Final Turn | A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham | BloodHorse.com Blog Stable

[andymays]

Mark Popham is the European correspondent for The Blood-Horse.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2009/11/10/a-dig-at-dirt-by-mark-popham.aspx

Excerpt:

It is time that such iconic venues as Churchill Downs and Belmont Park faced up to their responsibilities to the racing public and the sport in general and take the only possible way forward.

No matter how many diehards there are, those in charge have a duty that transcends narrow mindsets and temporary economic hardship to provide racing surfaces that will both satisfy public opinion and give horses safer racing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment by Barry Irwin below story.


Name a major race anywhere in the entire world outside of North America that has ever been run on a synthetic surface.

Cat got your tongue?

Too bad the USSR was broken up, because you could have gotten a job writing propaganda.

Nice try, pal, but nobody that enjoys handicapping and watching top class racing is buying the synthetic arguments for a variety of reasons.

Barry Irwin 10 Nov 2009 9:26 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Barry! :ThmbUp:

[Charlie D]

The narrowest mindset imho is the one that blames the surface for ALL injuries

[Charlie D]

While turf has always been no problem


Untrue and if you bothered to do a bit of research you'd know that there have been numerous fatalities on turf.

Horation Nelson, Gypsy King to name just two are horses that met thier ends in high profile races on turf.

[Tom]

If poly is so safe, why the extraordinary measures - triple examinations, etc......the so called injury free weekend is not the result of a safe surface as much as is the result of strict policing of the horses.

[Charlie D]

Here is some UK turf info for the writer of this misleading article



Deathwatch Data All Turf Flat Courses where GS reading available

9.0 to 12.8

11 fatalities

8.0 to 8.9

23 Fatalities

7.0 - 7.9

12 Fatalities

6.9 and below

2 fatalities



The higher the reading, the faster the surface condition.

[Charlie D]

If poly is so safe, why the extraordinary measures - triple examinations, etc......the so called injury free weekend is not the result of a safe surface as much as is the result of strict policing of the horses.


An excellent point Tom and one that the writer should have a very good think about before he starts spouting "surface" is at fault for ALL injuries.

[Tom]

I think the people I want to hear from are the jockeys and the vets.

[Charlie D]

Bit more info for the writer of this misleading article to consider.


Posted: Friday, November 14, 2008 3:11 PM

For the year to date, 18 horses have been euthanized at Aqueduct, Belmont Park, and Saratoga Race Course, a rate of 1.14 per 1,000 starts versus the average artificial and dirt track rates of 1.47 and 2.03 fatalities per 1,000, respectively, according to the New York State

NYRA’s overall catastrophic breakdown rate for all three tracks is lower than Arlington Park (2.06 per 1,000) and Del Mar (1.41 per 1,000).

[Bobzilla]

Andy,

Don't you just love it when the foreign press pontificates? Barry Irwin brings up a good point although after the next running of the Dubai World Cup he'll no longer be able to make that argument.

Charlie,

Thanks for sharing those interesting statistics. I agree with you that there are many more contributing factors behind injuries to racehorses than the surfaces themselves. I remember Landseer's breakdown which occurred right in front of where I was seated during the 2002 BC at AP. Maybe American Racing should agree to comply with this writer's admonishment, once we see evidence that all of Europe's turf courses have been replaced with Polytrack.

[Charlie D]

No problem Bobzilla


There have been UK synthetic injuries and fatalties . Maybe the writer of this misleading article would like to comment on those in his blog.

[bob77713]

Mark Popham is the European correspondent for The Blood-Horse.



Comment by Barry Irwin below story.


Name a major race anywhere in the entire world outside of North America that has ever been run on a synthetic surface.

Cat got your tongue?

Too bad the USSR was broken up, because you could have gotten a job writing propaganda.

Nice try, pal, but nobody that enjoys handicapping and watching top class racing is buying the synthetic arguments for a variety of reasons.

Barry Irwin 10 Nov 2009 9:26 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Barry! :ThmbUp:

Yo Barry, How about the $10 Million Dollar Dubai World Cup which will be run on Tapeta.

[andymays]

On the slim chance that nobody knows where I stand on the article these are my comments underneath the article:
--------------------------------------

Mark, I don't know what your game is but your opinion is one for the garbage can.

In Europe the horses with the least class and ability race on synthetic surfaces.

In America the Turf Writers with the least class and ability tell us that we should listen to them and that they know what's best for us in the United States. Promoting Synthetic Surfaces are the best example of this.

You and your ilk may have succeeded in "punking" some Horseplayers in the U.S. but it will be a cold day in hell before you convince me!

Just Sayin Pal!

Andrew A. 11 Nov 2009 7:34 AM

[LottaKash]

God made the dirt & the grass, and man made the "fake-dirt" & "astro turf"....

Who do you think got it right ?

Man keeps trying to go one-up on God, and keeps on paying a price for his "vanity"...

best,

[DJofSD]

I asked this question in another thread but it was not answered.

Are there any training centers which have an AWS track installed?

[the_fat_man]

Quote:
Deathwatch Data All Turf Flat Courses where GS reading available

9.0 to 12.8

11 fatalities

8.0 to 8.9

23 Fatalities

7.0 - 7.9

12 Fatalities

6.9 and below

2 fatalities




The higher the reading, the faster the surface condition.

This is very interesting. If I'm interpreting this correctly, there are less fatalities on slower turf course. And, of course, these would be 'off' turf courses as opposed to hard and fast ones.

Now, it's common policy in the US, especially at NYRA tracks, to take races off the turf at even the hint of rain. I exaggerate but not by much. And, they constantly use the excuse that the course is just not SAFE. Yet, here, we see data indicating that 'off' turf courses are SAFER. So, it follows, that NYRA values a well manicured turf course in spite of the inconvenience that taking these races off the turf causes the bettor and horse connections. Nothing like alienating fans during a period where there a less and less of them.

[Charlie D]

We cannot confirm this, but i thought the comment was interesting enough to copy and paste from the blog


As a trainer in America I have had the oppurtunity to train on synthetics and traditional dirt surfaces. I can say as a FACT that MY horses have stayed sounder on well maintained dirt surfaces than they did on the synthetics.



Edited to add some more interesting comment from the blog



To Justine and the author of this blog, how come you synthetics advocates never mention that the Breeders' Cup went 12 years straight without a fatal breakdown on dirt (1993 through 2005)?

Why do you never mention that there have been almost as many fatal injuries in Breeders' Cup races on TURF (4 dirt breakdowns compared to 3 turf breakdowns)?

[cj]

Quote:
Deathwatch Data All Turf Flat Courses where GS reading available

9.0 to 12.8

11 fatalities

8.0 to 8.9

23 Fatalities

7.0 - 7.9

12 Fatalities

6.9 and below

2 fatalities




The higher the reading, the faster the surface condition.

This is very interesting. If I'm interpreting this correctly, there are less fatalities on slower turf course. And, of course, these would be 'off' turf courses as opposed to hard and fast ones.

Now, it's common policy in the US, especially at NYRA tracks, to take races off the turf at even the hint of rain. I exaggerate but not by much. And, they constantly use the excuse that the course is just not SAFE. Yet, here, we see data indicating that 'off' turf course are SAFER. So, it follows, that NYRA values a well manicured turf course in spite of the inconvenience that taking these races off the turf causes the bettor and horse connections.

Without knowing how many horses raced in each of the ranges, the numbers mean zilch.

[andymays]

I asked this question in another thread but it was not answered.

Are there any training centers which have an AWS track installed?


There are quite a few.

I have no problem with it used for training or in areas with quite a bit of rain. Training on it when its used to specifications can help some horses get more fit than just training on a dirt surface. When it wears out and gets more like a dirt surface like Del Mar 2009 or Arlington 2009 there is no benefit.

[cj]

I asked this question in another thread but it was not answered.

Are there any training centers which have an AWS track installed?

Fair Hill Training Center and Ocala Training Center for sure. I imagine there are others.

[Charlie D]

Sorry CJ, but i don't have a db, so number of runners could not be assertained, however i do know that most of the racing takes place with a the Going stick range of 7.0 - 8.9 because of watering and although it would be difficult to prove or show imho watering could be a contributing factor to the injuries.

[DJofSD]

Andy and cj, thanks.

Are those facilities with an AWS offering both a dirt and AWS or is AWS a complete replacement of the dirt surface?

[miesque]

Skylight Training Center outside Louisville has a Pro-Ride surface.

[Tom]

I'm curious is switching back and forth is bad for a horse?
If they use different muscles on dirt and poly ( I have heard this and no clue if it is true) do they stress them by switching?

The handicapping aspect can be overcome, but I am more concerned with the effects on the horses and the jocks if they fall onto it.

[Charlie D]

Oh and the Deathwatch people keep records for National Hunt fatalities in UK, maybe the writer of the article would like to comment on those.

[DJofSD]

Deathwatch Data All Turf Flat Courses where GS reading available

9.0 to 12.8 -- 11 fatalities

8.0 to 8.9 -- 23 Fatalities

7.0 - 7.9 -- 12 Fatalities

6.9 and below -- 2 fatalities

Another problem with citing statistics like that is it does not tell us how many horses received non-fatal injuries but were not able to continue training -- casualties v. fatalities.

[cj]

Andy and cj, thanks.

Are those facilities with an AWS offering both a dirt and AWS or is AWS a complete replacement of the dirt surface?

I don't think either one I mentioned has a dirt course.

Thanks Charlie, of course that is exactly what I suspected about the injuries.

[Charlie D]

One year at Cheltenham a horse called Granite Jack met his demise. Afterwards there were debates and comments

Some comments from some jockeys, trainers and writers went like "it's part of the game" . Maybe, just maybe, a few of fatalities on whatever the racing surface are just part of the game too.

[andymays]

The funny part of the argument is how little Horseplayers and Fans know about how the news works and how much lobbying goes on behind the scenes. I honestly didn’t realize this stuff up until about a year ago but ever since I joined the fight for what I believe I can tell you that both sides put out information to Reporters in the hopes that some of them will advocate one side or the other. I have been doing it for over a year and have had some influence in the way stories are reported on the subject of synthetic surfaces.

There are a few articles below that make my point. Two of the reporters are on my list of people I send information to hoping to influence the debate. Take a guess which two. They don’t take what I send them and just go with it but they do usually verify the information with a third party or some other expert in the industry.

As far as Rick Arthur goes I don’t believe a word he says. Some months ago I submitted a question to the CHRB and it went something like this:

Has Rick Arthur ever received commissions, gifts, stock options, or any other personal financial gain from their advocacy of synthetic surfaces from any Manufacturer or their agent?

I’m still waiting for an answer and no reporter has asked the question in any article that I know of. It would have been very easy to answer if the answer was “NO”!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway it's just my take and I still believe that injuries and breakdowns on dirt have more to do with old bases. I still believe that injuries and breakdowns on synthetic surfaces are caused by the sythetic material wearing out (normally after 2 years), and the turns on synthetic surfaces being banked at 2 or 3 degrees instead of the 5 or 6 degrees on dirt. Remember when synthetic surfaces are first installed they are deeper and slower than dirt. When they wear out and are sped up to play like dirt the 2 or 3 degrees of bank is not enough and the centrifugal force on the turns is too much.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Critics Remain, California s Synthetic Tracks Show Progress - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/sports/06horses.html?_r=1

Excerpt:

The Hall of Fame trainer Richard Mandella considers the new surfaces safer, but he says he will not even discuss the subject with his colleagues. Another Hall of Famer, Bob Baffert, and John Shirreffs, the trainer of the classic favorite Zenyatta, are among the many outspoken critics of the surface.
“It’s like gun rights,” Mandella said. “You have people deeply opposed on either side and no conversation is going to change minds.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Lukas is not into 'plastics' -- latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre5-2009nov05,0,6963971.column
Excerpt:
"I'm at the age where I say what I feel," Lukas says, "and I don't give a damn what anybody else thinks about that."

He says the synthetic tracks "make average horses look sensational and sensational horses look average." He says that racing is in the gambling business and that the synthetic tracks are yet another difficult element for people trying to handicap a race.

"We need to understand, when a person makes a bet, he becomes our financial partner," Lukas says. "We need to protect him as well as we can so he becomes our financial partner again, 20 minutes later, for the next race."

He says that not enough stress, or promotion, is put on the fact that making a race bet involves some skill, some decision. "It's not just the spin of a slot machine," he says.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Artificial tracks provided false hopes
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-breeders-synthetics6-2009nov06,0,6803365.column

Excerpt:

The man who headed the switch from dirt to synthetics, former CHRB chairman Richard Shapiro, says now, "I feel clearly I was sold a bill of goods. In 20-20 hindsight, if it was today, I wouldn't have pushed toward the mandate. Am I disappointed? Absolutely."

Among the unexpected consequences:

* Synthetic tracks turned out to be anything but maintenance free.

* Hind-leg injuries to horses running on synthetic surfaces are far more prevalent than on dirt.

* Predictions of horses being sent from the East Coast to run on synthetic tracks in California to help a dwindling racing population haven't worked out.

* Fields keep getting smaller, alienating bettors and helping produce a drop in wagering.

"Originally, we thought it was going to be a panacea for racing, a real breakthrough," said John Harris, chairman of the CHRB. "It hasn't turned out as well, but it is not a big failure as some say."

[Charlie D]

* Fields keep getting smaller, alienating bettors and helping produce a drop in wagering.


The feilds get smaller due to more races of the same type being scheduled, so you have only yourselves to blame for the lack of interest here.

[46zilzal]

Missing a valuable point: Which giants of the turf OWN and promote the surface?

[DJofSD]

Skylight Training Center outside Louisville has a Pro-Ride surface.
I saw some works in the PPs for the BC races and did not know where that was located. Now I know.

[gm10]

Mark Popham is the European correspondent for The Blood-Horse.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2009/11/10/a-dig-at-dirt-by-mark-popham.aspx

Excerpt:

It is time that such iconic venues as Churchill Downs and Belmont Park faced up to their responsibilities to the racing public and the sport in general and take the only possible way forward.

No matter how many diehards there are, those in charge have a duty that transcends narrow mindsets and temporary economic hardship to provide racing surfaces that will both satisfy public opinion and give horses safer racing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment by Barry Irwin below story.


Name a major race anywhere in the entire world outside of North America that has ever been run on a synthetic surface.

Cat got your tongue?

Too bad the USSR was broken up, because you could have gotten a job writing propaganda.

Nice try, pal, but nobody that enjoys handicapping and watching top class racing is buying the synthetic arguments for a variety of reasons.

Barry Irwin 10 Nov 2009 9:26 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Barry! :ThmbUp:

The idea of a BC on dirt is a bit of a turn-off for me as well.
Dirt is a specialist surface, on a global scale at least. It's not appropriate to call it World Championships.

[Tom]

I agree - let the globe have their own. BC should be the culmination of OUR racing season, not Europe's.

It makes no sense so run mostly on dirt all year and screw up the finale on plastic.

Most people do not follow European racing and could care less about it. WE have some turf races. let them run in those and leave dirt for dirt horses.

The idea of global" championships is ridiculous - who cares about what is not familiar to us?

Should we have Japaneses teams in the World Series?

[cj]

The idea of a BC on dirt is a bit of a turn-off for me as well.
Dirt is a specialist surface, on a global scale at least. It's not appropriate to call it World Championships.

Oh...synthetics aren't? Where else are major races held on rubber? Do tell.

[the_fat_man]

Without knowing how many horses raced in each of the ranges, the numbers mean zilch.

They're certainly more representative than 2 days worth of figures at the BC.

And, if anything, they at least show that off turf courses aren't any more dangerous than firm courses. Which still makes my point.

But we already knew that, as even you have mentioned, on repeated occasions, that they intentionally water the turf courses over there before running on them.

[andymays]

http://www.ntra.com/blog.aspx?blogid=14&year=2009&month=11&day=10

Excerpt:

Q: Is racing on a synthetic surface tantamount to turf racing?

A: Two straight years of the Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita answered that question better than a $10 million study. Once again, horses that raced and trained primarily on dirt floundered on the Pro-Ride surface, and that was grass star Gio Ponti who finished second in the Breeders' Cup Classic. There are always going to be crossovers, versatile horses who can handle any surface. Off his two career-ending turf victories I'd say Secretariat would have won the Breeders' Cup Classic on dirt, Pro-Ride, Polytrack or even gravel, for that matter. Yet many horses have a niche. They're dirt horses. They're grass horses. And they're now synthetic track horses. They might be a grass AND synthetic horse, but only a small percentage of the top dirt horses is suited for an plastic track.

And that's something racing cannot run away from. To consider dirt and synthetics the same surface is simply rhetoric. A casual fan might buy it, as the discussion is becoming less prevalent in other sports they follow like baseball and football. Yet passionate fans and especially handicappers know better.

At some point, sooner rather than later, the issue needs to be addressed frankly and candidly before the sport takes even more turns down a path it may regret following.

Synthetic tracks surely have a purpose. They help to maintain field size in bad weather. They might be safer, though I will not claim to be versed enough on all the stats to adequately debate that point. Yet in a sport where there's choice, not a mandated schedule that must be followed, the dirt vs. synthetics issue is a major one. We all know about Rachel Alexandra's absence from this year's Breeders' Cup and how New Yorkers turned their noses at it, but do you think Californians are doing cartwheels over the BC returning to Churchill Downs? Might Zenyatta be coming back for a 6-year-old campaign if the BC was to be held Santa Anita for a third straight year?

The sport needs a unified direction on this before an individual decision throws it out of whack. I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again. Can you imagine the consequences if either Churchill Downs, Pimlico or Belmont Park went synthetic and the other two didn't? You might as well retire the Triple Crown. No one would ever win it.

[Charlie D]

. WE have some turf races. let them run in those and leave dirt for dirt horses.



I've against sythetics, but i agree with Tom here, there are plenty of races for the Twice Over's Rip van Winkle's etc to compete in should they not wish to go and race on Dirt

Personally i admire AOB and Ballydoyle, if they think they have a horse good enough they run no matter what the underfoot condition is.

Mabe a few more foriegn connections should take a similar stance.

[Judge Gallivan]

I've against sythetics, but i agree with Tom here, there are plenty of races for the Twice Over's Rip van Winkle's etc to compete in should they not wish to go and race on Dirt

Personally i admire AOB and Ballydoyle, if they think they have a horse good enough they run no matter what the underfoot condition is.

Mabe a few more foriegn connections should take a similar stance.


I think Coolmore will always try to win BC Classic on dirt with turf horses because of their stallion business.

Running George Washington in the Classic for example, was a ridiculous decision, especially the second time.

[Charlie D]

I think Coolmore will always try to win BC Classic on dirt with turf horses because of their stallion business.

Running George Washington in the Classic for example, was a ridiculous decision, especially the second time.


I agree. He should have been in Mile second time.

[PaceAdvantage]

And, if anything, they at least show that off turf courses aren't any more dangerous than firm courses. Which still makes my point.And here I thought they would take races off the turf because they didn't want the turf course to get destroyed...all chewed up...etc...by running on it when it was nothing but a boggy mess...

[Charlie D]

And here I thought they would take races off the turf because they didn't want the turf course to get destroyed...all chewed up...etc...by running on it when it was nothing but a boggy mess...

Maybe it's the turf that should be dug up and replaced with synthetic. You could also switch from Dirt to synth when Dirt becomes a mess too.

[fmolf]

Quote:
Deathwatch Data All Turf Flat Courses where GS reading available

9.0 to 12.8

11 fatalities

8.0 to 8.9

23 Fatalities

7.0 - 7.9

12 Fatalities

6.9 and below

2 fatalities




The higher the reading, the faster the surface condition.

This is very interesting. If I'm interpreting this correctly, there are less fatalities on slower turf course. And, of course, these would be 'off' turf courses as opposed to hard and fast ones.

Now, it's common policy in the US, especially at NYRA tracks, to take races off the turf at even the hint of rain. I exaggerate but not by much. And, they constantly use the excuse that the course is just not SAFE. Yet, here, we see data indicating that 'off' turf courses are SAFER. So, it follows, that NYRA values a well manicured turf course in spite of the inconvenience that taking these races off the turf causes the bettor and horse connections. Nothing like alienating fans during a period where there a less and less of them.these stats can be misleading because they are not telling us how many starters were in each track designation.Trainers routinely scratch horses when turf courses get soggy so its quite possible that the percentages of breakdowns on the yielding turf courses was larger than for the fast tracks.

[SoCalCircuit]

hmm i have to admit i do like this idea of each racecourse having 3 tracks: turf, dirt, and AWS, with the AWS being the backup track for the turf or dirt if theres a weather issue.

[DeanT]

hmm i have to admit i do like this idea of each racecourse having 3 tracks: turf, dirt, and AWS, with the AWS being the backup track for the turf or dirt if theres a weather issue.

Horse breaks down on Dirt: "Switch to synthetic now, dirt is dangerous"
Horse breaks down on Synth: "Get back to dirt, this is bloodsport"

Oh my head :D

[gm10]

I agree - let the globe have their own. BC should be the culmination of OUR racing season, not Europe's.

It makes no sense so run mostly on dirt all year and screw up the finale on plastic.

Most people do not follow European racing and could care less about it. WE have some turf races. let them run in those and leave dirt for dirt horses.

The idea of global" championships is ridiculous - who cares about what is not familiar to us?

Should we have Japaneses teams in the World Series?

You're kidding right? In most sports, the world championships are the highlight of the year.

[gm10]

Oh...synthetics aren't? Where else are major races held on rubber? Do tell.

ever heard of the Dubai World Cup?

[FenceBored]

Skylight Training Center outside Louisville has a Pro-Ride surface.

Isn't it Highpoint that has the Pro-Ride?

[cj]

ever heard of the Dubai World Cup?

It hasn't happened yet.

[miesque]

Isn't it Highpoint that has the Pro-Ride?

I don't know about Highpoint, they may well have Pro-Ride, but I do know that Skylight Training Center does have Pro-Ride

http://www.skylighttrainingcenter.com/

While we are on the subject since I don't think anyone else brought this up, the Greentree Training Center up in Saratoga (which is now owned by Darley) has a Polytrack surface.

[gm10]

It hasn't happened yet.

Well, it certainly isn't on dirt any more!

I reckon if BEL or CD were to switch to the synthetics, it'd be the end of the dirt era. Unlikely to happen, though.

[Charlie D]

I reckon if BEL or CD were to switch to the synthetics, it'd be the end of the dirt era.


Be like Epsom, Newmarket, Goodwood going synthetic - DUMB and a waste of money.

[cj]

I understand Dubai is switching, but that is largely for the self interests of Godolphin.

[Charlie D]

I understand Dubai is switching, but that is largely for the self interests of Godolphin.


Installing Tapeta is not going to improve thier chances of KD Glory imho. Finding and sending horses with the ability to do that might do though.

[gm10]

I understand Dubai is switching, but that is largely for the self interests of Godolphin.
how do you mean?

[andymays]

Thoroughbred Beat - Handicappers' Edge

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/news/article.cgi?id=16891

Excerpt:

No more Pro-Ride: There would be no Horse of the Year debate without synthetic tracks, but we're stuck with this lamentable situation because of the undesirable effect that they've brought to the sport domestically. Synthetic tracks are a third surface, and they're not going to be installed at any major venues in the future. Enthusiasm has already began to wane in California as trainers have become disillusioned with all the unforeseen drawbacks; the artificial concoctions aren't what distributors and proponents promised us. Dirt is the backbone of the racing industry in America, and synthetic tracks play as much like turf as they do a traditional surface. Some horses excel on any kind of ground, but many don't.


As a result, Rachel Alexandra didn't compete at Santa Anita, and I don't blame her connections. Next year will be her opportunity to shine, and they weren't about to let Rachel show up and perform well below standards like D' FUNNYBONE (D'wildcat) or DEVIL MAY CARE (Malibu Moon), who established themselves as the top two-year-olds on the East Coast in their respective divisions. D' Funnybone finished last in the Juvenile (G1), and Devil May Care beat only one horse in the Juvenile Fillies (G1). These horses had never raced over a synthetic track and were predictably out of their element over foreign ground.


It's basically a waste of time and money to run a horse without synthetic or turf experience in a Breeders' Cup race on Pro-Ride. For the second straight year, every winner on the Pro-Ride was proven on either surface.


The most common misconception in the Breeders' Cup aftermath is that synthetic tracks are essential to attracting European contestants. The Pro-Ride didn't benefit RIP VAN WINKLE (Ire) (Galileo [Ire]) or MASTERCRAFTSMAN (Ire). These European standouts (Rip Van Winkle was the second best horse in Europe this year behind Sea the Stars; Mastercraftsman was a multiple Group1 winner this season) probably would've run better over the dirt at Churchill Downs than Pro-Ride. They failed to show up with their best on the synthetic track, as did well-regarded Europeans like RAINBOW VIEW (Dynaformer), MASTERY (GB) (Sulamani [Ire]), FATHER TIME (GB) (Dansili [GB]), FLEETING SPIRIT (Ire) (Invincible Spirit) and RADIOHEAD (GB) (Johannesburg).

[gm10]

Thoroughbred Beat - Handicappers' Edge

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/news/article.cgi?id=16891

Excerpt:

No more Pro-Ride: There would be no Horse of the Year debate without synthetic tracks, but we're stuck with this lamentable situation because of the undesirable effect that they've brought to the sport domestically. Synthetic tracks are a third surface, and they're not going to be installed at any major venues in the future. Enthusiasm has already began to wane in California as trainers have become disillusioned with all the unforeseen drawbacks; the artificial concoctions aren't what distributors and proponents promised us. Dirt is the backbone of the racing industry in America, and synthetic tracks play as much like turf as they do a traditional surface. Some horses excel on any kind of ground, but many don't.


As a result, Rachel Alexandra didn't compete at Santa Anita, and I don't blame her connections. Next year will be her opportunity to shine, and they weren't about to let Rachel show up and perform well below standards like D' FUNNYBONE (D'wildcat) or DEVIL MAY CARE (Malibu Moon), who established themselves as the top two-year-olds on the East Coast in their respective divisions. D' Funnybone finished last in the Juvenile (G1), and Devil May Care beat only one horse in the Juvenile Fillies (G1). These horses had never raced over a synthetic track and were predictably out of their element over foreign ground.


It's basically a waste of time and money to run a horse without synthetic or turf experience in a Breeders' Cup race on Pro-Ride. For the second straight year, every winner on the Pro-Ride was proven on either surface.


The most common misconception in the Breeders' Cup aftermath is that synthetic tracks are essential to attracting European contestants. The Pro-Ride didn't benefit RIP VAN WINKLE (Ire) (Galileo [Ire]) or MASTERCRAFTSMAN (Ire). These European standouts (Rip Van Winkle was the second best horse in Europe this year behind Sea the Stars; Mastercraftsman was a multiple Group1 winner this season) probably would've run better over the dirt at Churchill Downs than Pro-Ride. They failed to show up with their best on the synthetic track, as did well-regarded Europeans like RAINBOW VIEW (Dynaformer), MASTERY (GB) (Sulamani [Ire]), FATHER TIME (GB) (Dansili [GB]), FLEETING SPIRIT (Ire) (Invincible Spirit) and RADIOHEAD (GB) (Johannesburg).

Hey Andy, if dirt horses don't do well on poly/turf, doesn't that make DIRT the odd one out? Sounds like a specialist surface to me.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey Andy, if dirt horses don't do well on poly/turf, doesn't that make DIRT the odd one out? Sounds like a specialist surface to me.Not when dirt has been and continues to be the predominant surface in American racing.

It's like asking a European if turf horses don't do well on poly/dirt, doesn't that make TURF the odd one out....makes absolutely no sense.

[DJofSD]

You want sense? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUjjFETMTxE

[gm10]

Not when dirt has been and continues to be the predominant surface in American racing.

It's like asking a European if turf horses don't do well on poly/dirt, doesn't that make TURF the odd one out....makes absolutely no sense.

Really? Cos turf and poly horses do well on both surfaces, and reasonably well on dirt. Dirt horses on the other hand only seem to do well on dirt. That to me sounds like it's the dirt horses who can't manage anything else whereas poly and turf horses are versatile enough to handle most surfaces.

[andymays]

http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/2009/11/bc-dirt-to-synth.html

Excerpt:

BC: Dirt to Synth

Horses who made their last start on the dirt were 0 for 21 at the Breeders' Cup this year, making the tally 0 for 43 in the two straight Cups on the synthetic track at Oak Tree, with 34 of the 43 inishing worse than third.. Here are the 43 starters, along with their last-race Beyer Speed Figure on dirt before the Cup and their BSF on Cup Day. Thirty of the 43 starters ran a slower figure switching from dirt to synth, 20 of them by 10 points or more:

Get the numbers at the link http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/2009/11/bc-dirt-to-synth.html

[Charlie D]

http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/2009/11/bc-dirt-to-synth.html

Excerpt:

BC: Dirt to Synth

Horses who made their last start on the dirt were 0 for 21 at the Breeders' Cup this year, making the tally 0 for 43 in the two straight Cups on the synthetic track at Oak Tree, with 34 of the 43 inishing worse than third.. Here are the 43 starters, along with their last-race Beyer Speed Figure on dirt before the Cup and their BSF on Cup Day. Thirty of the 43 starters ran a slower figure switching from dirt to synth, 20 of them by 10 points or more:

Get the numbers at the link http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/2009/11/bc-dirt-to-synth.html





How many of these Dirt horses were actually thought of as true contenders in BC races ??


Example: i had Zenyatta on Top , Rip in second, Summer Bird as a possible contender, but one who needed to improve a couple of lengths to beat top two

[gm10]

http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/2009/11/bc-dirt-to-synth.html

Excerpt:

BC: Dirt to Synth

Horses who made their last start on the dirt were 0 for 21 at the Breeders' Cup this year, making the tally 0 for 43 in the two straight Cups on the synthetic track at Oak Tree, with 34 of the 43 inishing worse than third.. Here are the 43 starters, along with their last-race Beyer Speed Figure on dirt before the Cup and their BSF on Cup Day. Thirty of the 43 starters ran a slower figure switching from dirt to synth, 20 of them by 10 points or more:

Get the numbers at the link http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/2009/11/bc-dirt-to-synth.html

I think we agree for once, Andy.

[andymays]

I think we agree for once, Andy.


It's a start! ;)

[Bobzilla]

I was just looking at my 12/12 issue of Blood-Horse and read in the letters section a response to Mark Popham's column that I found to be most appropriate, and reflects the views of many who question if synthetics are an appropriate surface for North America's most important events. Popham, in his Final Turn piece, had called upon CD and Bel to immediately fall into lockstep with the synthetic revolution, for the betterment of the sport; the welfare of the horse; and to recognize the surface as a universal requirement for any meaningful top class international engagements in the future. I was hoping to find Mr. Siwierka's letter on-line and to post a link. Unfortunately I was unable to find it. I'll type in quotes this Virginia gentleman's response.

"In response to Mark Popham's recent Final Turn, I'm not sure the U.S. racing community should feel all that threatened by Mr. Popham's assertion that dirt racing is the 'big no-no of world racing'. Dirt racing in America is a unique tradition that should be cherished and upheld at all costs. While racing on synthetics may be in vogue around the globe, there is still no definitive proof that artificial surfaces are truly any safer than a well kept dirt track, (e.g.Saratoga, Churchill Downs, etc)."

"In light of the American racing public's reaction to the Breeders' Cup being run on the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita two years in a row, there is certainly no strong incentive to rush to meet European standards for racing on artificial surfaces. It is truly Mr. Popham's own pomposity to believe that 134-plus years of tradition at Churchill Downs and Belmont Park should be thrown out the door to accomodate the European flavor of the day based on his self-subscribed belief that there is a sense of 'responsibility to the racing public and sport in general' to do so."

"While the Euros may not prefer the dirt surface, with the amount of money put up annually at the Breeders' Cup, I'm certain that, as in the past, there will be ample reason for them to re-familiarize themselves with dirt racing when the event resumes at Churchill Downs in 2010. It is simply Mr. Popham's myopic fantasy to believe that Breeders' Cup officials should insist on running the Breeders' Cup on artificial surfaces in the future simply to acquiesce to world demand. Whether he likes it or not, history will dictate that dirt racing in America is here to stay and will remain a valued part of the Breeders' Cup equation"

Mr. Siwierka of Ashburn, VA., Great response to this writer's demands that CD and Bel propitiate!

BTW, has anyone heard that the BC is considering putting an end to the long tradition of site rotation and conduct the event at the same location every year? Crist seems to think it would be CD. I don't know, I always enjoyed travelling to different cities each year, kind of made the entire experience that much more interesting.

[JWBurnie]

Hialeah. 3:30 first post... primetime TV for the final 3 races (under the lights). :ThmbUp:

[joanied]

I read it in the BH magazine...my reaction: :eek: :mad: :ThmbDown: :p :faint:

[WinterTriangle]

God made the dirt & the grass, and man made the "fake-dirt" & "astro turf"....

Who do you think got it right ?

Man keeps trying to go one-up on God, and keeps on paying a price for his "vanity"...

best,

Ditto how the rest of the world can race horses without bute and lasix.... but somehow in America this is *necessary*. :rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

So, let me get this straight, let me see if i follow, someone help me out here.

The writer is European based and is making a case that surfaces that normally are not conducive to european horses being able to win should be switched to surfaces that ARE conducive to european horses winning?

[Bobzilla]

Yep.

I believe the writer is the European Correspondent for the Blood-Horse.

The writer would appear to be of the opinion that dirt surfaces are not a valid or appropriate surface on which to conduct an event intended to produce a "world" champion. Like many of our friends across the pond, he probably views North America's use of dirt surfaces as an historic oddity at best, or perhaps in the worse case, an abomination. At least that is my impression of their perspective.

Many feel that AWSs represent a "level playing field". Others, such as myself believe that any disadvantages Euros may have while competing over North American ovals, such as the tightness of the tracks, pale in comparison to the disadvantages faced by reputable dirt horses while expected to transfer their "A" game to synthetic for the first time while competing against world class competition in a G1 event.