View Full Version : Arlington rebounds from troubled 2006
trigger
09-22-2007, 02:11 AM
While the 94-day 2007 meet which ended Sunday posted only modest increases over 2005, a more typical Arlington year, it represented a major rebound from a troubled 2006.
Total handle on Arlington's 2007 live product was up 12.8 percent from 2006. Last year, a total of $370,737,863 was bet on Arlington races; this year, the total was $418,103,383, a gross increase of $47,365,520.
http://horseracing.sportsline.com/cbs/headlines/showarticle.aspx?articleId=22013
gIracing
09-22-2007, 03:26 AM
you know what I find funny? It's "horrible" year is the year that it produced 2 Champions from it's track? Street Sense at first was based at arlingtoin and as well Dreaming of Anna.
Kelso
09-22-2007, 11:05 PM
Was 2006 the year Arlington had a lot of breakdowns, or am I confusing it with another year and/or Illinois track? If it was Arlington in '06, was there any progress made on the horse safety front?
HorseRun
09-22-2007, 11:23 PM
NO I BELIEVE IT WAS HAWTHORNE
Steve 'StatMan'
09-22-2007, 11:46 PM
Arlington 2006 had the high number of early meet breakdowns, which led to several track inspections, etc. that led to the change to Polytrack for 2007.
gIracing
09-23-2007, 12:37 AM
Arlington had less breakdowns than 06, but MORE than 05 so what really got accomplished besides lining osmeone's pockets?
Arlington had less breakdowns than 06, but MORE than 05 so what really got accomplished besides lining osmeone's pockets?
Can you prove this? :rolleyes:
Can you prove this? :rolleyes:
They did have more than 05. Surely someone made a nice profit. What is there to prove? Just curious...
They did have more than 05. Surely someone made a nice profit. What is there to prove? Just curious...
The statement.
The statement.
Which part? Surely you can look up the breakdowns the prior year if you don't believe it.
Which part? Surely you can look up the breakdowns the prior year if you don't believe it.
GI made a statement and I’m assuming it was based upon facts or something he read. I asked for proof of the statement and you claim it to be true also.
Now, I should research the claim because I question it?
I’m not that terribly interested to tell the truth, but I do like to challenge claims when I don’t see any evidence. Especially on a subject that I feel is filled with miss-information and personal bias.
These two articles report 12 fatal in-race breakdowns in '05, 24 in '06, and 12 in '07 with Polytrack. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060712/ai_n16527942
http://horseracing.sportsline.com/cbs/headlines/showarticle.aspx?articleId=22013
From the original post:
Both attendance and handle fell last year in great part because of a rash of catastrophic breakdowns. Fatal in-race breakdowns declined by half this year, from 24 to 12, a number more in line with historical norms here.
From a 2006 Chicago Tribune Article:
The number of horses that suffered fatal breakdowns represented a sharp increase from 2005, when eight horses suffered deadly injuries on the park's dirt track.
The unfortunate score: 2007 Poly 12, 2005 Dirt 8. Even the original article admits all polytrack did was return to the "norm", not improve upon it, during a long meeting.
Obviously there was a problem in 2006. It was addressed after a rash of breakdowns. It is a shame it took them as long as it did to fix the problem. That said, they did fix it, and didn't really need to go to polytrack. There is a lot more to the story behind these fake surfaces than just horse safety.
I realize you didn't want to look because it didn't fit your agenda. It took me about 28.4 seconds on Google to find the information.
These two articles report 12 fatal in-race breakdowns in '05, 24 in '06, and 12 in '07 with Polytrack. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060712/ai_n16527942
http://horseracing.sportsline.com/cbs/headlines/showarticle.aspx?articleId=22013
The 2005 number includes morning breakdowns. If you include that for 2007, it is more than 12.
These two articles report 12 fatal in-race breakdowns in '05, 24 in '06, and 12 in '07 with Polytrack. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060712/ai_n16527942
http://horseracing.sportsline.com/cbs/headlines/showarticle.aspx?articleId=22013
Thanks JMA;
At the risk of thread drift, there is an interesting side-bar in tracking this data over the next decade. It is impossible to know how many sore (injured) animals are run on artificial surfaces with the hope that the more forgiving footing will squeeze a few extra races from them.
Christine Janks was not kind in a scathing article on some Chicago horseman / vets / owners saying some animals were running with severe injuries. She also in all fairness did not criticize the Arlington dirt surface, instead blaming irresponsible people for the rash of injuries.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=34352
Yes, lets keep this one on track. Interesting to note that the 2007 polytrack numbers were worse than 2005 dirt numbers by 50%!
I believe Turfway had something similar happen, though it will be tougher to find those numbers due to the Keeneland interest in the polytrack business I would imagine. I'll let someone else search for this one.
The 2005 number includes morning breakdowns. If you include that for 2007, it is more than 12.
Got it. Sometimes it's not clear from these articles if it's all breakdowns, morning and during the races, both turf and dirt, etc. I agree with you on the whole polytrack thing---I think it is marginally safer, but overall just a quick fix that isn't really solving anything.
Added: I think Turfway went from 3 breakdowns in the first poly year up to 12 in the second year, but I can't find the old posts on the board with the final number. You're right though, the number dropped a lot, then went back up when they couldn't figure out how to maintain the stuff in the really cold weather.
Have you guys ever stood next to a track in the morning and listened to horses strike the surface of a dirt track vs. an artificial surface?
I’m far from a rocket scientist but if it isn’t FAR more forging on those fragile legs than I would be shocked. :eek:
So I prove it, and you resort to "it sounds better".
I am not saying polytrack isn't safer. But is certainly isn't the slam dunk many proponents would have you believe.
So I prove it, and you resort to "it sounds better".
I am not saying polytrack isn't safer. But is certainly isn't the slam dunk many proponents would have you believe.
You “proved” what exactly?
Never mind...:sleeping:
Proved there were more breakdowns in 07 than in 05, as you requested.
You are a master of misdirection.
Indulto
09-23-2007, 02:37 PM
... I agree with you on the whole polytrack thing---I think it is marginally safer, but overall just a quick fix that isn't really solving anything.What would you suggest the long-term fix is and why do you think the industry hasn't moved in that direction?
Proved there were more breakdowns in 07 than in 05, as you requested.
You are a master of misdirection.
Grow up... :ThmbDown:
PaceAdvantage
09-23-2007, 04:59 PM
OK, I'm stopping this right now....I believe DanG asked for proof:
Originally Posted by gIracing
Arlington had less breakdowns than 06, but MORE than 05 so what really got accomplished besides lining osmeone's pockets?
DanG's response: Can you prove this? :rolleyes:He asked for proof and he got it:
Originally Posted by jma
These two articles report 12 fatal in-race breakdowns in '05, 24 in '06, and 12 in '07 with Polytrack. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...12/ai_n16527942 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060712/ai_n16527942)
http://horseracing.sportsline.com/c...articleId=22013 (http://horseracing.sportsline.com/cbs/headlines/showarticle.aspx?articleId=22013)
CJ's response: The 2005 number includes morning breakdowns. If you include that for 2007, it is more than 12.So before this erupts into anything further, let it be known this thread is on my radar and any further "personality clash replies" will be removed immedately, NoQuestionsAsked. No blame being placed, no sides being taken, NQA.
Thanks.
When the proof was delivered, couldn't he at least acknowledge that it was factual?
Instead, I get:
You “proved” what exactly?
Never mind...:sleeping:
Followed by, after addressing his ignoring the proof:
Grow up... :ThmbDown:
I have no personality clash, but I do call out bullshit posts. If that puts me on your radar, so be it.
bigmack
09-23-2007, 06:38 PM
Turfway had 24 catastrophic breakdowns during its 2004-05 fall-winter meet, its last season on dirt. With Polytrack installed for 2005-06 racing, Turfway had three fatal breakdowns, even though the total number of entries increased from 8,925 to 10,208.
This concept of installing Poly as a "for profit" enterprise seems less likely than the bad press that DMR, AP & others suffered from unusually high numbers of breakdowns. Their decision to go plastic was a PR no-brainer.
To some poly is ugly, slow, tiring, unlike the game of yesteryear, confounding to figures/pacelines, etc... Tough not to do something when you have animals running around for our entertainment & interest, dying in their efforts. If the argument can be made that it's safer (and it is) then learn to live with it.
Steve 'StatMan'
09-23-2007, 06:43 PM
Important was that the live attendance recovered on the weekends - they'd dwindled the last few years, but dropped off quite a bit last year with the breakdowns.
Sorry I don't have numbers to back it up, but did observe better crowds when I attended, read about them & heard from others. (More bodies in the park and arpon areas, cars parked further out in the parking lots than prior years, cars backing up on the expressway after a long absense, and even some traffic jams trying to leave.)
Many of the breakdowns in 2006 happened coming out of the far turn - that is where a lot of the weekend fans/family groups hang out, and groups were all too often watching horses break down in front of them, and their kids, their friends, workmates, or social drinking buddies, etc, and casual fans and kids were having to deal with seeing the limpers getting into the horse ambulance, or had the white-screen experience, and not coming back. Tough enough on the seasoned fans, so a real disaster for the Mom & Dad w/kids visiting the petting zoo and pony rides.
Media coverage of the problem pretty intense last year as well, so the media coverage of the Polytrack installation, and then later the no-news-is-better-news factor helped.
The casual fans in that area generally don't bet a lot per person, but bought a lot of beer, food, and made the weekends a periodic summer 'event'.
Strong local media coverage last year highlighted the negative in 2006 (much more than coveage of the racing and the stakes!), but the coverage of the poly conversion with related media opportunities helped in the recovery. $11 Million will take more than 1 season to recoup, but it reveresed a serious trend. I know I feel much better about AP's future than the last few years.
PaceAdvantage
09-23-2007, 07:02 PM
If that puts me on your radar, so be it.I believe I said the thread is on my radar, not you or Dan personally....I happen to like you both as posters....
So before this erupts into anything further, let it be known this thread is on my radar and any further "personality clash replies" will be removed immedately, NoQuestionsAsked. No blame being placed, no sides being taken, NQA.
Thanks.
My apologies here.
While I have enjoyed many of CJ’s posts, at times his replies strike me as confrontational as evidently mine do to him. (is it "to" or "too" :) ) In person we might get along great. Many things change when you look into someone’s eyes and the line between sarcasm and good intentions can change. In contrast to his “misdirection” characterization I prefer a more direct approach that doesn’t always translate well to print.
You often wing these things. These aren’t routines you take on the road to see how they play. It’s often a stream of consciousness between races, football, family illness, girlfriends, dinner…the 10 minute (or so) edit window just doesn’t always allow for full concentration / reflection.
Sometimes my New Jersey jerk comes out at other times you might actually say something profound. (Not myself of course, but some of you). This was not one of those “profound” moments and I think it will be left out of the time capsule of thread history. :blush:
kenwoodallpromos
09-24-2007, 11:44 AM
If you are going to compare Arlington year by year for breakdowns, you should also take into account the weather. Bad weather made the track very dangerous and it was impossible for the 2006 crew to keep the track good in bad weather. They had no choice but to do something, as they decided.
"http://www.ntra.com/content.aspx?type=feature&id=26187"
This article says there were about 15% more horses this year; and what about the 4 down in 1 weekend?
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.