, by definition, you think other things about dirt are more important than safety.

Tell me, in these breakdown numbers, how can they prove that the horse who broke down broke down because of the surface? Maybe that horse was flawed enough where he or she was going to break down no matter what surface they raced on....we also don't know how much more "Vigilant" they became when the poly was installed...after all, if you want poly to "look"Safer, you're going to do everything you can to prevent "compromised" horses enter the races.

When is the last time you saw a fatal breakdown on the Ky Derby undercard? That's a dirt track, horses rarely break down on that day...same is true for Pimlico's big day and Belmont's big day. Now, if dirt was so "unsafe" you might see horses snapping legs in those races, but you don't see it because they are really vigilant in the pre race exams, they know there are a lot of fans there that arent hardcore types and they don't want to have a horse go down in a heap in the stretch and you know what? It happens rarely which says more about what kinds of horses get to pass the vet exam on the "Dreary Tuesday" with 3 people in the stands and the Derby Day where there are 100k or more. Its different, dirt is not to blame for breakdowns, there are a lot of other factors in play.

[classhandicapper]

One thing that's certain is that the Del Mar and even Keeneland surfaces are not the same now as when they were first installed. The riders can ride more aggressively, the fractions and times are faster, yet despite that, it appears more horses are going wire to wire than did initially. When some of those polytrack surfaces were first installed the racing was a crawl fest.

[dilanesp]

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.
Since you decided to open the door, you are once again making an assumption.
Was there a part of "I'm done" that you did not understand?

Apparently you didn't understand it. :)

[dilanesp]

Bettors are trying to win bets and trainers are trying to make sure their runners don't break down, lets not confuse the two.

I think that's right. (Also Poly racing plays out more like grass racing, with less emphasis on early pace. Some fans find that less exciting. )

But I wish anti-poly types would admit this. It's like discussing global warming with deniers.

[dilanesp]

Tell me, in these breakdown numbers, how can they prove that the horse who broke down broke down because of the surface? Maybe that horse was flawed enough where he or she was going to break down no matter what surface they raced on....we also don't know how much more "Vigilant" they became when the poly was installed...after all, if you want poly to "look"Safer, you're going to do everything you can to prevent "compromised" horses enter the races.

When is the last time you saw a fatal breakdown on the Ky Derby undercard? That's a dirt track, horses rarely break down on that day...same is true for Pimlico's big day and Belmont's big day. Now, if dirt was so "unsafe" you might see horses snapping legs in those races, but you don't see it because they are really vigilant in the pre race exams, they know there are a lot of fans there that arent hardcore types and they don't want to have a horse go down in a heap in the stretch and you know what? It happens rarely which says more about what kinds of horses get to pass the vet exam on the "Dreary Tuesday" with 3 people in the stands and the Derby Day where there are 100k or more. Its different, dirt is not to blame for breakdowns, there are a lot of other factors in play.

Still, the problem with this is there's never going to be perfect controls on all the variables. But if we use that as an excuse to switch back to dirt, horses could die while we wait for more proof.

Del Mar's statistics were abominable, and now it's one of the safest tracks in America. Why would you even take a chance of reversing that?

[Stillriledup]

I think that's right. (Also Poly racing plays out more like grass racing, with less emphasis on early pace. Some fans find that less exciting. )

But I wish anti-poly types would admit this. It's like discussing global warming with deniers.

People arent necessarily anti-Poly, its that they are anti-losing. When you have established a winning formula or a winning theory on dirt, why do you need to go and learn how to ride a bicycle all over again? While bettors would rather see safe races than injuries in races, their focus is on winning the bets that they make and they're not too interested in tossing a monkey wrench into the proceedings with surface changes.

[Stillriledup]

Still, the problem with this is there's never going to be perfect controls on all the variables. But if we use that as an excuse to switch back to dirt, horses could die while we wait for more proof.

Del Mar's statistics were abominable, and now it's one of the safest tracks in America. Why would you even take a chance of reversing that?

Honestly, im trying to win bets and the rest of the stuff is just not something that concerns me all that much. A different surface to me can only mean one thing...and that is there is much more downside to my betting than upside.

[thespaah]

Apparently you didn't understand it. :)
And now you've just had the last word.

[thaskalos]

Honestly, im trying to win bets and the rest of the stuff is just not something that concerns me all that much. A different surface to me can only mean one thing...and that is there is much more downside to my betting than upside.
Not me!

I can tolerate losing...as long as I know that the horses and the jockeys are racing on safer ground.

Money is replaceable...but health is not.

[Stillriledup]

Not me!

I can tolerate losing...as long as I know that the horses and the jockeys are racing on safer ground.

Money is replaceable...but health is not.

I can't tolerate losing....when i get to that point where its ok to lose, i'll leave the game and find something else to do.

[dilanesp]

And now you've just had the last word.

Doesn't look like it. :)

At any rate, note that others in the thread are confirming my thesis, despite your emotional denial.

[ronsmac]

I can't tolerate losing....when i get to that point where its ok to lose, i'll leave the game and find something else to do.
I must agree with you emphatically.

[thespaah]

Doesn't look like it. :)

At any rate, note that others in the thread are confirming my thesis, despite your emotional denial.
Go to your PM

[dilanesp]

Doesn't look like it. :)

At any rate, note that others in the thread are confirming my thesis, despite your emotional denial.

This time he replied in a private message (and not a nice one). :) The man really does not understand "the last word".

[PaceAdvantage]

Let's not ever forget...it's not the bettor who is responsible for the safety of the horse.

It is the vet, trainer, owner, jockey and the racetrack.

So whether or not there are bettors out there who don't care about the safety of the horse/jockey, it is immaterial in the end. Because the bettor does not (and SHOULD NOT) have any impact on the safety of the horse nor responsibility to see that races and horses are conducted with the utmost safety in mind.

That responsibility rightly rests in the hands of a number of other professionals, who should shoulder ALL of the BLAME whenever a horse goes down.