Don’t want Synthetic Surfaces? Hard to argue with these statistics

[Indulto]

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/news/story?id=2477611 (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/news/story?id=2477611)
Tracks line up for artificial race surfaces by Matt Hegarty Daily Racing Form

The article quoted Richard Shapiro: "… for me, the bottom line is that the health of the horse has to come first. When you look at the data on breakdowns, it's unacceptable. It's staggering. We had 227 horses destroyed on our tracks in 2005. And that doesn't count soft-tissue injuries or bowed tendons or suspensories."

It also quoted Jack Liebau: “They are kinder to horses, and they reduce injuries. That much we know for sure."


http://www.columbian.com/news/APStories/AP06082006news34527.cfm (http://www.columbian.com/news/APStories/AP06082006news34527.cfm)
Horseracing Reels From 2 Terrible Moments by RICHARD ROSENBLATT

“According to NYRA, which operates Belmont, Saratoga and Aqueduct, there were 25 fatalities from 17,973 starts in 2005 for a rate of 1.4 per 1,000.

The CHRB reported that its major thoroughbred tracks, including Santa Anita, Hollywood Park and Del Mar, had 104 fatalities from 29,257 starts in 2005. That's about 3.5 per 1,000.

The Maryland Racing Commission said there were 20 fatalities from 14,560 starts last year at its major tracks, including Laurel and Pimlico. That's a rate of about 1.37 per 1,000.

The KHRA said there were 39 fatalities last year, and Equibase - the industry's official database for racing information - lists 22,140 starters. That's about 1.76 per 1,000.”

[kenwoodallpromos]

Shapiro is the head of the CHRB- this Saturday and Sunday Bay Meadows had 19 races and 6 DNF- not all destroyed.
Not much in the way of hints in the PP's on those 6. Some were coming back 1st or 2nd race from layoffs.
Chance Rollins got hurt badly today, fell onto the rail and to the infield.

[Barbaro2006]

I think the racetracks should do what is best for the horses. If the horses will have less injuries, less fatalities and less wear and tear to their limbs, I'd say do it! I am a thoroughbred fanatic, but for the breed, not for the money or the sport. Don't get me wrong, I love the sport b/c I love seeing my fave horses move with such speed, agility, grace and power. What I don't like is the lifestyles some of these horses (usually the claimers and lower graded horses) have to live. Not all of the industry is nice to their horses. I'm going off onto another subject, but back to the track conditions. If it benefits the horse, spend the money and place that kind of footing down. These horses run their hearts out and they deserve to do what they love comfortably. I am sick of great horses like Barbaro, Go For Wand, Charismatic and many many others getting hurt or killed. And mostly due to the footing and accidents. You have to see how much pressure and stress slamming those fragile legs does to those horses?! It may not be traditional to have the new footing, but the breeding quality of our horses now adays isn't as spectacular as it used to be. :)

[Tom]

Still no long term data to prove anything.
Rush to judgement.

Ford was quite sure that the tires on those Explorers were safe, and neglected due dilignece in thier testing. Oooppps.

Poly looks very promising, but nobody knows what else might be hding beneath the surface yet. And nobody will for many years to come.

Is breakdown occurrence the only consideration?

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Tom
Still no long term data to prove anything.
Rush to judgement.

Ford was quite sure that the tires on those Explorers were safe, and neglected due dilignece in thier testing. Oooppps.

Poly looks very promising, but nobody knows what else might be hding beneath the surface yet. And nobody will for many years to come.

Is breakdown occurrence the only consideration?Tom,
It seems as if the opposition is coming mostly from among the bettors who arguably have less at stake than the horsemen trying to protect their property and the tracks trying to attract fuller fields and larger handle.

You’re always pointing out how politicians ignore the obvious, but you won’t give credit to the CHRB for trying to be proactive. According to the Rosenblatt article, California’s breakdown rate is TWICE as high as Kentucky’s – the next highest. I couldn’t determine whether or not those statistics included TP, but if they reduced the rate there “Ten-fold” (does that mean cut it to a tenth for that track only?), then California -- which has watched racing decline faster than anywhere else – is taking a better approach by reacting sooner than later.

I also have doubts about making them all do it at once, but only because I think successively better implementations would result if the installations were staggered. On the other hand, the way racing is headed on the “Left Coast,” things could get worse here before they even get a chance to be better.

I find it interesting that the two major tracks, Del Mar and Keeneland, that are already committed to that course of action are not run by multi-track operations, e.g., MEC, CDI, or NYRA, but by associations of horsemen. That alone gives me confidence they're on the right track. ;)

[Tom]

I've seen thousands of cases where a correction/change was made to a process to fix something based on small samples and short runs, and then they blew up in our faces later on - failure modes nobody anticipted.
Personally, I don't care what they run on, but I just say - everyone is jumping to conclusions that may or may not be valid based on very little data and perhaps not enough well thought out planning.
We still have not seen this stuff in hot dry summer weather, with daily racing far in excess of European tracks. We have seen what happens to a jockey who rides on it for 6 or 7 months every day, or a horse that runs on it continually.

Remember Phen Phen - the ideal diat drug - weight literally fell off people, who, today, have failed kidneys and other major medical problems. Remember silicone implants? ( :jump:)
Great boobs, until they started leaking!:eek:

[WJ47]

I'll be interested to see how the statistics hold up when polytrack is installed on a few more tracks. So far, it seems really promising. If it's safer for the horse and jockey, I'm all for it. :)

[wes]

http://www.polytrack.com/qa.html



wes

[DeadCrab]

**********
Remember Phen Phen - the ideal diat drug - weight literally fell off people, who, today, have failed kidneys and other major medical problems. Remember silicone implants? ( :jump
Great boobs, until they started leaking!
__________________


Remember Viet Nam?

Exactly how high does the body count have to get before you do something about it?

[Barbaro2006]

Those were all things that were taken by people or put into them. The poly track is something to run on. It won't have that kind of effect on the horses. My high school, (i grad. in 2003 btw), took the concrete track and replaced it with a rubber surface so it wouldn't be as hard on our legs when jumping hurdles or running short/long distances. It only helped us by preventing injuries & gave us a little spring in our step. I don't see how it would affect the horses in a negative way. Maybe times wouldn't be as fast and the horses paces may get affected with how they pursue the field, which isn't hurting them, its hurting the bettors.

But besides the track surfacing there are still going to be injuries within the starting gate, in the pastures, in stalls/barns and when horses get into fights (ex. Gold Token (R.I.P.) and A.P. Jet) That was a freak accident and it wasn't something we could blame on anything except maybe the handler didn't have enough control of A.P. Jet. Anyways, just trying to state that injuries and accidents can still happen anywhere, but I do think the poly track would serve more good than bad.

[Valuist]

I've seen thousands of cases where a correction/change was made to a process to fix something based on small samples and short runs, and then they blew up in our faces later on - failure modes nobody anticipted.
Personally, I don't care what they run on, but I just say - everyone is jumping to conclusions that may or may not be valid based on very little data and perhaps not enough well thought out planning.
We still have not seen this stuff in hot dry summer weather, with daily racing far in excess of European tracks. We have seen what happens to a jockey who rides on it for 6 or 7 months every day, or a horse that runs on it continually.

Remember Phen Phen - the ideal diat drug - weight literally fell off people, who, today, have failed kidneys and other major medical problems. Remember silicone implants? ( :jump:)
Great boobs, until they started leaking!:eek:

exactly. And more on the subject, lets not forget Equitrack, which was supposed to revolutionize racing.

[DeadCrab]

**
exactly. And more on the subject, lets not forget Equitrack, which was supposed to revolutionize racing.
***************

While there are many differences between synthetic surfaces. One key difference, is vertical drainage.

My guess is that Polytrack's greatest critics have never walked on it. There is nothing like it. It is like a cloud.

[Tom]

The O-ring that failed and destroyed the Space Shuttle - performed perfectly for years - above 52 degrees.

The fragile heat shield tile that failed and desroyed another one?
Perfomred perfectly for years. Until a direct hit by debris one time.


I'm just saying it pays to be proactive and anticipate evey possible failure mode and not just run one short meet and go hog wild over the stuff.

[falconridge]

Thanks ever so much for the links, Indulto. Matt Hagerty's piece may be as well-written an article as I've ever read by a DRF writer. "Tracks line up for artificial race surfaces" is extraordinarily informative, balanced, and thoroughly researched--a model of disinterested probity.

Tom, I share your concerns about changes having potentially catastrophic repercussions that neither proponents nor opponents of those changes have--or even could have--anticipated. For example, Michael Dickinson's remark about "invigorating" the fibers every so often has me wondering about the likelihood of the surfaces' remaining uniform (or more importantly, safe) under extreme conditions and over a significant (not merely 6-7 months) period of time. I also wonder if there has been any independent study of the possible long-term effects that the "kickback" of wax-coated synthetic materials might have on the lungs, skin, eyes, and other organs of horses and riders competing over the Brave New Earth.

Another of several strong points in Hagerty's article addresses the issue of consistency--or the possibility of establishing and maintaining it--of the new footing: "Installation [of Polytrack, Tapeta, etc], however, does not typically stop at the racetrack itself. Contamination by dirt or other particles can compromise the consistency of the surface, so dirt pathways leading to the track have to be sequestered or overlaid with the artificial surface. Officials from racetracks that have had artificial surfaces said privately that the surfaces are not maintenance-free; in fact, many of the tracks need to be watered depending on the relative humidity, and most of the artificial surfaces now in use are harrowed at least once a day." How drastically would horse apples or equine piddle "compromise" the consistency of Polytrack surfaces? (Horses still heed nature's call, don't they? Even Mr. Ed, continent and well-mannered as he was, was known to soil a sound stage or two.) Silly as it may sound, adulteration of the synthetic surface by such natural "contaminants" may prove to be a real issue. After all, if track superintendants are worried about tracking a little dirt onto the new strip, how can they ignore Bucephalus' steaming heap?

At the risk of appearing callous, I admit that one reason I've been inclined to resist this change is what Haggerty calls "the potential loss to the sport's historical record." That would be a genuine loss, and one that would strip our favorite pastime of much of its vitality and color. If, on the other hand, the synthetic surfaces turn out to be all they're cracked up to be--that is, if they have a salutary effect on the soundness of the stock and significantly decrease the risk to brave men and women who pilot these amazing creatures--that's one concession that, painful as it would be, I suppose I'd make.

[toetoe]

Just a couple of points:

1) If we're absolutely obsessed with the health of the horses, which is not necessarily good or bad, we'll abolish racing.

2) Why not a nice cushy TRAINING track, and a regular old dirt track for the racing, which constitutes what, 5% of the actual hard running the horses do? Keeneland already HAD an Astrodirt training track, but that wasn't enough of a gravy train, I guess. They then got the contract (after all, they're investors in the Polytrack company) to make the main track Astrodirt as well.

3) Two recent breakdowns were on grass. How can we help the horses we're so dedicated to when grass breakdowns happen?

[NYPlayer]

“According to NYRA, which operates Belmont, Saratoga and Aqueduct, there were 25 fatalities from 17,973 starts in 2005 for a rate of 1.4 per 1,000.

The CHRB reported that its major thoroughbred tracks, including Santa Anita, Hollywood Park and Del Mar, had 104 fatalities from 29,257 starts in 2005. That's about 3.5 per 1,000.

The Maryland Racing Commission said there were 20 fatalities from 14,560 starts last year at its major tracks, including Laurel and Pimlico. That's a rate of about 1.37 per 1,000.

The KHRA said there were 39 fatalities last year, and Equibase - the industry's official database for racing information - lists 22,140 starters. That's about 1.76 per 1,000.”



These are really, really low percentages as they stand. I'm not sure the stats from one season at Turfway are going to hold over the long run with respect to reducing the number of injuries. I think the greater benefit to Turfway was the weather-resistance aspect, and it seems there's less maintenence inlvolved, so I guess it justifies the cost. Still, I can't see anything wrong with the tracks taking a wait-and-see approach.

[Tom]

25 for a whole year?
Yet, when Turway went from 25 to 4 in a very short meet, everyone was amazed.

Might is just be that, before Poly, Turfway was POS rotten track to begin
with?

And if that is true, how long before the management lets this new track go like must have done with the dirt track?

[Indulto]

Thanks ever so much for the links, Indulto. Matt Hagerty's piece may be as well-written an article as I've ever read by a DRF writer. "Tracks line up for artificial race surfaces" is extraordinarily informative, balanced, and thoroughly researched--a model of disinterested probity.

… Silly as it may sound, adulteration of the synthetic surface by such natural "contaminants" may prove to be a real issue. After all, if track superintendants are worried about tracking a little dirt onto the new strip, how can they ignore Bucephalus' steaming heap? FR,
You’re welcome. As a huge Matt Hegarty fan, I couldn’t agree more.

I can see it now – heavy duty pooper scoopers. How does Madison Square Garden deal with elephants? Perhaps a combination of chemical treatment and physical removal would be necessary. I’m sure DMR’s Craig Fravel would seriously entertain your concerns if you e-mailed him. He may already have an answer.

I agree tradition plays an important role. I’m always wary whenever they start promoting the elimination of G1 handicaps in favor of weight for age. On the other hand, since racing secretaries won’t assign meaningful weight differentials, the issue is no longer one of race conditions, but whether an impartial group of handicappers should collectively assign weights to all eligible horses for a specified period to be honored at all venues. If only the inventiveness exercised in opposing Polytrack could be channeled toward providing an alternative.Originally posted by toetoe
Just a couple of points:

1) If we're absolutely obsessed with the health of the horses, which is not necessarily good or bad, we'll abolish racing.

2) Why not a nice cushy TRAINING track, and a regular old dirt track for the racing, which constitutes what, 5% of the actual hard running the horses do? Keeneland already HAD an Astrodirt training track, but that wasn't enough of a gravy train, I guess. They then got the contract (after all, they're investors in the Polytrack company) to make the main track Astrodirt as well.

3) Two recent breakdowns were on grass. How can we help the horses we're so dedicated to when grass breakdowns happen?TT,
It’s a given that most people obsessed with race horses in any way are motivated by entertainment and/or financial gain rather than by concern for the horses health. That doesn’t negate the conclusion that what’s better for the horses’ physical well-being is also better for business. A scarcity of sound horses could also abolish racing. Do we need a constitutional amendment to keep horses sound enough to compete?

While I’m not ready to advocate converting from grass to Polytrack, here’s a radical idea for the staunch triple crown traditionalists here: Don’t just widen race spacing, run one leg on dirt, one on turf, and one on Poly. When they ran the Belmont Stakes at Aqueduct while renovating Belmont, did anyone complain that those Belmont winner’s weren’t legitimate? Suppose MEC winds up moving the Preakness away from Pimlico, how’s that going to affect tradition?

How would one go about proving that self-interest is the primary motivation for the Keeneland crowd? What about the jockey perspective? Is a jockey less likely to see retirement from inhaling kickback than falling off an injured horse? Suppose the jockeys say they’re willing to take the risk if tracks and vendors create a special fund to handle such an eventuality?

[KingChas]

Just a couple of points:

1) If we're absolutely obsessed with the health of the horses, which is not necessarily good or bad, we'll abolish racing.



Won't have to worry about the horses as much as the jockeys and people attending.I worked in a plant that regrinded poly(plastic) in my 30's.The problem is not with the poly surface itself it is with the dust it creates.Crystilization type.Which will be produced by 1000#'s hammering down on this surface.When breathed in produces blood clots in humans (unproven as of yet).Where I worked we had numerous people that got blood clots.I'm not talking out of my ass I got 2 (calf then thigh= 10+yrs quit that job).On blood thinners forever now.As I said before this is unproven.But when I heard the jocks claim about the funny feelings in their lungs after racing on this surface.Well, ;) Don't say I didn't warn you.

My case is documented .This was 10+ years of exposure to it.

[kenwoodallpromos]

There has to be machines that would take an air sample and measure the amount of rubber, coating, etc. Any of you concerned can look into renting equiptment and getting permission to stand in the infield near the rail and take measurements.
As far as various surfaces and stress or breakdowns, there are already studies which show results based on principals of track cushion/surface dynamics that would transfer to Polytrack; the people who work with making/installing the material are aware of the studies, as is the CHRB.
Between the Keenland and private training tracks, TP, and England, ther is sufficient data on the affects on horses' legs; One aspect is that the data is not collected and/or disbursed widely to the public.
Between Equibase/DRF and the track, there is data that can be gleaned on many issues of safety and problems if they are willing to cough up the data.
Now it takes work and industry approval for the reason in order to get the data from the various sources.

[PaceAdvantage]

Won't have to worry about the horses as much as the jockeys and people attending.I worked in a plant that regrinded poly(plastic) in my 30's.The problem is not with the poly surface itself it is with the dust it creates.Crystilization type.Which will be produced by 1000#'s hammering down on this surface.When breathed in produces blood clots in humans (unproven as of yet).Where I worked we had numerous people that got blood clots.I'm not talking out of my ass I got 2 (calf then thigh= 10+yrs quit that job).On blood thinners forever now.As I said before this is unproven.But when I heard the jocks claim about the funny feelings in their lungs after racing on this surface.Well, ;) Don't say I didn't warn you.

My case is documented .This was 10+ years of exposure to it.


This is why I say there shouldn't be a rush to adopt this surface across the country. Have it installed at a couple of venues for 5 or 10 years, THEN roll it out nationwide if it turns out to be stable in the long run....we've been running forever on dirt...what's wrong with waiting a little while longer?

[KingChas]

THEN roll it out nationwide if it turns out to be stable in the long run....we've been running forever on dirt...what's wrong with waiting a little while longer?

Exactly.My situation is as said unproven.I was given a heredity test that showed in my genes that I was succeptable to blood clots.Case Closed :liar:
I failed to mention I was working indoors (confined).

Outside,open air maybe different?

Have nothing against Poly tracks but as PA mentions run on a couple for at least five years or so,see the results for animals and humans involved then carry on.Don't jump headfirst before you fill the pool with water. ;)

[DeadCrab]

************
.we've been running forever on dirt...what's wrong with waiting a little while longer?
****************

Too many dead horses.
Too many 5 horse fields.

[PaceAdvantage]

************
.we've been running forever on dirt...what's wrong with waiting a little while longer?
****************

Too many dead horses.
Too many 5 horse fields.

Horses still die on Polytrack. Apparently at Turfway, in the first year, they died at a lesser rate, but they still died.

I see no reason why a prudent wait and see approach is not taken by most. Yet California tracks are basically going to be forced to adopt the new surface. Ridiculous.

Nobody wants to see more dead horses or more 5 horse fields. However, I am overly sensitive to the subject of questionable artificial airborne materials that may be inhaled into the lungs over a length of time on a consistent basis.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=32227"
Some in Ca would have liked more time but the consensus is sooner or later it would be done. Sooner saves breakdowns, water, and maintainence costs.

[cj]

I think this, like most things, is all about the money. The horse's safety is being used as the reason, but common sense would tell you if polytrack cost more than maintaining a dirt track, horse safety wouldn't be so important anymore.

[the little guy]

I think this, like most things, is all about the money. The horse's safety is being used as the reason, but common sense would tell you if polytrack cost more than maintaining a dirt track, horse safety wouldn't be so important anymore.

I couldn't agree more. The hypocracy in this argument is as maddening as it is blatant.

Of course, nothing makes me wince more than trainers who don't seem to think twice about using illegal medication simultaneously declaring the immediate need for polytrack. Give me a break.

[JimG]

I think this, like most things, is all about the money. The horse's safety is being used as the reason, but common sense would tell you if polytrack cost more than maintaining a dirt track, horse safety wouldn't be so important anymore.

I agree CJ. Money is a big motivator! In fact, I suspect many folks currently opposed to Polytrack are so, because they currently make money betting dirt tracks after years of study and are less than enthusiastic about trying to reinvent themselves handicapping and betting a new surface. Of course, the current number one excuse being stated publicly on this board for being opposed is the possible danger of the synthetic kickback to the horses.

Jim

[Tom]

I couldn't agree more. The hypocracy in this argument is as maddening as it is blatant.

Of course, nothing makes me wince more than trainers who don't seem to think twice about using illegal medication simultaneously declaring the immediate need for polytrack. Give me a break.

Oh, how true.
Many factories prid ethemselves on thier safety programs, but the bottom line is the bottom line - they pay through the nose for an OSHA reportable.
They say that the safety of thier workers is number one, but never hesitate to lay them off or move the jobs to a cheaper labor market!

Racing is a business, and everything in it is viewed as how it affects the bottom line. That is racing's only tradition.

[the little guy]

Right. Business is business, and worrying about the bottom line is hardly surprising ( or necessarily wrong ), but just have the decency to be honest and stop pretending your motivations are pure.

[Bruddah]

How is it the Thoroughbred of only 20-50 years ago could start more and more often than horses of today? Go back and look at the records of those horses. They ran on dirt tracks, which would be considered sub-standard by todays standards. Albeit, the were considered manicured and well taken care of by the standards of the day.

I just read an article on the DRF where Franks Friend, with a record of 75 starts, 35 wins, plus many itm finishes had to be euthanized at age 31. My humble opinion is, Poly Track will be proven to be more harmful, in the long run, than natural surfaces. Doesn't anyone remeber how Colleges just had to have Astro Turf etc. The longrun proved more damage was caused by these surfaces to the human Athlete. However, it was the rage of the day and many millions were spent tearing up natural turf.

The previous posters have it correct. It's all about money. Plain and simple. Not what's best for the thoroughbred. (JMHO) :bang:

[DeadCrab]

*****
How is it the Thoroughbred of only 20-50 years ago could start more and more often than horses of today?
******

For one thing, they went back to the farm for the winter for 3 months of rest. For another, they had better trainers.

As you certainly noticed, the horses at Turfway this winter past DID race at intervals that horses in the past did.

If you haven't set foot on this stuff, don't be too critical. It is a world removed from any running surface you have encountered.

[robert99]

UK racing fatalities are 0.6 per 1000 runners and that includes national hunt jumpers. These races are mostly all on turf with only 4 artificial surfaced tracks. Polytrack has no kickback in England so the stuff you have in USA cannot be the same. Most trainers have private gallops with polytrack for all their horses. For them it is a consistent surface which reduces training injuries, which are 80% of all horse injuries. There is also reduced racing for 2 year olds who can do themselves a lot of stress damage in limbs and joints that are still growing.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Robert99
UK racing fatalities are 0.6 per 1000 runners and that includes national hunt jumpers. These races are mostly all on turf with only 4 artificial surfaced tracks. Polytrack has no kickback in England so the stuff you have in USA cannot be the same. Most trainers have private gallops with polytrack for all their horses. For them it is a consistent surface which reduces training injuries, which are 80% of all horse injuries. There is also reduced racing for 2 year olds who can do themselves a lot of stress damage in limbs and joints that are still growing.R9,
Are you suggesting Polytrak is safer than dirt or turf? What is different about the Dickinson-patented material from that used in UK?

Originally posted by Dead Crab
*****
How is it the Thoroughbred of only 20-50 years ago could start more and more often than horses of today?
******

For one thing, they went back to the farm for the winter for 3 months of rest. For another, they had better trainers.DC,
Is your pseudonym derived from William Murray’s fiction?

IMO year round racing, while irresistible to owners, contributes to smaller fields, but I disagree about trainers, at least from an ability standpoint. I would say today’s trainers are much better than their predecessors at getting horses to the starting gate who probably shouldn’t be there. ;)

[Tom]

Right. Business is business, and worrying about the bottom line is hardly surprising ( or necessarily wrong ), but just have the decency to be honest and stop pretending your motivations are pure.

I was once tasked to draft a mission statement for my compnay. A statment that summed out out goals, objectives, values.
I wrote, "Get all the friggin money we can!"
I was dismissed from the committee immediatley (which was actually my plan :D)

The one they came up with was nowhere near as correct as mine!

[robert99]

R9,
Are you suggesting Polytrak is safer than dirt or turf? What is different about the Dickinson-patented material from that used in UK?

DC,
[color=black][font=Verdana]]

Indulto,

Not suggesting anything just providing comparison data. Horse safety depends on more than just the running surface - the drainage, horse fitness, over-racing stress, horse racing age, tightness of bends, misuse of drugs etc can all have adverse effects. UK trainers have been using polytrack private gallops for some 15 years and they do not change back. The Tapeta material that Dickinson is helping to develop is unknown to me as a race track surface. Martin Collin's polytrack is claimed to be the same mixture at Turfway as in England. However, in UK we do not get kickback but at Turfway it is claimed the kickback is quite severe. Can only guess the binding wax has failed at Turfway.

[RXB]

I agree CJ. Money is a big motivator! In fact, I suspect many folks currently opposed to Polytrack are so, because they currently make money betting dirt tracks after years of study and are less than enthusiastic about trying to reinvent themselves handicapping and betting a new surface. Of course, the current number one excuse being stated publicly on this board for being opposed is the possible danger of the synthetic kickback to the horses.

Jim

:ThmbUp:

[RXB]

25 for a whole year?
Yet, when Turway went from 25 to 4 in a very short meet, everyone was amazed.

Might is just be that, before Poly, Turfway was POS rotten track to begin
with?



You're right about TP's dirt surface not being very good. I know a guy who bought a couple of horses at Turfway and he said the track was full of pebbles and uneven.

But, as per the stats from an earlier post in this thread, the rate of breakdown on the TP Poly was still only a fraction of the average breakdown rate on the major circuits. Those four breakdowns at TP occurred over a span of five months of racing.

[Indulto]

Martin Collin's polytrack is claimed to be the same mixture at Turfway as in England. However, in UK we do not get kickback but at Turfway it is claimed the kickback is quite severe. Can only guess the binding wax has failed at Turfway.R9,
Isn't Polytrack paying Dickinson for a license on his patent?

As far as the binding wax goes, FR's contamiation theory might apply here if significant differences in diet, supplement, and/or medications exist between the US and the UK. Or maybe pollutants in our water have some effect.

One would think the CHRB would insist on guarantees of some sort. If the installation fails to result in the anticipated lowering of the breakdown rate, I wonder if Dickinson would have to share in any penalty?

[kenwoodallpromos]

R9,
Isn't Polytrack paying Dickinson for a license on his patent?

As far as the binding wax goes, FR's contamiation theory might apply here if significant differences in diet, supplement, and/or medications exist between the US and the UK. Or maybe pollutants in our water have some effect.

One would think the CHRB would insist on guarantees of some sort. If the installation fails to result in the anticipated lowering of the breakdown rate, I wonder if Dickinson would have to share in any penalty?
Are you serious? CHRB should guarantee lower breakdown rate?
Ca is where UC Davis has done much research on surfaces and breakdowns/leg injuries, and where a scientific surface pressure guage was used for research at several tracks.
many parties in Ca have wanted better safer tracks for a long time- that is why in years past there has been numerous articles on breakdowns, short fields, studies, and complaints from selected quarters about the tracks.
The reason the CHRB seemed to jump on the idea of requiring the major tracks in Ca to put in something is that almost all horsemen now understand that if they keep things the way they were last year there will keep being hurt and sore horses, smaller fields, owners taking their runners out of state, off-track scratches, and too many vbet bills for injuries, lower betting pools.
CHRB just had to wait until things got so bad in all the above areas that the concensus among all groups- owners, trainers, jockeys, bettors, tracks,etc. was to install artificial stuff at all 5 tracks at once. The proposal was an overnite decision that was at least 8 years in the making.
Any connections with cheap early speed will just have to run the fairs or the hard So Cal turf!
BTW, I'm not so sure the "early speed at all costs" was drawing many stakes entrants from out of state anyway.
1 LITF GGF stakes I saw live last years drew 2 competitors- both stabled at GGF!

[robert99]

R9,
Isn't Polytrack paying Dickinson for a license on his patent?

As far as the binding wax goes, FR's contamiation theory might apply here if significant differences in diet, supplement, and/or medications exist between the US and the UK. Or maybe pollutants in our water have some effect.

One would think the CHRB would insist on guarantees of some sort. If the installation fails to result in the anticipated lowering of the breakdown rate, I wonder if Dickinson would have to share in any penalty?

Indulto,

I don't know that Dickinson has any patent and why polytrack would be interested, as their product is already being used worldwide. In England most of our courses get more than enough rain to wash out any local contaminants and it would need a powerful emulsifier to attack any petroleum waxes. The waxes do eventually break down in sunlight. Turfways has had the track down only a short time so these effects would not have had time to occur or be generalised over the whole material. Their waxes should be at their stickiest and holding the clumps together so kickback should not occur. Why there is kickback there is a surprise to me.

[Pace Cap'n]

Waxworms?

[KingChas]

Hollywood $8 million to install synthetic.
Down the road probably $16 million to replace with good old :lol: free dirt if this fails.
Now that's funny.

[KingChas]

In fact, I suspect many folks currently opposed to Polytrack are so, because they currently make money betting dirt tracks after years of study and are less than enthusiastic about trying to reinvent themselves handicapping and betting a new surface.
Jim

Gee, I thought we already were handicapping on this surface?(TP).What's the major difference?Universal Pars would make the game easier.The only strange H'capping factor would be when a 3yo monster horse that prepped only on poly with 110+ Beyers ran an 80 on the first saturday in May on the dirt. :eek: Capped for years adapting to different "god enhanced surfaces".No disrepect intended .But this is A "Fox smells his own hole" reply ;) I do think a new reinventing your handicapping on poly thread would be more appropriate.If you read the posts we are saying test it first,that simple.As for what we are talking about here you are way off base.Speak for yourself. ;)