Jess Jackson - not so very gracious?

[GlenninOhio]

From Thoroughbred Times Today, 1/26/2010:

“Curlin ran four ticks faster than Zenyatta this last race on that turf. This group of older
horses was not the competition that Curlin had a year ago, at least as measured by time
and the quality of horses in the race.”

Owner Jess Jackson, in the Pasadena Star-News, suggesting that the group of horses Curlin raced against in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup Classic(G1) on the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita Park ,in which Raven’s Pass covered 1¼ miles in 1:59.27,was better than the group Zenyatta beat this year, when she became the first female to win the Classic after covering the distance in 2:00.62

(Poster's note: On a Beyer basis, Raven's Pass earned a 110 and Zenyatta a 112.)

[tucker6]

I've not heard anyone say the 2009 BCC had a better field than the 2008 version. Have you?? I believe JJ is stating the obvious, however, it is never wise to say such things when it appears you have motivation for doing so.

[Gorgeous George]

the 2008 field was much stronger with ravens pass, henrythenavigator, duke of marmalade.

[sandpit]

Jackson likes the sound of his own voice. Why is he so bitter because some people like Zenyatta better than Rachel Alexandra? And if he wants to compare times between Zenyatta and Curlin, he should have done so in this manner: Zenyatta ran her 2008 distaff in 1:46 4/5 for the 1 1/8 miles; Curlin ran the 1 1/4 in 1:59 4/5. I don't think any serious racing fan could conjure up a scenario where Zenyatta was going to run her last 1/8 of a mile in 13 seconds. Bottom line for me is that he is for some reason discontent despite the fact that he owns two of the best horses of this century.

[gm10]

For the millionth time, raw final time does not matter much on a 10F race on the synthetics. It doesn't even mean that much in a 10F race on the dirt.

Curlin was going out of form and moved too soon; a few sharper horses ridden by more patient jockey's picked up a horse who was in many respects tired. End of.

[Mineshaft]

For the millionth time, raw final time does not matter much on a 10F race on the synthetics. It doesn't even mean that much in a 10F race on the dirt.

Curlin was going out of form and moved too soon; a few sharper horses ridden by more patient jockey's picked up a horse who was in many respects tired. End of.



thank you. someone gets it.

[cj]

(Poster's note: On a Beyer basis, Raven's Pass earned a 110 and Zenyatta a 112.)

The way Beyer calculates his ratings on synthetics changed in the interim. If they were done the same, Raven's Pass would have had a slightly higher rating.

[FenceBored]

From Thoroughbred Times Today, 1/26/2010:

“Curlin ran four ticks faster than Zenyatta this last race on that turf. This group of older
horses was not the competition that Curlin had a year ago, at least as measured by time
and the quality of horses in the race.”

Owner Jess Jackson, in the Pasadena Star-News, suggesting that the group of horses Curlin raced against in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup Classic(G1) on the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita Park ,in which Raven’s Pass covered 1¼ miles in 1:59.27,was better than the group Zenyatta beat this year, when she became the first female to win the Classic after covering the distance in 2:00.62

(Poster's note: On a Beyer basis, Raven's Pass earned a 110 and Zenyatta a 112.)

Do you have a link to that article? I can't seem to find it on the Thoroughbred Times website (useless, poorly designed piece .....).

[Kimsus]

Haven't we established that final (synth/poly) times can be misleading, I'm tired of reading and or hearing people distorting beyer numbers or final times just in an effort to make their horse look good.

Jackson better get Rachel back on the track and run her against the best horses in training, and I don't mean the Macho Again's. No excuses to not have her run in the BC this year. She will be well rested enough, that was last yrs excuse...

on the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita Park ,in which Raven’s Pass covered 1¼ miles in 1:59.27,was better than the group Zenyatta beat this year, when she became the first female to win the Classic after covering the distance in 2:00.62

[andymays]

Do you have a link to that article? I can't seem to find it on the Thoroughbred Times website (useless, poorly designed piece .....).

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/01/jackson-curlin-ran-in-tougher.html

[tucker6]

Moss better get Zenyatta back on the track and run her against the best horses in training, and I don't mean the usual Tomato Cans. No excuses to not have her run outside of CA this year. She will have to get past wet tracks, that was last yrs excuse at CD...

fixed it for you...

[Kimsus]

“Curlin ran four ticks faster than Zenyatta this last race on that turf. This group of older
horses was not the competition that Curlin had a year ago, at least as measured by time
and the quality of horses in the race.”

Furthermore, I wonder does he see the hyprocrisy in this statement...Or has he sat down and analyzed the quality of the competition that Rachel faced in the Woodward last year. :confused:

[Kimsus]

fixed it for you...

The truth hurts...Obcourse that is the usual response by the Rachelfanclub.2.0

[tucker6]

The truth hurts...Obcourse that is the usual response by the Rachelfanclub.2.0
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in your "unbiased" statement. In case you were not aware, Rachel won HOY in 2009. You can give up the campaigning now. :faint:

[Kimsus]

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in your "unbiased" statement. In case you were not aware, Rachel won HOY in 2009. You can give up the campaigning now. :faint:

Contrary to belief, I really don't care about HOY. I care who the better horse is and if Jess Jackson is brave enough, then we will all know the answer is the Big Girl.

One can throw in Summer Bird, I suspect he would be more than a handful for Rachel if and when he is healthy again.

[FenceBored]

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in your "unbiased" statement. In case you were not aware, Rachel won HOY in 2009. You can give up the campaigning now. :faint:

No, he can't. I chronicle it all in exCRUCiating detail in my new book: Why is there no Zen in Zenyatta fans? available this summer from Kendall-Jackson publishing.

[cj]

Contrary to belief, I really don't care about HOY. I care who the better horse is and if Jess Jackson is brave enough, then we will all know the answer is the Big Girl.

One can throw in Summer Bird, I suspect he would be more than a handful for Rachel if and when he is healthy again.

On a dirt track, I bet he is more than a handful for Zenyatta.

[PaceAdvantage]

One can throw in Summer Bird, I suspect he would be more than a handful for Rachel if and when he is healthy again.Summer Bird? The same Summer Bird Rachel thrashed on Summer Bird's preferred surface (Mud)? The same Summer Bird Rachel thrashed while Summer Bird was racing at his new PREFERRED running style (closer to the pace...a style which won him the Travers and JCGC)?

That Summer Bird?

[the little guy]

Of course Curlin faced a better field in 2008......but aren't we also forgetting another important factor?

Unlike Curlin.....Zenyatta won.

[Kimsus]

On a dirt track, I bet he is more than a handful for Zenyatta.

I agree he is handful for anyone at 1 1 /4 post when he began his maturation as evidenced by his Travers and JCGC.

[FenceBored]

I agree he is handful for anyone at 1 1 /4 post when he began his maturation as evidenced by his Travers and JCGC.

:lol::lol:

Do you understand how silly you sound saying that the winner of the Belmont (June 6, 2009) did not start his maturation until after the Haskell (August 2, 2009)?

[Kimsus]

Summer Bird? The same Summer Bird Rachel thrashed on Summer Bird's preferred surface (Mud)? The same Summer Bird Rachel thrashed while Summer Bird was racing at his new PREFERRED running style (closer to the pace...a style which won him the Travers and JCGC)?

That Summer Bird?

You can't believe one race in those circumstances is the only sole indicator for these 2 horses? Obviously Summer Bird was a developing horse throughout 2009 who didn't make his 1st start until March. He continued to improve with every race, that should be obvious I shouldn't even have to address this.

[cj]

Of course Curlin faced a better field in 2008......but aren't we also forgetting another important factor?

Unlike Curlin.....Zenyatta won.

Correct, and Curlin didn't even hit the board. However, since both were run on a surface that is being sent to the garbage heap, does it really matter?

[Kimsus]

:lol::lol:

Do you understand how silly you sound saying that the winner of the Belmont (June 6, 2009) did not start his maturation until after the Haskell (August 2, 2009)?

The Belmont was his coming out party, nice try with the smoke and mirror trick. You should know he was a horse on the improve...If you don't understand this concept, and not to sound full of myself but I gladly will stick around this board and teach you about horses on the improve and more in particular 3 yr olds on the improve.

[cj]

The Belmont was his coming out party, nice try with the smoke and mirror trick. You should know he was a horse on the improve...If you don't understand this concept, and not to sound full of myself but I gladly will stick around this board and teach about 3 yr olds on the improve.

I would argue he ran just as well in the Haskell as he did in his next two races. He certainly did on my figures.

[Kimsus]

Correct, and Curlin didn't even hit the board. However, since both were run on a surface that is being sent to the garbage heap, does it really matter?

Curlin ran to his previous 2 races, if the rider was a little more patient I think he could have gotten 3rd. However he was not the best horse in the race IMO.

[Kimsus]

I would argue he ran just as well in the Haskell as he did in his next two races. He certainly did on my figures.

The problem I have with the Haskel, other than him cutting back from 1 1/2 off of a big effort in the Belmont was Kent's ride, that wasn't his style to be up on the lead engaging Munnings and Rachel. Now I understand why he did it, being an off track and it was on speed friendly Monmouth Park, it didn't play to the horse's strength at this point. He does show more tractibilty now but at the time of the Haskell he was a stone cold closer up on the pace engaging a speedster in Munnings. Given the circumstances he did well to hold 2nd.

[cj]

Curlin ran to his previous 2 races, if the rider was a little more patient I think he could have gotten 3rd. However he was not the best horse in the race IMO.

Well, that is opinion and I don't agree, but such is racing. He did run just like he did on turf, but his dirt races were better.

The problem I have with the Haskel, other than him cutting back from 1 1/2 off of a big effort in the Belmont was Kent's ride, that wasn't his style to be up on the lead engaging Munnings and Rachel. Now I understand why he did it, being an off track and it was on speed friendly Monmouth Park, it didn't play to the horse's strength at this point. He does show more tractibilty now but at the time of the Haskell he was a stone cold closer up on the pace engaging a speedster in Munnings. Given the circumstances he did well to hold 2nd.

I would argue it was to the horse's strength as he displayed quite well in his next two starts. He ran much better being up close than he did well back. It is hidden because he was whipped by a much better horse. Again, that is just my opinion and I'm sure we'll never change no matter what argument is presented.

[DeanT]

Curlin looked to me to handle that surface fine. He was in position to win. I agree with cappers who say he would have lost that race on any surface because he was not overly sharp, and maybe a tired horse.

[Kimsus]

Well, that is opinion and I don't agree, but such is racing. He did run just like he did on turf, but his dirt races were better.



I would argue it was to the horse's strength as he displayed quite well in his next two starts. He ran much better being up close than he did well back. It is hidden because he was whipped by a much better horse. Again, that is just my opinion and I'm sure we'll never change no matter what argument is presented.

Rachel would have won even had Summer Bird been placed just behind Munnings and Rachel as a stalker (which I believe will be his best style). There are subtle moments in the body of races where the energy of horses are best reserved but that is an opinion for another thread. The point is when people refer to Rachel being 10 lengths better than Summer Bird which is very misleading if you ask me, just as these same people probably wouldn't agree that Rachel is only a neck better than Macho Again. Every race is different, every circumstance is different and Rachel ran a big race to those circumstances.

[cj]

Curlin looked to me to handle that surface fine. He was in position to win. I agree with cappers who say he would have lost that race on any surface because he was not overly sharp, and maybe a tired horse.

He handled it fine, but it wasn't his best surface. There is no way to know if the horses that beat him what have handled dirt, but most signs point to the fact they wouldn't have.

[tzipi]

BOTH BC's stunk. Its a dirt championship race and the last two years turf horses are mostly entered and winning or filling out the board on that polyturf. :lol:

Go back to dirt and a real dirt championship with DIRT horses. Those BC's fields(08-09) would've been whipped by most other years BC Classic fields on a real surface.

[Moyers Pond]

Zenyatta has a chance to be an all-time great. If she wins the BCC on dirt this year I think Jess Jackson will find some excuse.


If I was him, I would keep my mouth shut about Zenyatta. There is simply ZERO chance Rachel Alexandra could beat her in a 10f race at Churchill.

Rachel can beat anyone at 9f, but to think she can handle a top horse at 10f is laughable.

[cj]

Zenyatta has a chance to be an all-time great. If she wins the BCC on dirt this year I think Jess Jackson will find some excuse.


If I was him, I would keep my mouth shut about Zenyatta. There is simply ZERO chance Rachel Alexandra could beat her in a 10f race at Churchill.

Rachel can beat anyone at 9f, but to think she can handle a top horse at 10f is laughable.

What is laughable is the certainty with which you post. I like it though.

[Kimsus]

BOTH BC's stunk. Its a dirt championship race and the last two years turf horses are mostly entered and winning or filling out the board on that polyturf. :lol:

Go back to dirt and a real dirt championship with DIRT horses. Those BC's fields(08-09) would've been whipped by most other years BC Classic fields on a real surface.

The way I see it is a fairer surface that allows turf horses the opportunity to compete against dirt horses. Obcourse dirt horses want the advantage of a speed friendlier dirt track, however it didn't stop Midnight Lute from running well over it, Curlin's numbers on it were very much inline with his dirt beyer in the JCGC. All it did was allow the best horses on all surfaces to compete over it, this junk track thinking is very misplaced. As for nullifying the speed argument, it's an equalizer. If a horse is good enough to wire fields it will, The Pampelmousse in the San Felipe last year set fast fractions but was able to navigate pro ride to an easy win, some will point that the surface was the reason Careless Jewell flopped in the BC however she won on poly at Woodbine multiple times, setting fractions like those are not ammune to getting beat on any surface. I think people just have this anti poly stance because they don't understand it, or refuse to accept change.

[Kimsus]

Zenyatta has a chance to be an all-time great. If she wins the BCC on dirt this year I think Jess Jackson will find some excuse.


If I was him, I would keep my mouth shut about Zenyatta. There is simply ZERO chance Rachel Alexandra could beat her in a 10f race at Churchill.

Rachel can beat anyone at 9f, but to think she can handle a top horse at 10f is laughable.

Though I don't necessarily agree, Don't help me, it just weakens my arguments.

[Robert Goren]

What is laughable is the certainty with which you post. I like it though. If there is anything I have learned in 50+ years of following this sport, that is nothing certain, but death and taxes.;)

[tzipi]

The way I see it is a fairer surface that allows turf horses the opportunity to compete against dirt horses. Obcourse dirt horses want the advantage of a speed friendlier dirt track, however it didn't stop Midnight Lute from running well over it, Curlin's numbers on it were very much inline with his dirt beyer in the JCGC. All it did was allow the best horses on all surfaces to compete over it, this junk track thinking is very misplaced. As for nullifying the speed argument, it's an equalizer. If a horse is good enough to wire fields it will, The Pampelmousse in the San Felipe last year set fast fractions but was able to navigate pro ride to an easy win, some will point that the surface was the reason Careless Jewell flopped in the BC however she won on poly at Woodbine multiple times, setting fractions like those are not ammune to getting beat on any surface. I think people just have this anti poly stance because they don't understand it, or refuse to accept change.

Ok where's the turf course that plays to dirt horses and makes turf racing fairer? :lol:
Also it is a turf course and just about all trainers say so. It has deep footing for more traction and has very little kickback. It's not a fairer course at all. Its just a synthetic turf course.
I don't like poly because it's a turf course not because I don't understand it. Everyone understands it,it's a turf course and plays like a turf course. People want dirt and turf racing. Thats why the Europeans love it, because last two years there's been no dirt races in the BC.

Yup, Polytrack is the fairer course. Just look at the dirt horses to Poly horses in the BC....0-43! Yup, very fair :lol:

[Kimsus]

Ok where's the turf course that plays to dirt horses and makes turf racing fairer? :lol:
Also it is a turf course and just about all trainers say so. It has deep footing for more traction and has very little kickback. It's not a fairer course at all. Its just a synthetic turf course.
I don't like poly because it's a turf course not because I don't understand it. Everyone understands it,it's a turf course and plays like a turf course. People want dirt and turf racing. Thats why the Europeans love it, because last two years there's been no dirt races in the BC.

Yup, Polytrack is the fairer course. Just look at the dirt horses to Poly horses in the BC....0-43! Yup, very fair :lol:

Actually there is more sand in the composition of pro-ride than grass...I bet you didn't know that. So your assertion that it is a turf course is very inaccurate.

[Kimsus]

Ok where's the turf course that plays to dirt horses and makes turf racing fairer? :lol:
Also it is a turf course and just about all trainers say so. It has deep footing for more traction and has very little kickback. It's not a fairer course at all. Its just a synthetic turf course.
I don't like poly because it's a turf course not because I don't understand it. Everyone understands it,it's a turf course and plays like a turf course. People want dirt and turf racing. Thats why the Europeans love it, because last two years there's been no dirt races in the BC.

Yup, Polytrack is the fairer course. Just look at the dirt horses to Poly horses in the BC....0-43! Yup, very fair :lol:

By the way did your analysis also take into account how many of the winners of these races were already running on synthetic track? Nothing like skewing the stats...

[tucker6]

By the way did your analysis also take into account how many of the winners of these races were already running on synthetic track? Nothing like skewing the stats...
If he's skewing the stats, why don't you produce a more accurate portrayal?? No matter how you slice it, poly acts significantly more like turf than dirt.

[tzipi]

Actually there is more sand in the composition of pro-ride than grass...I bet you didn't know that. So your assertion that it is a turf course is very inaccurate.


Hah Raven Pass's trainer said he would never have run against Curlin if the BC was at a dirt track, knowing poly runs like turf. These horse trainers have talked about it being exactly like turf the way it runs. I will take THEIR word :lol:
Go take your crusade somewhere else because I will never buy it. I'll buy the American and European trainers assertions.

I guess 0-43 is just a BS stat?? I guess turf horses winning and filling out the boards now in "dirt" championships is also BS too. Hah suuree.

[FenceBored]

The Belmont was his coming out party, nice try with the smoke and mirror trick. You should know he was a horse on the improve...If you don't understand this concept, and not to sound full of myself but I gladly will stick around this board and teach you about horses on the improve and more in particular 3 yr olds on the improve.

The Belmont was indeed his coming out party, marking his maturation as a top 3 year old. His later races on dirt show refinement of his abilities, but no great leap forward developmentally as occured from the Arkansas Derby to the Belmont.

[Kimsus]

If he's skewing the stats, why don't you produce a more accurate portrayal?? No matter how you slice it, poly acts significantly more like turf than dirt.

I trust you can figure that out on your own, in layman's english he is saying dirt horses don't win on poly with that 0-40 whatever stat. That's the crux of his argument, then did you see or not see Midnight Lute win back to back BC's at Monmouth and Santa Anita separated by one single race that just happened to be at Delmar in the Pat O'Brien?

[FenceBored]

I trust you can figure that out on your own, in layman's english he is saying dirt horses don't win on poly with that 0-40 whatever stat. That's the crux of his argument, then did you see or not see Midnight Lute win back to back BC's at Monmouth and Santa Anita separated by one single race that just happened to be at Delmar in the Pat O'Brien?

Andy Beyer, who originated the 0-43 figure with it's predecessor after 2008's BC, is very careful to say that that reflects horses who made their last start prior to the BC on dirt. Midnight Lute, because he had his final pre-BC race at Del Mar is not relevant to that particular discussion. On the other hand, it does include horses who were more adept at running on synthetics who just happened to make their last start on dirt. Something that torques some other people, thinking that it's calling those horses dirt horses.

[tzipi]

NO MATTER how many top class dirt horses run up the track on poly every "dirt" championship race.

NO MATTER how many world class trainers(American and European) say it's exactly like turf.

NO MATTER how many articles that have been posted on PA about trainers saying they would not have entered the BC "dirt" race if it was at a dirt track.

NO MATTER how many turf horses win "dirt" races and fill out the boards in the BC's like never before, Kimsus will just keep saying he knows more and that all these things are just BS and that polyturf is the fairest DIRT surface out there.


Hey if the BC was at belmont this year, would Gio Ponti have still entered the Classic or would it have been the Turf Classic for him. :D

[Kimsus]

The Belmont was indeed his coming out party, marking his maturation as a top 3 year old. His later races on dirt show refinement of his abilities, but no great leap forward developmentally as occured from the Arkansas Derby to the Belmont.

1st of all, to compare a horse that didn't start his 1st race until Mar to his acsendacy in developement in the Belmont to the Belmont to The JCGC is silly. Furthermore he is a much better horse when he raced in the JCGC than he was in the Belmont, but don't take my word for it, just listen to what Tim Ice has said about the horse if you don't believe me. Finally if you still find that hard to believe, than watch the races for yourself, and tell me he hasn't matured into a more versatile runner on the preface of being a very, very good horse if he isn't already. How many horses have won the Belmont-Travers-JCGC? I'll give you one name Easy Goer...Look up the rest and you will see how rare the accomplishment was.

[Kimsus]

NO MATTER how many top class dirt horses run up the track on poly every "dirt" championship race.

NO MATTER how many world class trainers(American and European) say it's exactly like turf.

NO MATTER how many articles that have been posted on PA about trainers saying they would not have entered the BC "dirt" race if it was at a dirt track.

NO MATTER how many turf horses win "dirt" races and fill out the boards in the BC's like never before, Kimsus will just keep saying he knows more and that all these things are just BS and that polyturf is the fairest surface out there.


Hey if the BC was at belmont this year, would Gio Ponti have still entered the Classic or would it have been the Turf Classic for him. :D

Keep throwing out crap in an attempt that something will stick to the wall, I'm not sure what this has to do with your premise of dirt horses not winning on poly in the BC, a fact you keep ignoring when I cite Midnight Lute.

[tzipi]

KIMSUS since my assertion is not accurate acording to you and my assertion as said was just taken from what world class trainers have said, can I ask what you do in the horse industry that makes you assertion more accurate than theirs?? Will I get an answer?

[tzipi]

Keep throwing out crap in an attempt that something will stick to the wall, I'm not sure what this has to do with your premise of dirt horses not winning on poly in the BC, a fact you keep ignoring when I cite Midnight Lute.

One horse out of how many? :lol:

How many stats are there for us against poly and you throw out one horse out of all of races and dirt to poly horses. Ha cmon. Anyway, again what's your job in the horse racing industry?

[FenceBored]

1st of all, to compare a horse that didn't start his 1st race until Mar to his acsendacy in developement in the Belmont to the Belmont to The JCGC is silly. Furthermore he is a much better horse when he raced in the JCGC than he was in the Belmont, but don't take my word for it, just listen to what Tim Ice has said about the horse if you don't believe me. Finally if you still find that hard to believe, than watch the races for yourself, and tell me he hasn't matured into a more versatile runner on the preface of being a very, very good horse if he isn't already. How many horses have won the Belmont-Travers-JCGC? I'll give you one name Easy Goer...Look up the rest and you will see how rare the accomplishment was.

Physically, he has matured, and will continue maturing for awhile yet. As a race horse, his efforts have not shown marked improvement since the Belmont. I've watched all his races, I've listened to Tim Ice's promotional happy talk. Aside, I even listened to him predict a win in the Haskell on the Friday evening before said race (in case you were tempted to pull out that tired 'it was just a prep for the Travers' card). He was completely deserving of the 3 year old male championship.

Why are you so invested in Summer Bird's not being at his best in the Haskell? Oh yeah, right, because that might make Rachel look good. Pathetic.

[gm10]

Curlin looked to me to handle that surface fine. He was in position to win. I agree with cappers who say he would have lost that race on any surface because he was not overly sharp, and maybe a tired horse.

Yes - the move that he made about 4F from home ("is this believable?") was very impressive. It clearly showed that he handled the surface.

[gm10]

What is laughable is the certainty with which you post. I like it though.

He's right, though. She went beyond her distance limitations when she won the Preakness.
You as a sectional time expert must agree that her finishes in 9F races are significantly better. She's not a Classic distance horse. I'd lay you 5/1 that she won't win the Classic if she was at the start.

[gm10]

He handled it fine, but it wasn't his best surface. There is no way to know if the horses that beat him what have handled dirt, but most signs point to the fact they wouldn't have.

I think Ravens Pass was a razor sharp and very talented horse. He might not have won the Classic, but I'm pretty sure Curlin wouldn't have won either.

[tzipi]

For all the people who are no doubt SURE they know who would've won and who wouldn't have won all these races, CAN YOU PLEASE POST ALL YOUR PICKS TOMORROW :D

[gm10]

Andy Beyer, who originated the 0-43 figure with it's predecessor after 2008's BC, is very careful to say that that reflects horses who made their last start prior to the BC on dirt. Midnight Lute, because he had his final pre-BC race at Del Mar is not relevant to that particular discussion. On the other hand, it does include horses who were more adept at running on synthetics who just happened to make their last start on dirt. Something that torques some other people, thinking that it's calling those horses dirt horses.

Furthest Land is not bad on dirt.
Zenyatta handles the dirt.
Informed Decision wins on the dirt.
Papa Clem just won a nice race @ SA after winning on the dirt.

It's not all as black and white as people make it out to be.

[tzipi]

Furthest Land is not bad on dirt.
Zenyatta handles the dirt.
Informed Decision wins on the dirt.
Papa Clem just won a nice race @ SA after winning on the dirt.

It's not all as black and white as people make it out to be.


"For one thing, Polytrack affects a horse's gait. Unlike dirt, the plastic stuff has no kickback, giving it a solid footing similar to grass. Turf horses thrive on the new surface, and Polytrack races often resemble turf races: The horses jog in slow motion until the final turn, when they unleash their finishing kicks.

Earlier this year, I watched a Polytrack race and a dirt race side by side at a Las Vegas sports book. They looked like they had been beamed from different planets. At Aqueduct, a Queens, N.Y., racetrack that has so far refused to go plastic, the deep brown dirt was scored with long hoof divots. The Turfway surface, by contrast, looked as sterile as sawdust. On the dirt, freewheeling frontrunners could not be caught in the stretch. Turfway's plasticized races were still up for grabs an eighth of a mile from the wire. Dirt races are won with speed from the gate; Polytrack seems to reward stamina."

[WinterTriangle]

Summer Bird "was" on the improve. He's not now.

Speaking of improves, if you saw recent photos of Musket Man....WOWSA! He looks like a tank that breathes fire. Lets just say he looks like he has, um, developed.


As for Jackson, dunno why he's hashing out the past. Doesn't he have a horse to train? Rachel has a tough year coming up, if he puts her where she belongs. He should be thinking about that.

[miesque]

Summer Bird "was" on the improve. He's not now.

Speaking of improves, if you saw recent photos of Musket Man....WOWSA! He looks like a tank that breathes fire. Lets just say he looks like he has, um, developed.


As for Jackson, dunno why he's hashing out the past. Doesn't he have a horse to train? Rachel has a tough year coming up, if he puts her where she belongs. He should be thinking about that.

I just saw it mentioned yesterday on drf.com that Musket Man was heading to the Super Stakes at Tampa Bay Downs on Saturday, Feb 6, which is coincidentially where I will be that day for HANA Day at the Races and I am really looking forward to seeing him make his 2010 debut.

[tzipi]

Summer Bird "was" on the improve. He's not now.

Speaking of improves, if you saw recent photos of Musket Man....WOWSA! He looks like a tank that breathes fire. Lets just say he looks like he has, um, developed.


As for Jackson, dunno why he's hashing out the past. Doesn't he have a horse to train? Rachel has a tough year coming up, if he puts her where she belongs. He should be thinking about that.

"If he puts her where she belongs"
Jackson put a 3yo filly up against boys in the Preakness and Haskell and against older in the Woodward, while other horses stayed in same division all year and never moved. He is one to always put horses out into good spots,right?

[Kimsus]

KIMSUS since my assertion is not accurate acording to you and my assertion as said was just taken from what world class trainers have said, can I ask what you do in the horse industry that makes you assertion more accurate than theirs?? Will I get an answer?

My take is synth simply a third surface. Neither turf or dirt... If anything I believe Beyer's point was it nullifies a horse's speed. If anything it reduces the 1 dimensional strength of certain horses. Now a horse like Secretariat, I know he's an extreme case, do you think Beyer would disagree that he couldn't go dirt to poly? Maybe someone should start focusing on the quality of horse rather than making excuses for one dimensional horses.

In addition I will not deny that it has favored turf horses with this limited sample. However NA breeders breed horses for dirt(speed) I doubt they were thinking of poly then, as for today we can only wait and see.

[Kimsus]

Why are you so invested in Summer Bird's not being at his best in the Haskell? Oh yeah, right, because that might make Rachel look good. Pathetic.

I never knew I was SO invested, someone pointed out Rachel was 10 lengths better than Summer Bird based on one race when I said Rachel would have a harder time with him this yr if he came back 100% from injury, I brought some context into this inaccuracy.

As I said these are dumb arguments, for I could easily say that Rachel is only a neck better than Macho Again based on one race.

[tzipi]

My take is synth simply a third surface. Neither turf or dirt... If anything I believe Beyer's point was it nullifies a horse's speed. If anything it reduces the 1 dimensional strength of certain horses. Now a horse like Secretariat, I know he's an extreme case, do you think Beyer would disagree that he couldn't go dirt to poly? Maybe someone should start focusing on the quality of horse rather than making excuses for one dimensional horses.

In addition I will not deny that it has favored turf horses with this limited sample. However NA breeders breed horses for dirt(speed) I doubt they were thinking of poly then, as for today we can only wait and see.

Kimsus not all those 43 horses were speed horses. All 43 were one demensional? No way, look at the PP's! Plus, you can call it a third surface but it's really not. Trainers all over will tell you it's exactly like turf with deep footing and no kickback. Turf horses run exactly the same on it. Dirt horses basically don't. Its a synthetic turf course. If it wasn't the Europeans would not be running and cleaning up in all the dirt races and Gio Ponti would've ran in the Turf Classic, not the "dirt Classic.

[tzipi]

Someone pointed out Rachel was 10 lengths better than Summer Bird based on one race.

Some pointed out Zen was a Classic distance horse and HOY based on one race too.

[Kimsus]

Kimsus not all those 43 horses were speed horses. All 43 were one demensional? No way, look at the PP's! Plus, you can call it a third surface but it's really not. Trainers all over will tell you it's exactly like turf with deep footing and no kickback. Turf horses run exactly the same on it. Dirt horses basically don't. Its a synthetic turf course.

When you said 43, you said 43 in the BC. Is this correct? Did it occur to you that other than Belmont in the fall what other major dirt tracks are there? Don't you think there are less horses trying due to almost all the tracks are now synth based?

[Kimsus]

Some pointed out Zen was a Classic distance horse and HOY based on one race too.

I'm happy you finally conceded to being wrong about Midnight Lute, that's a start.

[tzipi]

When you said 43, you said 43 in the BC. Is this correct? Did it occur to you that other than Belmont in the fall what other major dirt tracks are there? Don't you think there are less horses trying due to almost all the tracks are now synth based?


Ok so all of a sudden they had great class horses over in the East and on Dirt but in the last two years they have gone to crap and all horses on dirt and the East are all bad overrrated horses. Yup sure.
The Europeans are cleaning up in the dirt races the last two years like NEVER before and the Europeans ADMIT why, but you deny it! I don't get it ha. Or how about Gio Ponti would have never run in the BC Classic over the Turf Classic if the BC was at Belmont or CD,etc. Why?

[tzipi]

I'm happy you finally conceded to being wrong about Midnight Lute, that's a start.

I never mentioned Lute? I agree with others over the past months, you might be insane. I said Zenyatta and SB. Keep up your one horse out of tons of them arguement Ha. Again, what's your job in the horse industry?

[Kimsus]

Ok so all of a sudden they had great class horses over in the East and on Dirt but in the last two years they have gone to crap and all horses on dirt and the East are all bad overrrated horses. Yup sure.
The Europeans are cleaning up in the dirt races the last two years like NEVER before and the Europeans ADMIT why, but you deny it! I don't get it ha. Or how about Gio Ponti would have never run in the BC Classic over the Turf Classic if the BC was at Belmont or CD,etc. Why?

Again pro-ride, poly is not DIRT. It's a third surface. Great horses on dirt are just that. ON DIRT, on a third neutral surface the upper hand is being held by the Europeans at the moment, whom from your tone seem to think are a bunch of inept horses/man. This couldn't be further from the truth.

[tzipi]

Again pro-ride, poly is not DIRT. It's a third surface. Great horses on dirt are just that. ON DIRT, on a third neutral surface the upper hand is being held by the Europeans at the moment, whom from your tone seem to think are a bunch of inept horses/man. This couldn't be further from the truth.

You can't say if you have a job in the industry for the third time? Ha You disagreed with world class trainers about them saying it's turf. What's you job?
"Europeans dominating at this moment" :lol: Europeans and turf horses have dominated since the beginning because as top class trainers have said over and over, it's basically synthetic turf! It has the deep footing and no kickback.

Why can't you say what your job is that you disagreed with them and know your assertion is more correct than theirs?

[Kimsus]

I never mentioned Lute? I agree with others over the past months, you might be insane. I said Zenyatta and SB. Keep up your one horse out of tons of them arguement Ha. Again, what's your job in the horse industry?

Just one question sport, why do you think Turf horses should adapt and race against dirt horses on dirt exclusively and not the other way around...dirt horses taking turf horses on turf...Wouldn't a third surface be more fair? Or would it be fair for the Indy Colts to play all of their games at home.

[tzipi]

Just one question sport, why do you think Turf horses should adapt and race against dirt horses on dirt exclusively and not the other way around...dirt horses taking turf horses on turf...Wouldn't a third surface be more fair? Or would it be fair for the Indy Colts to play all of their games at home.

Funny good grass teams will beat teams on astro or grass and good astro turf teams will beat teams on astro or grass. That's fact. Show me teams that are 0-20,-30,etc on different surfaces?

AGAIN,you avoid five times now what your job is in the horse industry that you say your assertion is correct and the worlds class trainers assertion is wrong. I'm just wondering. Does your position put you in a better know than them?

[Kimsus]

You can't say if you have a job in the industry for the third time? Ha You disagreed with world class trainers about them saying it's turf. What's you job?
"Europeans dominating at this moment" :lol: Europeans and turf horses have dominated since the beginning because as top class trainers have said over and over, it's basically synthetic turf! It has the deep footing and no kickback.

Why can't you say what your job is that you disagreed with them and know your assertion is more correct than theirs?

If it were of relevance I would say, but frankly it's none of your business. Surely you know your question lacks a certain degree of etiquette.

[tzipi]

If it were of relevance I would say, but frankly it's none of your business. Surely you know your question lacks a certain degree of etiquette.

I have worked for Tom Skiffington,Michael Hushion, and Linda Rice over the years. I have no problem saying it. Why would I? We are talking about racing.

Wait, do you even work in the industry? Sorry but you said all over that your assertion is right over world class trainers. It's not relevant? I have no class for asking if you work in the industry after your words???

Whatever its clear your just making up excuses and saying I don't have class so you don't have to answer a simple question. Then don't say your opinion is right over top trainers :rolleyes: Good job backing down.

[Kimsus]

I have worked for Tom Skiffington,Michael Hushion, and Linda Rice over the years. I have no problem saying it. Why would I? We are talking about racing.

Wait, do you even work in the industry? Sorry but you said all over that your assertion is right over world class trainers. It's not relevant? I have no class for asking if you work in the industry after your words???

Regardless of who you work for, everyone is entitled to an opinion. For my time here I can see there are some good ideas by some of the posters here and I doubt they all work in the industry. It really has no relevance...I respect what Andy Beyer writes but he is not above taking on on certain subjects, afterall he would be the 1st to admit there was an error to coming up with poly numbers last year, and he set out to admitting that it had to be addressed. Admitting that his system could be wrong only adds respect to his opinions but they do or should not absolve him from being disagreed on.

[tzipi]

Regardless of who you work for, everyone is entitled to an opinion. For my time here I can see there are some good ideas by some of the posters here and I doubt they all work in the industry. It really has no relevance...I respect what Andy Beyer writes but he is not above taking on on certain subjects, afterall he would be the 1st to admit there was an error to coming up with poly numbers last year, and he set out to admitting that it had to be addressed. Admitting that his system could be wrong only adds respect to his opinions but they do or should not absolve him from being disagreed on.

Ok thats fine about Andy. I was just talking about you saying in your posts that your assertion was correct over all the top trainers opinions that synthetic is exactly like turf. Then saying I have no etiquette for asking if your in the industry? You probably aren't. It's ok. You never went to a party and asked someone what they do while talking to them? No class,right? Ok sure.
Anyway I'll stay with what horsemen say about synthetic being exactly like turf and that it is not a dirt surface.

[Show Me the Wire]

Ok thats fine about Andy. I was just talking about you saying in your posts that your assertion was correct over all the top trainers opinions that synthetic is exactly like turf. Then saying I have no etiquette for asking if your in the industry? You probably aren't. It's ok. You never went to a party and asked someone what they do while talking to them? No class,right? Ok sure.
Anyway I'll stay with what horsemen say about synthetic being exactly like turf and that it is not a dirt surface.


Didn't Linda Rice win the trainer's title due to her success in turf sprints at Saratoga? So if AWS is the same as turf, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that she would have the same success on AWS sprints, unless AWS played like a 3rd surface?

[tzipi]

Didn't Linda Rice win the trainer's title due to her success in turf sprints at Saratoga? So if AWS is the same as turf, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that she would have the same success on AWS sprints, unless AWS played like a 3rd surface?

There's turf in NY and homes in NY. Plus I 'm sure she saw all the breakdowns at Del Mar's poly compared to basically none at Saratoga. Why would she put her horses in danger to run at that other top summer meet?
Again, Ill go with what top trainers in the world say. I'm sure THEY know. :)

She tunes her horses up for Belmont and Saratoga every year. They have turf courses for her. Why ship out??

[Show Me the Wire]

Her horses,career and life is in NY. Plus I 'm sure she saw all the breakdowns at Del Mar's poly compared to basically none at Saratoga. Why would she put her horses in danger to run at that other top summer meet?
Again, Ill go with what top trainers in the world say. I'm sure THEY know. :)


I was thinking along the lines of Keeneland and the easy pickings at Arlington. I understand the part about her home being in N.Y.

[tzipi]

I was thinking along the lines of Keeneland and the easy pickings at Arlington. I understand the part about her home being in N.Y.

She doesn't run her horses hard all year. She will run her horses at Tampa Bay Downs during winter if she needs be. She spots runs alot during winter but doesn't run full force until April through October. She's done very well standings wise and money wise doing this. No need to kill horses all year like alot do.

Plus, she has ran at Keeneland plenty of times.

[illinoisbred]

Arlington would be like old home week-she's from Racine, Wisconsin.

[Greyfox]

So if AWS is the same as turf, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that she would have the same success on AWS sprints, unless AWS played like a 3rd surface?

All Weather surfaces are not turf.
In fact there are marked differences between the AW strains.
Some turf horses can handle them, many can't.

[tzipi]

Arlington would be like old home week-she's from Racine, Wisconsin.

She's going to run at Arlington over Belmont and Saratoga? No way.

[tzipi]

All Weather surfaces are not turf.
In fact there are marked differences between the AW strains.
Some turf horses can handle them, many can't.

Show me the Wire I think is saying it's not turf. I was saying it is because of what trainers all over say how it's built and how they say it runs. I'm just going with them. Is it green and fluffy? No :D . But doesn't mean its not a synthetic turf.

[Show Me the Wire]

She's going to run at Arlington over Belmont and Saratoga? Ha yeah.

Not in the same league? :lol: :lol: :lol: Don't tell that to Double D ;), about his world class track.

It has probably the best physical turf course in the U.S. though, I am sure Rice's horses would gobble it up..

[illinoisbred]

She's going to run at Arlington over Belmont and Saratoga? Ha yeah.
No,of course not. I'm just saying she grew up about 40 miles north of the track. Besides, those NY breds would be up the track against the tough turf sprinters here. :)

[tzipi]

Not in the same league? :lol: :lol: :lol: Don't tell that to Double D ;), about his world class track.

It has probably the best physical turf course in the U.S. though, I am sure Rice's horses would gobble it up..

Oh am I trashing it? No def not. I'm just saying I don't think she would ever leave Belmont and Saratoga racing to got Arlington. I said it laughing because why leave top meets where you dominate?

[Show Me the Wire]

Oh am I trashing it? No def not. I'm just saying I don't think she would ever leave Belmont and Saratoga racing to got Arlington. I said it laughing because why leave top meets where you dominate?

You are right why play in the minors when you can play in the majors. AP is no where as prestigious as Belmont or Saratoga or financially lucrative purse wise.

However, this has nothing to do with winemaker and his graciousness or lack of. I will no longer contribute to further thread drift.

[cj]

He's right, though. She went beyond her distance limitations when she won the Preakness.
You as a sectional time expert must agree that her finishes in 9F races are significantly better. She's not a Classic distance horse. I'd lay you 5/1 that she won't win the Classic if she was at the start.

You can't talk about one part of the race (the finishing times) without mentioning the pace. Of course if she had to duel in longer races at the same rate she did in the Preakness and the Woodward, she might lose. But, that is no guarantee to happen. In one she drew the 13 of 14 post with a bunch of speed inside. With the other she drew the rail against older, stronger, and bigger male foes. Neither of those is exactly ideal.

[Kimsus]

Ok thats fine about Andy. I was just talking about you saying in your posts that your assertion was correct over all the top trainers opinions that synthetic is exactly like turf. Then saying I have no etiquette for asking if your in the industry? You probably aren't. It's ok. You never went to a party and asked someone what they do while talking to them? No class,right? Ok sure.
Anyway I'll stay with what horsemen say about synthetic being exactly like turf and that it is not a dirt surface.

If you phrased it better as you did here, you may have gotten a better response but you kept asking, no one likes to be baggered. Regardless I'd rather not talk about anything personal when it comes to myself. I want to concentrate on horse related banter. Nothing personal...

As for trainers saying synthetics are exactly like turf I haven't read or heard of this. Do certain turf horses run well over it yes, do they always run well over it? No. Do dirt horses run well over it yes and no...It's generally regarded as a 3rd surface in Europe, Australia, and in the US. There are horses in Europe that can't run a lick on turf but are able to excel over All weather. Perhaps you misunderstood what they have said, if they mean it plays more like a turf race, then I would agree.

[tzipi]

If you phrased it better as you did here, you may have gotten a better response but you kept asking, no one likes to be baggered. Regardless I'd rather not talk about anything personal when it comes to myself. I want to concentrate on horse related banter. Nothing personal...

As for trainers saying synthetics are exactly like turf I haven't read or heard of this. Do certain turf horses run well over it yes, do they always run well over it? No. Do dirt horses run well over it yes and no...It's generally regarded as a 3rd surface in Europe, Australia, and in the US. There are horses in Europe that can't run a lick on turf but are able to excel over All weather. Perhaps you misunderstood what they have said, if they mean it plays more like a turf race, then I would agree.

I just asked if your in the horse racing business. Geez :rolleyes: Like I asked about something really bad? Baggered? You kept on saying you disagree with world class trainer assertions and I can't ask if you're in the buisness and why you think that way! Then don't expose youself as saying your opinion is correct over trainers opinions I cited. Don't make excuses. Give me a break!

[tzipi]

Oh by the way KIMSUS. If we were on a film and movie board and you said a ceratin MM film was better than another when shooting and I asked if you were in the buisness and are you sure. I'm so sure you would say I'm so rude for asking, right? Unbelievable. Like I was making fun? You backed off with an excuse.
Did I ask what you make,where you work or live??? NO. I just asked if you were in the industry. What a joke.

[Stillriledup]

Haven't we established that final (synth/poly) times can be misleading, I'm tired of reading and or hearing people distorting beyer numbers or final times just in an effort to make their horse look good.

Jackson better get Rachel back on the track and run her against the best horses in training, and I don't mean the Macho Again's. No excuses to not have her run in the BC this year. She will be well rested enough, that was last yrs excuse...

on the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita Park ,in which Raven’s Pass covered 1¼ miles in 1:59.27,was better than the group Zenyatta beat this year, when she became the first female to win the Classic after covering the distance in 2:00.62

LOL Macho Again is a millionaire. In fact, isn't he close to TWO million?

[Stillriledup]

Zenyatta has a chance to be an all-time great. If she wins the BCC on dirt this year I think Jess Jackson will find some excuse.


If I was him, I would keep my mouth shut about Zenyatta. There is simply ZERO chance Rachel Alexandra could beat her in a 10f race at Churchill.

Rachel can beat anyone at 9f, but to think she can handle a top horse at 10f is laughable.

This might be the post of the year for comedy purposes.

[sandpit]

Yup, Polytrack is the fairer course. Just look at the dirt horses to Poly horses in the BC....0-43! Yup, very fair :lol:

I've gotta take issue with this 0-43 stat that all the synth-haters uses as their mantra. (I'm not a fan of it either, just playing devil's advocate). The sample is way too small to say with any certainty that it is exclusively the track's fault. Good horses, like Zenyatta, Rachel Alexandra, Midnight Lute or Einstein, can win on a variety of surfaces. If Jess Jackson the Obstinate took Rachel to CA this year, she would win just like anywhere else.

Another thing on the stat. It reminds me of when Bobby Frankel was 0 for 40-something in the BC. He didn't suddenly become a worse trainer those days; he just needed the right horse; and when he got his Zenyatta (Intercontinental,
Banks Hill, etc.), he broke the streak. If the BC runs on the synth in the future, dirt based horses will win some of the races.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I've gotta take issue with this 0-43 stat that all the synth-haters uses as their mantra. (I'm not a fan of it either, just playing devil's advocate). The sample is way too small to say with any certainty that it is exclusively the track's fault. Good horses, like Zenyatta, Rachel Alexandra, Midnight Lute or Einstein, can win on a variety of surfaces. If Jess Jackson the Obstinate took Rachel to CA this year, she would win just like anywhere else.

Another thing on the stat. It reminds me of when Bobby Frankel was 0 for 40-something in the BC. He didn't suddenly become a worse trainer those days; he just needed the right horse; and when he got his Zenyatta (Intercontinental,
Banks Hill, etc.), he broke the streak. If the BC runs on the synth in the future, dirt based horses will win some of the races.

Cigar wasn't much of a horse on the turf, but he turned out to be an okay horse (understatement) when Mott moved him to the dirt. Therefore, I don't think it's right to say good horses can win on a variety surfaces. Some horses prefer traditional dirt, not the Poly and not the turf.

[sandpit]

Cigar wasn't much of a horse on the turf, but he turned out to be an okay horse (understatement) when Mott moved him to the dirt. Therefore, I don't think it's right to say good horses can win on a variety surfaces. Some horses prefer traditional dirt, not the Poly and not the turf.

You are 100% correct, I should have said that some very good horses win on a variety of surfaces. One of my all-time favorites, Lure, semi-resurrected himself on the turf. I say semi because he was a stakes winner and track record setter on the dirt too.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You are 100% correct, I should have said that some very good horses win on a variety of surfaces. One of my all-time favorites, Lure, semi-resurrected himself on the turf. I say semi because he was a stakes winner and track record setter on the dirt too.

Fair enough. I think JJ was correct not to run RA on the Poly. I would be interested to see Z on the turf, though. To me, that's much more logical.

[Robert Fischer]

"most" good horses "handle" a variety of surfaces.

That doesn't often translate to an equal chance of winning top stakes races.

Running style, the strength of the different divisions and other factors come into play.

Curlin could dust his dirt division(wanderin boy, mambo in seattle, einstein) on an off day.

in the breeders cup he's suddenly in with a couple truely world class animals

How many lengths different is the competition, before you even look at the surface??

[WinterTriangle]

I just saw it mentioned yesterday on drf.com that Musket Man was heading to the Super Stakes at Tampa Bay Downs on Saturday, Feb 6, which is coincidentially where I will be that day for HANA Day at the Races and I am really looking forward to seeing him make his 2010 debut.

You lucky girl. Please PM me afterwards and tell me if he looks like the firebreather I'm thinking I see. :) What a gorgeous hunk o' horse.

[gm10]

You can't talk about one part of the race (the finishing times) without mentioning the pace. Of course if she had to duel in longer races at the same rate she did in the Preakness and the Woodward, she might lose. But, that is no guarantee to happen. In one she drew the 13 of 14 post with a bunch of speed inside. With the other she drew the rail against older, stronger, and bigger male foes. Neither of those is exactly ideal.

Oh but I can. There is a section of the race that EACH CLASSIC HORSE can run in a certain amount of time, regardless of pace (as long as it's not completely suicidal). I call it the golden fraction. RA didn't run it in the Preakness. She did over 9F but that's not a Classic distance.

[gm10]

"For one thing, Polytrack affects a horse's gait. Unlike dirt, the plastic stuff has no kickback, giving it a solid footing similar to grass. Turf horses thrive on the new surface, and Polytrack races often resemble turf races: The horses jog in slow motion until the final turn, when they unleash their finishing kicks.

Earlier this year, I watched a Polytrack race and a dirt race side by side at a Las Vegas sports book. They looked like they had been beamed from different planets. At Aqueduct, a Queens, N.Y., racetrack that has so far refused to go plastic, the deep brown dirt was scored with long hoof divots. The Turfway surface, by contrast, looked as sterile as sawdust. On the dirt, freewheeling frontrunners could not be caught in the stretch. Turfway's plasticized races were still up for grabs an eighth of a mile from the wire. Dirt races are won with speed from the gate; Polytrack seems to reward stamina."

I've posted numbers on this quite a few times now. The turf-to-poly angle is a myth. There were a few high profile cases, but the overall numbers show that these horses win less than other categories, and at much shorter prices.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

All Weather surfaces (whether it be cushion, pro-ride, polytrack or whatever) are not turf. Why people refer to All Weather tracks as turf is puzzling. Turf is a better surface than AWS or dirt

[Kimsus]

I just asked if your in the horse racing business. Geez :rolleyes: Like I asked about something really bad? Baggered? You kept on saying you disagree with world class trainer assertions and I can't ask if you're in the buisness and why you think that way! Then don't expose youself as saying your opinion is correct over trainers opinions I cited. Don't make excuses. Give me a break!

I lost count but asking the same question 5 times until I addressed that I would like to retain a certain degree of privacy is abit extreme wouldn't you say? By the way which Trainer's have told you that Poly is exactly the same as turf? I believe that was your quote. Everyone here who has an ounce of logic knows this is 100% incorrect.

[tzipi]

I lost count but asking the same question 5 times until I addressed that I would like to retain a certain degree of privacy is abit extreme wouldn't you say? By the way which Trainer's have told you that Poly is exactly the same as turf? I believe that was your quote. Everyone here who has an ounce of logic knows this is 100% incorrect.

Because you knew you didn't want to give the answer so you avoided it five times. Privacy? You are claiming better knowledge than world class trainers and say their assertions are wrong and I can't ask the simple question, are you in the buisness? Yeah really bad question. Like I asked your adress or where you work :D Keep making excuses Kimsus. So ridiculous.

[tzipi]

If Jess Jackson the Obstinate took Rachel to CA this year, she would win just like anywhere else.

Well if it's all the same,then Moss could've took Zen somewhere else then the one state with one surface. She would've won like anywhere else,right?

[joanied]

For the millionth time, raw final time does not matter much on a 10F race on the synthetics. It doesn't even mean that much in a 10F race on the dirt.

Curlin was going out of form and moved too soon; a few sharper horses ridden by more patient jockey's picked up a horse who was in many respects tired. End of.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: there ya go!!

[joanied]

Haven't we established that final (synth/poly) times can be misleading, I'm tired of reading and or hearing people distorting beyer numbers or final times just in an effort to make their horse look good.

Jackson better get Rachel back on the track and run her against the best horses in training, and I don't mean the Macho Again's. No excuses to not have her run in the BC this year. She will be well rested enough, that was last yrs excuse...

on the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita Park ,in which Raven’s Pass covered 1¼ miles in 1:59.27,was better than the group Zenyatta beat this year, when she became the first female to win the Classic after covering the distance in 2:00.62

Disagree with that, Kimus...Rachel had a tough campaign, and after the Woodward, she was tired...and she had every reason to be...that is not an excuse, that is an owner and trainer who knew when to stop on a horse.

[joanied]

“Curlin ran four ticks faster than Zenyatta this last race on that turf. This group of older
horses was not the competition that Curlin had a year ago, at least as measured by time
and the quality of horses in the race.”

Furthermore, I wonder does he see the hyprocrisy in this statement...Or has he sat down and analyzed the quality of the competition that Rachel faced in the Woodward last year. :confused:

You seem to be stuck on that one race...she ran in 7 others ya know:)

[joanied]

Contrary to belief, I really don't care about HOY. I care who the better horse is and if Jess Jackson is brave enough, then we will all know the answer is the Big Girl.

One can throw in Summer Bird, I suspect he would be more than a handful for Rachel if and when he is healthy again.

Rachel already best Summer Bird. And you can bet Jackson will be brave enough!! (and this has nothing to do with which of the two mares I might be particial to.)

[tzipi]

Disagree with that, Kimus...Rachel had a tough campaign, and after the Woodward, she was tired...and she had every reason to be...that is not an excuse, that is an owner and trainer who knew when to stop on a horse.

I totally agreed with this on another thread too. I like how people sit on their couches and just want horses to run run run no mater how tired they are. RA ran a long, hard campaign(How many races,tracks,states). Zenny had an easier one and was well rested. What 3yo filly runs the kind of campaign RA did last year? She was tired after that Woodward and I'm glad they rested her and didn't put her in a dangerous position to please some people or to try and win another race.

[joanied]

NO MATTER how many top class dirt horses run up the track on poly every "dirt" championship race.

NO MATTER how many world class trainers(American and European) say it's exactly like turf.

NO MATTER how many articles that have been posted on PA about trainers saying they would not have entered the BC "dirt" race if it was at a dirt track.

NO MATTER how many turf horses win "dirt" races and fill out the boards in the BC's like never before, Kimsus will just keep saying he knows more and that all these things are just BS and that polyturf is the fairest DIRT surface out there.


Hey if the BC was at belmont this year, would Gio Ponti have still entered the Classic or would it have been the Turf Classic for him. :D

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Kimsus]

Rachel already best Summer Bird. And you can bet Jackson will be brave enough!! (and this has nothing to do with which of the two mares I might be particial to.)

Once, but this is a new year and I hope Jackson gives him a chance to show he is not 10 lengths the lesser than Rachel. ;)

[joanied]

Summer Bird "was" on the improve. He's not now.

Speaking of improves, if you saw recent photos of Musket Man....WOWSA! He looks like a tank that breathes fire. Lets just say he looks like he has, um, developed.


As for Jackson, dunno why he's hashing out the past. Doesn't he have a horse to train? Rachel has a tough year coming up, if he puts her where she belongs. He should be thinking about that.

Where did ya see the photos of him, Winter T...I'm crazy about that horse...I'll have to look up the entries at Tampa Bay for on 2/6...:jump:

[Kimsus]

Disagree with that, Kimus...Rachel had a tough campaign, and after the Woodward, she was tired...and she had every reason to be...that is not an excuse, that is an owner and trainer who knew when to stop on a horse.

I think Summer Bird had the tougher campaign, but yep she did have a gruelling for almost 9 months !

[joanied]

You lucky girl. Please PM me afterwards and tell me if he looks like the firebreather I'm thinking I see. :) What a gorgeous hunk o' horse.

Miesque....Me too:jump: please...

[joanied]

Once, but this is a new year and I hope Jackson gives him a chance to show he is not 10 lengths the lesser than Rachel. ;)

No doubt Jackson will not be affraid to run Rachel against Summer Bird again...but, this is jumping the gun...SB has a way to go yet before he's back...by the way...I'm a huge fan of this colt. (who wouldn't be;) )

[joanied]

I think Summer Bird had the tougher campaign, but yep she did have a gruelling for almost 9 months !

Are you being sarcastic...hope not:confused:

[Kimsus]

Are you being sarcastic...hope not:confused:

It was a half joke/half reality statement. What's wrong with humor mixed in with the facts? :ThmbUp:

[joanied]

It was a half joke/half reality statement. What's wrong with humor mixed in with the facts? :ThmbUp:

Not a thing wrong with it...but if you are going to interject humor...you might want it to come across as funny...not sarcastic...maybe use one of these;
:lol: :D ....live and learn;)

[Kimsus]

Not a thing wrong with it...but if you are going to interject humor...you might want it to come across as funny...not sarcastic...maybe use one of these;
:lol: :D ....live and learn;)

I'm going to guess you are a lady and not a dude, so I do get why you do not like the sacastic humor. We men love sarcastic humor. :lol:

[sandpit]

Well if it's all the same,then Moss could've took Zen somewhere else then the one state with one surface. She would've won like anywhere else,right?

Actually, I was speaking in terms of 2010, but yes, Zenyatta should be able to win anywhere in the country.

[DeanT]

KEE has Finley's article up on their site. Interesting read. I agree with Dickinson on Jackson re Curlin. I think he has a ginormous chip on his shoulder losing this race and it spawned a lot of the hyperbole we have read from him the past 12 months.

http://www.keeneland.com/Reference/GroundControl.pdf

Michael Dickinson is among those
who believe Jackson’s real problem
is a failure to accept Curlin’s defeat
a year earlier in the Breeders’ Cup
Classic over the Pro-Ride surface.
Instead of blaming his horse, he
seemed to find an easy excuse in the
racing surface, Dickinson said.
“Jess Jackson blamed the synthetic
surface at Santa Anita for Curlin’s
defeat in the Breeders’ Cup Classic,”
Dickinson began. “He ignores
the fact that in his last two races he
struggled to beat inferior opposition;
he was life-and-death to beat Wanderin
Boy and Past the Point, who
have never won a Grade I race between
them. He was almost certainly
past his peak from the brilliance
we had seen in the Breeders’ Cup
the previous year and in the Dubai
World Cup. It was obvious that the
horse handled the surface and moved
well.”

[tucker6]

I'm going to guess you are a lady and not a dude, so I do get why you do not like the sacastic humor. We men love sarcastic humor. :lol:
I have it on good authority that Joanied is not a lady. She is a woman though. :lol:

[joanied]

I have it on good authority that Joanied is not a lady. She is a woman though. :lol:

:lol: I love that...thanks, tucker6:)

[tzipi]

Actually, I was speaking in terms of 2010, but yes, Zenyatta should be able to win anywhere in the country.

Hey I'm a fan of both although I love RA just a tad wee bit more but I think both are going to go places and do their thing in 2010. :)

[joanied]

I'm going to guess you are a lady and not a dude, so I do get why you do not like the sacastic humor. We men love sarcastic humor. :lol:

#1...how'd you guess I'm a woman...did my user name give it away :D

#2...we women love sarcastic humor...as long as it makes sense :D

#3...how'd you come to the conclusion that women don't enjoy sarcastic humor:confused:

[tzipi]

KEE has Finley's article up on their site. Interesting read. I agree with Dickinson on Jackson re Curlin. I think he has a ginormous chip on his shoulder losing this race and it spawned a lot of the hyperbole we have read from him the past 12 months.

http://www.keeneland.com/Reference/GroundControl.pdf


Well Michael is one who pushes synthetics and his tapeta surface all over the world. He's def going to be against anyone against synthetics no matter what.

[Kimsus]

KEE has Finley's article up on their site. Interesting read. I agree with Dickinson on Jackson re Curlin. I think he has a ginormous chip on his shoulder losing this race and it spawned a lot of the hyperbole we have read from him the past 12 months.

http://www.keeneland.com/Reference/GroundControl.pdf

This is the best article written about the misconceptions regarding synthetics to date, it is a must read for those who want to be enlightened on the subject. It would be easy to give into the fear mongering that the anti-poly movement would want horsefans believe, neither does Finlay portray synthetics as being perfect, but they are far the disaster that they are portrayed by some.

[tzipi]

Two sides to every coin. From L.A. Times.

"Despite some statistics that show there have been fewer fatalities during races, there is no consensus among owners and trainers that the switch to the synthetic surface has made any difference in preventing the deaths of thoroughbreds. Medical research has shown an increase in soft-tissue injuries, and this summer Del Mar had more deaths than usual during training."

"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."

Del Mar in 2009 had numerous fatalities compared to almost none at Saratoga.
I guess I would love to see OVERALL makeup of how horses have done injury wise. Morning workouts,races,etc over a good period of time. Dont really know whats overall better. So many injury differences between the two. Also jockeys HATE the plastic as they say it's like concrete and causing more injuries to them. Not talking about betting wise.

[DeanT]

it is a must read for those who want to be enlightened on the subject.
I agree, a definite read (no matter what side you are on) and I learned quite a bit. It was nice to read the issues without the anecdotal or high-school-type demagoguery. This debate is filled with so much bullcrap it is hard to even read most times (imo).

Regardless, Dr Blea's work will be something to see when he is done (imo). He seems to believe that non-uniformity is key and Dr. Peterson thought the same. When smart guys like that without a dog in the fight say something similar based on science only, it resonates with me.

PS: After reading the story and adding my own anedoctal to the mix - Turfway this year has not had a huge path bias, unlike past years. I wonder if they have learned to work uniformity there by getting a better handle on synth and that can translate to even fewer breakdowns.

[Dahoss9698]

Furthest Land is not bad on dirt.
Zenyatta handles the dirt.
Informed Decision wins on the dirt.
Papa Clem just won a nice race @ SA after winning on the dirt.

It's not all as black and white as people make it out to be.

I know I'm late to the party. While it's not black and white, it's definitely not as gray as you are making it either.

For starters Furthest Land is bad on dirt. Unless of course you're claiming him "not bad" based on his win at Indiana Downs....in an off the turf listed stake over 3 other horses. His career got going stretching out on grass. Like many other turf horses he runs as good if not better on synth. He stinks on dirt.

Informed Decisions races on dirt have been vastly inferior, performance wise to her races on synthetic.

Papa Clem was a second tier 3 year old that would have been a second tier 4 year old had he not got hurt. He was better on dirt, but could run on both.

It's a third surface that plays like turf.

[Kimsus]

Two sides to every coin. From L.A. Times.

"Despite some statistics that show there have been fewer fatalities during races, there is no consensus among owners and trainers that the switch to the synthetic surface has made any difference in preventing the deaths of thoroughbreds. Medical research has shown an increase in soft-tissue injuries, and this summer Del Mar had more deaths than usual during training."

"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."

Del Mar in 2009 had numerous fatalities compared to almost none at Saratoga.
I guess I would love to see OVERALL makeup of how horses have done injury wise. Morning workouts,races,etc over a good period of time. Dont really know whats overall better. So many injury differences between the two. Also jockeys HATE the plastic as they say it's like concrete and causing more injuries to them. Not talking about betting wise.

A March, 2008 article in the Daily
Racing Form reported that data collected
during the first six months of
2007 showed that there was no significant
difference between fatality rates
on dirt and synthetic tracks. The article
was not correct; the data showed that
synthetic tracks were, in fact, safer.
The problem occurred because a presenter
at The Jockey Club’s Welfare
and Safety of the Racehorse summit
misinterpreted some of the available
information and made some errors
during her talk.
An August 2009 report in the Los
Angeles Times featured the headline
“Thoroughbreds suffer a higher
number of fatal injuries on synthetic
surfaces than dirt.” It included
the information that there were 19
deaths in 2008 at California tracks
on synthetics that were directly related
to hind-end injuries, and just
one death on dirt surfaces related
to a hind-end injury. That led the
reporter to conclude that when it
came to hind-end injuries, synthetic
surfaces were much more dangerous
than dirt.
What the reporter apparently
didn’t understand was that the vast
majority of all main track races
in California are run on synthetic
tracks. With only Fairplex and the
Northern California fair tracks still
racing on the dirt, it was hardly a
surprise that synthetic surfaces produced
more fatal hind end injuries
than dirt surfaces. The entire article
was based on a badly flawed premise.

[tzipi]

A March, 2008 article in the Daily
Racing Form reported that data collected
during the first six months of
2007 showed that there was no significant
difference between fatality rates
on dirt and synthetic tracks. The article
was not correct; the data showed that
synthetic tracks were, in fact, safer.
The problem occurred because a presenter
at The Jockey Club’s Welfare
and Safety of the Racehorse summit
misinterpreted some of the available
information and made some errors
during her talk.
An August 2009 report in the Los
Angeles Times featured the headline
“Thoroughbreds suffer a higher
number of fatal injuries on synthetic
surfaces than dirt.” It included
the information that there were 19
deaths in 2008 at California tracks
on synthetics that were directly related
to hind-end injuries, and just
one death on dirt surfaces related
to a hind-end injury. That led the
reporter to conclude that when it
came to hind-end injuries, synthetic
surfaces were much more dangerous
than dirt.
What the reporter apparently
didn’t understand was that the vast
majority of all main track races
in California are run on synthetic
tracks. With only Fairplex and the
Northern California fair tracks still
racing on the dirt, it was hardly a
surprise that synthetic surfaces produced
more fatal hind end injuries
than dirt surfaces. The entire article
was based on a badly flawed premise.


Well I was also talking about reading about trainers saying they are seeing injuries they never seen before. Pretty sure they're not lying over the last couple years about that. Plus it was fact Del Mar had lots of fatalities and Saratoga had basically none this summer. As I said I'm not TRASHING this stuff as a safety surface. I just don't think it's been long enough to know overall. My posts are not about handicapping the synth at all. I'm just talking about horses taking to it body wise. I'm not saying its horrible or its great. Just posting different articles.

It's hard because there are tons of articles for it with numbers and facts and tons against it with numbers and facts.

[FenceBored]

A March, 2008 article in the Daily
Racing Form reported that data collected
during the first six months of
2007 showed that there was no significant
difference between fatality rates
on dirt and synthetic tracks. The article
was not correct; the data showed that
synthetic tracks were, in fact, safer.
The problem occurred because a presenter
at The Jockey Club’s Welfare
and Safety of the Racehorse summit
misinterpreted some of the available
information and made some errors
during her talk.
An August 2009 report in the Los
Angeles Times featured the headline
“Thoroughbreds suffer a higher
number of fatal injuries on synthetic
surfaces than dirt.” It included
the information that there were 19
deaths in 2008 at California tracks
on synthetics that were directly related
to hind-end injuries, and just
one death on dirt surfaces related
to a hind-end injury. That led the
reporter to conclude that when it
came to hind-end injuries, synthetic
surfaces were much more dangerous
than dirt.
What the reporter apparently
didn’t understand was that the vast
majority of all main track races
in California are run on synthetic
tracks. With only Fairplex and the
Northern California fair tracks still
racing on the dirt, it was hardly a
surprise that synthetic surfaces produced
more fatal hind end injuries
than dirt surfaces. The entire article
was based on a badly flawed premise.

It is customary to clearly indicate the source of material when using an extended quote from a published article, in this case from page 13 of Bill Finley's laugh riot "Ground Control."

[Kimsus]

It is customary to clearly indicate the source of material when using an extended quote from a published article, in this case from page 13 of Bill Finley's laugh riot "Ground Control."

Please expand on "laugh riot" for us.

[FenceBored]

Please expand on "laugh riot" for us.

'Laugh riot' meaning comical, nonsensical, or whimsical.

[Kimsus]

'Laugh riot' meaning comical, nonsensical, or whimsical.

Name a better written article that goes into so much detail based on stats and experts opinions that is not a instrument for the pro dirt or pro poly interests?

[tzipi]

Name a better written article that goes into so much detail based on stats and experts opinions that is not a instrument for the pro dirt or pro poly interests?

Does it really matter? When people have posted articles on numerous threads containing negative things about synthetics based on expert or world class trainers opinions, you just ignored it or said they are wrong and you know more about it(but we know ;) ). So why should your article post matter????

[FenceBored]

Name a better written article that goes into so much detail based on stats and experts opinions that is not a instrument for the pro dirt or pro poly interests?

:faint::lol::lol:

It would be hard to think of a worse written article, from the standpoint of unbiased journalism. From the clear advocacy for the interests of the advertisers/sponsors of the article, to the cherrypicking of data, to the inappropriateness of the following quote:
To fully understand why so many people so dislike something that has apparently save the lives of a lot of horses may require and advanced degree in psychology ...
-- "Ground Control" by Bill Finley, page 12.
I, a nameless toiler in the fields of internet forums, may opine as to the mental health of my interlocutors (not that I'm doing that at this particular moment, maybe later), but for a "journalist" to engage in such speculation, in a piece he portrays as telling "the (real) truth," is underhanded and reveals him to be merely a propagandist.

[Kimsus]

Does it really matter? When people have posted articles on numerous threads containing negative things about synthetics based on expert or world class trainers opinions, you just ignored it or said they are wrong and you know more about it(but we know ;) ). So why should your article post matter????

Obviously you never bothered reading the entire article or you would have noticed the experts as you like to call them were quoted on the last page and I dare say they are alot more knowledgeable than you or I. That's unless you are more clever than Roger Attfield, Dick Mandella, Graham Motion and even dirt-centric Frostad just to name a few just to be fair...

[Kimsus]

:faint::lol::lol:

It would be hard to think of a worse written article, from the standpoint of unbiased journalism. From the clear advocacy for the interests of the advertisers/sponsors of the article, to the cherrypicking of data, to the inappropriateness of the following quote:
To fully understand why so many people so dislike something that has apparently save the lives of a lot of horses may require and advanced degree in psychology ...
-- "Ground Control" by Bill Finley, page 12.
I, a nameless toiler in the fields of internet forums, may opine as to the mental health of my interlocutors (not that I'm doing that at this particular moment, maybe later), but for a "journalist" to engage in such speculation, in a piece he portrays as telling "the (real) truth," is underhanded and reveals him to be merely a propagandist.

I take this as a no then to my question...Well let me know when you do find an article that meets your approval...I can't wait for that biased report.

[FenceBored]

I take this as a no then to my question...Well let me know when you do find an article that meets your approval...I can't wait for that biased report.

Heck, I'll start you out with two:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52317/back-leg-injuries-tied-to-synthetic-tracks

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/28/sports/sp-horse-injuries28

The latter is the article which Dr. Arthur gets Mr. Finley to rubbish. It concludes with this unbiased passage:
Kinde declined to say whether synthetic or dirt tracks were safer.

"The data is not yet analyzed," he said.

Did you see anything like that in Mr. Finley's piece? Nope, nothing but "Richard Shapiro, you're my hero" and "ya gots to be crazy not to loves this stuff." Please.

[tzipi]

Obviously you never bothered reading the entire article or you would have noticed the experts as you like to call them were quoted on the last page and I dare say they are alot more knowledgeable than you or I. That's unless you are more clever than Roger Attfield, Dick Mandella, Graham Motion and even dirt-centric Frostad just to name a few just to be fair...

Man, you really are not that smart! :D I never said I knew more than world class trainers. You did! well we know how that turned out.
If you read my post just before I said I have no opinion about if they are better or not for horses right now,so how am I anti-synth?? This is about the surface as a safety surface not handicapping. Unreal :bang:
Keep attacking on something you're making up if it makes you feel better.

[FenceBored]

An August 2009 report in the Los
Angeles Times featured the headline
“Thoroughbreds suffer a higher
number of fatal injuries on synthetic
surfaces than dirt.” It included
the information that there were 19
deaths in 2008 at California tracks
on synthetics that were directly related
to hind-end injuries, and just
one death on dirt surfaces related
to a hind-end injury. That led the
reporter to conclude that when it
came to hind-end injuries, synthetic
surfaces were much more dangerous
than dirt.
What the reporter apparently
didn’t understand was that the vast
majority of all main track races
in California are run on synthetic
tracks. With only Fairplex and the
Northern California fair tracks still
racing on the dirt, it was hardly a
surprise that synthetic surfaces produced
more fatal hind end injuries
than dirt surfaces. The entire article
was based on a badly flawed premise.
-- "Ground Control" by Bill Finley, page 13 [attribution added]

The badly flawed premise is Mr. Finley's in his representation of the underlying data, and accepting Dr. Arthur's characterization of it (see below). The LA Times article does neglect to give the proper underpinning for making a comparison, but other accounts of the same presentation to the CHRB do give that foundation. An article (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52317/back-leg-injuries-tied-to-synthetic-tracks) in the Bloodhorse indicates that the synthetic figures were 19 of a total of 111 (17%), as compared to 1 of 65 (1.5%) for dirt. The actual report available from the CHRB website (http://www.chrb.ca.gov) (choose "publications" on the left hand side menu, and then "2008 Postmortem Examination Report" from the submenu to access the PDF). On page 12 of that report is table 10 which has the figures at 19 of 105 (18%) for synthetics versus 1 of 69 (1.4%) for dirt.

It's fun to compare Mr. Finley's quote of Dr. Arthur on this subject "It's not clear whether or not there are more hind-end injuries on synthetics," said Dr. Arthur. "The press grossly overstated it and took it out of context."
with the quote from the Bloodhorse article on the same data"This actually confirms that there are additional hind-end injuries on synthetic surfaces, which is what trainers have been telling us," said Dr. Rick Arthur, the CHRB's equine medical director.
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52317/back-leg-injuries-tied-to-synthetic-tracks
Kinda looks two-faced when you put them together like that, huh.

But, to be fair, something Mr. Finley might attempt in the future, here is the most accurate summation of the data:However, when comparing the incidence of rear limb injuries to 2006, the last full year without synthetic track surfaces, the total number of injuries are comparable (23 in 2008, 19 in 2006). There are not enough data to unequivocally state that there is any causal relationship between rear-limb injuries and synthetic track surfaces.
-- 2008 Postmortem Examination Report of the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System conducted for the California Horse Racing Board, page 12.
An interesting question might be, if latter years show the same distribution of rear-limb injuries: is there something about the way horses are raced at the major thoroughbred tracks in California which increases the risk of rear-limb injury as compared to the way horses are raced on the Fair circuit, i.e. is the surface irrelevant to an underlying risk factor?

[Show Me the Wire]

Fencebored:

Do you know what postmortem means?

Apparently not as both statements can be reconcilled. From a death perspective it is not clear there are more hind-end injuries (took out of context statement). However, there may be an increase in non-fatal recoverable hind-end injuries. as the trainers are reporting.

[FenceBored]

Fencebored:

Do you know what postmortem means?

Apparently not as both statements can be reconcilled. From a death perspective it is not clear there are more hind-end injuries (took out of context statement). However, there may be an increase in non-fatal recoverable hind-end injuries. as the trainers are reporting.

Do you know what "read the article the quote comes from" means? :bang:

Dr. Arthur's quote is right after, and refers to, the reporting of the postmortem (i.e. after death) data.

Geeze, try to be fair, give links to articles and reports, and even present the most accurate interpretation of the data (that of the report's writers), and what do I get? I'll tell you, abuse! :(

:D

[Kimsus]

The badly flawed premise is Mr. Finley's in his representation of the underlying data, and accepting Dr. Arthur's characterization of it (see below). The LA Times article does neglect to give the proper underpinning for making a comparison, but other accounts of the same presentation to the CHRB do give that foundation. An article (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52317/back-leg-injuries-tied-to-synthetic-tracks) in the Bloodhorse indicates that the synthetic figures were 19 of a total of 111 (17%), as compared to 1 of 65 (1.5%) for dirt. The actual report available from the CHRB website (http://www.chrb.ca.gov) (choose "publications" on the left hand side menu, and then "2008 Postmortem Examination Report" from the submenu to access the PDF). On page 12 of that report is table 10 which has the figures at 19 of 105 (18%) for synthetics versus 1 of 69 (1.4%) for dirt.

It's fun to compare Mr. Finley's quote of Dr. Arthur on this subject "It's not clear whether or not there are more hind-end injuries on synthetics," said Dr. Arthur. "The press grossly overstated it and took it out of context."
with the quote from the Bloodhorse article on the same data"This actually confirms that there are additional hind-end injuries on synthetic surfaces, which is what trainers have been telling us," said Dr. Rick Arthur, the CHRB's equine medical director.
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52317/back-leg-injuries-tied-to-synthetic-tracks
Kinda looks two-faced when you put them together like that, huh.

But, to be fair, something Mr. Finley might attempt in the future, here is the most accurate summation of the data:However, when comparing the incidence of rear limb injuries to 2006, the last full year without synthetic track surfaces, the total number of injuries are comparable (23 in 2008, 19 in 2006). There are not enough data to unequivocally state that there is any causal relationship between rear-limb injuries and synthetic track surfaces.
-- 2008 Postmortem Examination Report of the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System conducted for the California Horse Racing Board, page 12.
An interesting question might be, if latter years show the same distribution of rear-limb injuries: is there something about the way horses are raced at the major thoroughbred tracks in California which increases the risk of rear-limb injury as compared to the way horses are raced on the Fair circuit, i.e. is the surface irrelevant to an underlying risk factor?

Not from a catastrophic injury point of view, that's a rather large distinction between rear limb injuries. Where even the sceptics would have a hard time disputing.

[Show Me the Wire]

Do you know what "read the article the quote comes from" means? :bang:

Dr. Arthur's quote is right after, and refers to, the reporting of the postmortem (i.e. after death) data.

Geeze, try to be fair, give links to articles and reports, and even present the most accurate interpretation of the data (that of the report's writers), and what do I get? I'll tell you, abuse! :(

:D


Okay, I'll play some more. I read th Blood Horse Article. I will maintain the statements are reconcillable. The higher figure of deaths can support more non-fatal injuries hind-end injuries being reported, which DR. Arthur clearly says. While the other statement can be referring to the increase in fatalities.

Where is the quote made to Finley and its context found?

[FenceBored]

Okay, I'll play some more. I read th Blood Horse Article. I will maintain the statements are reconcillable. The higher figure of deaths can support more non-fatal injuries hind-end injuries being reported, which DR. Arthur clearly says. While the other statement can be referring to the increase in fatalities.

Where is the quote made to Finley and its context found?

Page 13 of your favorite article by Bill Finley. I thought you had it memorized by now. :D

[FenceBored]

Not from a catastrophic injury point of view, that's a rather large distinction between rear limb injuries. Where even the sceptics would have a hard time disputing.

Could you clarify what you're saying here for me, please? Every quote in my post referred specifically, and exclusively to the subject of catastrophic rear-end injuries.

[Cratos]

From Thoroughbred Times Today, 1/26/2010:

“Curlin ran four ticks faster than Zenyatta this last race on that turf. This group of older
horses was not the competition that Curlin had a year ago, at least as measured by time
and the quality of horses in the race.”

Owner Jess Jackson, in the Pasadena Star-News, suggesting that the group of horses Curlin raced against in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup Classic(G1) on the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita Park ,in which Raven’s Pass covered 1¼ miles in 1:59.27,was better than the group Zenyatta beat this year, when she became the first female to win the Classic after covering the distance in 2:00.62

(Poster's note: On a Beyer basis, Raven's Pass earned a 110 and Zenyatta a 112.)

Although Curlin did run a faster BC Classic in 2008 than Zenyatta did in her effort this year because of a faster pace, but Zenyatta ran the better race

Comparisons

Final Time: Curlin – 1:59.74 and Zenyatta – 2:00.62

Last Mile: Curlin – 1:34.72 and Zenyatta – 1:33.92

Last Quarter: Curlin – 24.24 and Zenyatta – 23.32 (the fastest in the BC Classic history)

Last Eighth: Curlin – 12.14 and Zenyatta – 11.84

[Relwob Owner]

It is easy to take shots at Jackson for his brash remarks....however, it is the same brashness that led to him to buy Rachel Alexandra in the first place. Without him, we may have never seen her run against the boys at all.