PDA

View Full Version : Poly Not so great at Turfway this weekend


BIG49010
12-11-2006, 05:06 PM
After 2 breakdowns, the jocks were not going to ride!

The word is that they added some polypro to the mix before the meet and it is balling up on the horse's feet.

It's nice to see everyone jumping on the band wagon for this stuff, and it is not profected! Is it Remington Deja Vu. :bang:

Tom
12-11-2006, 07:05 PM
First Polywood, now here.
Hmmmmmm, is this stuff really the wave of the future, sanity waving good-bye?

wes
12-11-2006, 07:32 PM
It hard to replace mother earth and the grass it grows.

wes

Ponyplayr
12-11-2006, 07:43 PM
Arlington and Del Mar had how many breakdowns?

It's a bit premature to be giving Poly the kiss of death, for a couple of horses.
Let's compare numbers at the end of the season.

bobphilo
12-11-2006, 11:11 PM
It hard to replace mother earth and the grass it grows.

wes

Grass is the surface that horses have evolved to run on and Poly most resmbles its properties in terms of how it responds to the impact of a running horse's hooves and effects on their legs. Dirt tracks bear no resemblence to the native soil they replace. Nature laughs at what many call "tradition" - as if the hundred or so years they have been around would be enough for horses to have evloved to run on them naturally and safely.

Bob

Bruddah
12-12-2006, 10:59 AM
We are all looking at the same 'rip off' which occurred with synthetic turf, in football. A big rush to install it. Then after 20+ years of use (most cases) studies showed how harmful it was to the athletes. Not helpful, but VERY HARMFUL. I suppose History will continue repeating itself and the rich get richer. Selling smoke and mirrors.

YOU CAN'T FOOL MOTHER NATURE! :kiss: :bang: :kiss:

46zilzal
12-12-2006, 11:27 AM
We are all looking at the same 'rip off' which occurred with synthetic turf, in football. A big rush to install it. Then after 20+ years of use (most cases) studies showed how harmful it was to the athletes. Not helpful, but VERY HARMFUL.
When I used to work for the 49er's, they would tell me one of their greatest problems with the artificial surfaces was infection from cuts. Many would wear loads of betadine (povodine iodine solution) on their arms before a game as the surface was teaming with bacteria.

ponyplayerdotca
12-12-2006, 01:08 PM
bobphilo wrote:

"Grass is the surface that horses have evolved to run on and Poly most resmbles its properties in terms of how it responds to the impact of a running horse's hooves and effects on their legs. Dirt tracks bear no resemblence to the native soil they replace. Nature laughs at what many call "tradition" - as if the hundred or so years they have been around would be enough for horses to have evloved to run on them naturally and safely.

===

I seem to recall historically that horses were the main vehicle to travel cross-country long distances over many years. It was known to mother nature as the PONY EXPRESS.

During these marathon trips across country, horses learned how to run on many different surfaces, terrains, etc. and at a good rate of speed and time. Although there is no direct data on the average horse health and stability over that era, you can rationally assume that horses were a quite durable breed or man would have sought out a better animal to assist them deliver the mail.

And although this distant analogy may or may not directly correlate to the modern day thoroughbred race horse, it certainly does indicate that horses haven't "evolved" to prefer any surface. They are bred to run, pure and simple. Some bloodlines indicate a new horse might prefer grass over dirt or vice versa, but no one knows for sure.

It is mankind that is tinkering with what surfaces they run on, and have nothing to do with what "mother nature" intended for a horse in general.

Furthermore, mother nature didn't intend for horses to have to be injected with so many drugs to run well either, did she?

Bottom line is some horses run well on dirt. Some run well on grass. Some now run well on synthetic surfaces. They all can't be winners over every track they race on. It would be great to have one universal compound of dirt/synthetic dirt that EVERY track install for consistency sake. But it's never going to happen.

As far as health issues, horses are athletes and they all have niggling injuries to endure throughout their career. The hypocracy is the they've weakened the breed with so many drugs over the years, that now the industry is trying to seem humane by switching the surfaces they force them to run all hopped up on.

How is that for misguided sympathy?

Synthetic surfaces won't replace dirt surfaces. They are simply now a THIRD surface a horse can be trained to run on, regardless of what the inventors intended. Period.

If the people in the industry truly cared about the horses' welfare first, they wouldn't be using so many drugs to get them "fit for racing".

Robert Fischer
12-12-2006, 01:30 PM
Beyond the economic implications and incentives, I think major attention has to be paid towards the choices in the surface composition for individual AWT tracks.

Hollywood is on a learning curve , because to my knowledge cushion track has not been as widely used in Europe?

You have to be wary of turfway being a little bit cheap with the application. Right away there was a lot of kickback , moreso than had been normal in Europe. Did they go with a bargain surface?

At Keeneland the surface noticably changed running styles and gave the impression that it was a heavy duty surface. I didn't hear of major kickback at Keeneland.

You don't hear of kickback on AWT much at all now , so i do not know if it is a turfway issue or everyone is being less vocal about it.

Also, no surface is breakdown-proof. If a horse runs hard with an underlying injury...

Niko
12-12-2006, 02:06 PM
I'm not sure if Poly will be a success or not but I still claim that painkillers and other "meds" with lack of rest for horses is the biggest culprit. If you provide a safer track they'll just run then one or two more races before they break down. But I'm not a horseman so I may not know what the heck I'm talking about.

Bruddah
12-12-2006, 02:12 PM
the same rant from the different makers of artificial surfaces, for football. In the end, none were good for the athlete. Same song, second verse, not gonna get better, just gonna get worse. :lol: Just you wait and see, why is everybody always pickin' on me. :lol:

kenwoodallpromos
12-12-2006, 06:04 PM
I saw 1 DNF.
Adjustments may have to be made from time to time, and there will be some learning curve. Like the amount of water.
As far as the old drugs weakening the breed, it is looking like the main problem drug for the overall breed is anabolic steroids. Does anyone know which breeding farms are using and if any are not?

highnote
12-12-2006, 06:31 PM
When I used to work for the 49er's, they would tell me one of their greatest problems with the artificial surfaces was infection from cuts. Many would wear loads of betadine (povodine iodine solution) on their arms before a game as the surface was teaming with bacteria.


Not surprising. Those guys are constantly spitting and sweating and bleeding on the surface. No wonder it's filled with bacteria. Hell, a toilet is probably cleaner.

But to get back to all weather surfaces...

I would think Michael Dickinson's Tapeta would be a good choice. He's been using it for years on his farm and has probably seen all kinds of weather.

I understand Keeneland owns a piece of polytrack (or whatever it's called there), so that carries a lot of weight in the industry. But why not go to the guy who invented the stuff -- at least I've been told Dickinson invented it. Maybe he didn't?

JPinMaryland
12-12-2006, 10:42 PM
I think the difference between astroturf and poly is that trainers like the poly. They are the main driving force and if they think horses are coming back from it w/ less injuries, soreness, etc. then that will be the prime force to move it.

Athletes playing on astro turf really didnt have much choice. Neither do horses, but the trainers are driving it.

Steve 'StatMan'
12-12-2006, 11:08 PM
the same rant from the different makers of artificial surfaces, for football. In the end, none were good for the athlete. Same song, second verse, not gonna get better, just gonna get worse. :lol: Just you wait and see, why is everybody always pickin' on me. :lol:

Judging by how many former pro football players' bodies are battered and torn up by the end of their short careers, I'd say "Football" isn't good for the athlete. But yes, they, and we, do love it!.

(Sorry for getting off of the AWS and Racing.)

JustRalph
12-12-2006, 11:41 PM
Not surprising. Those guys are constantly spitting and sweating and bleeding on the surface. No wonder it's filled with bacteria. Hell, a toilet is probably cleaner.

I never realized how bad some of the fields look until I got true HDTV

The Browns Steelers game last week was a good example. The middle of the field looked like a hog pen. Mud, Limed Dirt and Blood were all visible.

highnote
12-12-2006, 11:55 PM
The Browns Steelers game last week was a good example. The middle of the field looked like a hog pen. Mud, Limed Dirt and Blood were all visible.

Now that's football!