Synthetic Surfaces and Artificial Promises - By Trainer Darrell Vienna

[andymays]

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/01/26/artificial-promises-by-darrell-vienna.aspx

Excerpt:

Purveyors of synthetic racing surfaces soon appeared like snake oil salesmen extolling the virtues of their remarkable products. Representatives of the surfaces eventually installed in Southern California claimed their products required “low to no” maintenance and minimal watering. More importantly, they pitched their products as being consistent, safer, and proven to reduce injuries.

Excerpt:

With each passing meet the synthetics began to lose luster. Horses began presenting new types of injuries. Hind leg lamenesses increased. Soft tissue injuries began to occur with alarming frequency.

Excerpt:

The opinions of apologists have been widely disseminated. They would have us believe synthetic surfaces reduce the rate of catastrophic race injuries. If the underlying data regarding injuries are accurate and the analysis is proper, the best that can be said is that concomitant with the introduction of synthetics, some tracks have reported fewer injuries of a specific type. A causal connection between synthetic surfaces and a reduced rate of catastrophic injury has yet to be established.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/01/26/artificial-promises-by-darrell-vienna.aspx

[Show Me the Wire]

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/01/26/artificial-promises-by-darrell-vienna.aspx

Excerpt:

Purveyors of synthetic racing surfaces soon appeared like snake oil salesmen extolling the virtues of their remarkable products. Representatives of the surfaces eventually installed in Southern California claimed their products required “low to no” maintenance and minimal watering. More importantly, they pitched their products as being consistent, safer, and proven to reduce injuries.

Excerpt:

With each passing meet the synthetics began to lose luster. Horses began presenting new types of injuries. Hind leg lamenesses increased. Soft tissue injuries began to occur with alarming frequency.

Excerpt:

The opinions of apologists have been widely disseminated. They would have us believe synthetic surfaces reduce the rate of catastrophic race injuries. If the underlying data regarding injuries are accurate and the analysis is proper, the best that can be said is that concomitant with the introduction of synthetics, some tracks have reported fewer injuries of a specific type. A causal connection between synthetic surfaces and a reduced rate of catastrophic injury has yet to be established.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/01/26/artificial-promises-by-darrell-vienna.aspx

Andymays have you read the following article?
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...oundControl.pd

It adresses the issues of hind-end injuries. The AWS have limited slide, which can be corrected, that can cause soft tissue injuries and hind end injuries. However, an important factor is the trainer's contribution to these injuries. Using toe grabs increases the odds of thes hind end injuries and soft tissue injuries. Th trainers have been informed of the link and yet many still use toe grabs. It is not a good idea to increase the negative effects of limited slide, by limiting the horses hoof ability to slide from even more with toe grabs. A simple common sense change of equipment will eleiminate a big concern of yours. Also, oils can be applied to the surface to help optimize the slide of the horses hoofs.

Additionally, the article states the new studies including the Jockey Club study will show the AWS in a favorable light regarding safety.

The AWS may need more water, so what?

What will be worse is three out of four California's tracks will be AWS and only one will be dirt if Santa Anita rushes towards dirt. A scenario most handicappers would more than likely avoid.

[andymays]

The Owners and Trainers are paying the Vet bills.

Do you think for a minute they believe that synthetics are safer and that they want to lose more horses and have higher vet bills?

They have had enough of the false assertions and lies from the manufacturers. The experiment had failed in their eyes and the eyes of many observers.

[Show Me the Wire]

The Owners and Trainers are paying the Vet bills.

Do you think for a minute they believe that synthetics are safer and that they want to lose more horses and have higher vet bills?

They have had enough of the false assertions and lies from the manufacturers. The experiment had failed in their eyes and the eyes of many observers.


Actually, if we believe in the AWS to dirt injury theory espoused by some, there will be more injuries and vet bills resulting from three AWS tracks and one (one is the loniest number) dirt track.

[FenceBored]

Andymays have you read the following article?
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...oundControl.pd

It adresses the issues of hind-end injuries. The AWS have limited slide, which can be corrected, that can cause soft tissue injuries and hind end injuries. However, an important factor is the trainer's contribution to these injuries. Using toe grabs increases the odds of thes hind end injuries and soft tissue injuries. Th trainers have been informed of the link and yet many still use toe grabs. It is not a good idea to increase the negative effects of limited slide, by limiting the horses hoof ability to slide from even more with toe grabs. A simple common sense change of equipment will eleiminate a big concern of yours. Also, oils can be applied to the surface to help optimize the slide of the horses hoofs.


Or, maybe it's been tried and rejected:

In response to the holiday meet fatality rate, Turfway instituted a number of changes, including an overturn of a previous ban on the use of rear-shoe toe grabs. The track also focused more on its track maintenance program as a way of alleviating the problem.
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/49581/catastrophic-injuries-spike-at-turfway

[Show Me the Wire]

Or, maybe it's been tried and rejected:

In response to the holiday meet fatality rate, Turfway instituted a number of changes, including an overturn of a previous ban on the use of rear-shoe toe grabs. The track also focused more on its track maintenance program as a way of alleviating the problem.
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/49581/catastrophic-injuries-spike-at-turfway





So you are disputing a current article regarding the current state, with an article form a year ago. It figures. BTW the article you qouted did not address the use of front shoe toe grabs, did it?

[FenceBored]

So you are disputing a current article regarding the current state, with an article form a year ago. It figures.

Just because someone published an article last week doesn't mean that they have their facts straight, or up to date. It seems like a lot of folks like to trot out the initial figures for Turfway "24 deaths down to 3" like it's current events, therefore I don't assume a polemic that starts with a hagiography of Richard Shapiro is going to be the most unbiased source of information.


BTW the article you qouted did not address the use of front shoe toe grabs, did it?

Nor does the article you're pimping, sunshine. I just did a keyword search for "front" through Mr. Finley's "Ode to a Greasy Error" and did not find a single occurance. In fact, the passage you're so fond of quoting is quite ambigous in that regard."... The trainers who complain most about soft tissue have been known to be obsessed with toe-grabs. Dr. Sue Stover of U.C.-Davis reports that toe-grabs are 17 times more likely to cause a suspensory injury. Even though the trainers have been warned of this, they still insist on using toe-grabs."
-- Michael Dickinson (Tapeta inventor) quoted on page 9 of "Ground Control," by Bill Finley for "TDN Magazine," Winter 2010.
Is that front grabs, or rear grabs? And didn't the AGSC try to have toe-grabs above 2mm banned at tracks who host a Graded race, only to have this bucked by Delaware Park when they had a higher incidence of injuries? Oh wait, I think there were just (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59308) a few (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59549) threads (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60574) on that last summer.

Do try to keep up with the news if you're going to debate people.

[Show Me the Wire]

I know the article didn't mention front grabs, that was my point. Reinstating the use of rear toe grabs does not indicate that front toe grabs do not contribute to the soft tissue injuries. Using common sense, any item inhibiting foot slide where limited foot slide is a problem, increases chances of injuries attributable to lack of foot slide.

Front-end toe grabs create traction and have long been suspected of increasing the chance of injuries to horses. You think that may have been the impetus behind the movement for the ban?

However, you continue to compare apples-to -oranges. Delaware park is a dirt surface and dirt surfaces can be too loose, causing too much foot slide. Front-end toe grabs, on certain dirt surfaces maybe necessary for safety issues.

Comparing two separate surfaces, which have opposite effects on hoof slide and two separate issues (overall safety of front-end toe grabs) proves your ability to troll through the false framing of arguments.

Recently in another thread you highlight the "dirt" injuries at GP and in this thread you misrepresent the easily understood concept of aggregation to delegitimize the potential of AWS to remedy a problem.

Since you are not interested in discourse, but conflict, I will leave you to your fun without my participation.

[FenceBored]

I know the article didn't mention front grabs, that was my point. Reinstating the use of rear toe grabs does not indicate that front toe grabs do not contribute to the soft tissue injuries. Using common sense, any item inhibiting foot slide where limited foot slide is a problem, increases chances of injuries attributable to lack of foot slide.

Front-end toe grabs create traction and have long been suspected of increasing the chance of injuries to horses. You think that may have been the impetus behind the movement for the ban?

However, you continue to compare apples-to -oranges. Delaware park is a dirt surface and dirt surfaces can be too loose, causing too much foot slide. Front-end toe grabs, on certain dirt surfaces maybe necessary for safety issues.

Comparing two separate surfaces, which have opposite effects on hoof slide and two separate issues (overall safety of front-end toe grabs) proves your ability to troll through the false framing of arguments.

Recently in another thread you highlight the "dirt" injuries at GP and in this thread you misrepresent the easily understood concept of aggregation to delegitimize the potential of AWS to remedy a problem.

Since you are not interested in discourse, but conflict, I will leave you to your fun without my participation.

:jump::jump:

Actually, I'm interested in informed discussion. As you can't engage in such, but prefer to constantly shifting your premises while accusing your opponents of deceptive practices, you shan't be missed.

[Show Me the Wire]

:jump::jump:

Actually, I'm interested in informed discussion. As you can't engage in such, but prefer to constantly shifting your premises while accusing your opponents of deceptive practices, you shan't be missed.

You are right I will not engage in your definition of "informed" discussion, as my definition is vastly different than yours.

As I pointed out, about your informed discussion about "dirt' injuries causing the breakdowns at GP.

[FenceBored]

You are right I will not engage in your definition of "informed" discussion, as my definition is vastly different than yours.

As I pointed out, about your informed discussion about "dirt' injuries causing the breakdowns at GP.

There's no pleasing you synth addicts, is there? You complain that nobody mentions injuries/fatalities on dirt, and you complain when someone does mention them. :bang:

I realize that some believe that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," but that really shouldn't be taken as an excuse to engage in a complete lack of consistency.

[Kimsus]

Just because someone published an article last week doesn't mean that they have their facts straight, or up to date. It seems like a lot of folks like to trot out the initial figures for Turfway "24 deaths down to 3" like it's current events, therefore I don't assume a polemic that starts with a hagiography of Richard Shapiro is going to be the most unbiased source of information.



Aren't you ignoring the obvious here, even if you dispute this one number "24 deaths down to 3". How many other tracks that have sigificantly cut down oncatastrophic injuries? Are they all lying, is this all made up fluff? Seems a little unrealistic doesn't it?

[andymays]

Aren't you ignoring the obvious here, even if you dispute this one number "24 deaths down to 3". How many other tracks that have sigificantly cut down oncatastrophic injuries? Are they all lying, is this all made up fluff? Seems a little unrealistic doesn't it?


During the first year and a half many of them were lying and manipulating the statistics. That's why these Trainers have had enough and aren't afraid to speak out anymore.

Do you think Trainers want a new dirt surface because they will have more injuries and fatalities?

Trainers are the guys that know better than anyone.

[rwwupl]

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/01/26/artificial-promises-by-darrell-vienna.aspx

Excerpt:

Purveyors of synthetic racing surfaces soon appeared like snake oil salesmen extolling the virtues of their remarkable products. Representatives of the surfaces eventually installed in Southern California claimed their products required “low to no” maintenance and minimal watering. More importantly, they pitched their products as being consistent, safer, and proven to reduce injuries.

Excerpt:

With each passing meet the synthetics began to lose luster. Horses began presenting new types of injuries. Hind leg lamenesses increased. Soft tissue injuries began to occur with alarming frequency.

Excerpt:

The opinions of apologists have been widely disseminated. They would have us believe synthetic surfaces reduce the rate of catastrophic race injuries. If the underlying data regarding injuries are accurate and the analysis is proper, the best that can be said is that concomitant with the introduction of synthetics, some tracks have reported fewer injuries of a specific type. A causal connection between synthetic surfaces and a reduced rate of catastrophic injury has yet to be established.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/01/26/artificial-promises-by-darrell-vienna.aspx
----------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT ABOUT THE STATISTICS?
http://blog-beb.thoroughbredtimes.com/2010/01/statistics.html
Big Event Blog
Thoroughbred Times News Editor Ed DeRosa shares his experience covering the top events in Thoroughbred racing.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Statistics
I was a math major in a former life, and the reason for my interest was statistics.

Most people don't trust statistics. I have no statistic to prove this, but one of the most popular quotes seems to be, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." This quote is especially popular during the rebuttal round of a political debate.

As a reporter, my cardinal rule when it comes to statistics is to use them to figure out the story rather than to tell the story.

One of the biggest stories in racing right now is the surface issue--especially as Santa Anita Park considers a return to dirt after two failed attempts at racing on a synthetic surfaces over the past 26 months.

The data suggests that the synthetic surfaces installed at tracks beginning with Turfway Park in 2005 are safe than their dirt predecessors. This should strike people more as common sense than the Rosetta stone of horse safety.

Yes, it's important to note that the new surface is safer than the previous surface, but to attribute that to synthetic versus dirt misses the mark.

Laurel, Gulfstream, and Oaklawn have all redone their dirt surfaces in recent years. Zia and Pinnacle are racing on completely new dirt, and Presque Isle is racing on completely new synthetic.

How do injury rates at Laurel, Gulfstream, and Oaklawn compare to locations that replaced dirt with synthetic? How does Presque Isle compare to Pinnacle and Zia?

How do the stats compare when categorized by age, sex, and class? How do those stats compare to the national average?

Based on everything I've read, I'm pretty comfortable saying that a new synthetic surface is safer than an old dirt surface, but it's more than fair to ask how those new synthetic surfaces compare to new dirt surfaces before damning dirt. After all, isn't it possible that the problem is the age of a surface and not the type?

I realize that these are the types of questions my employer should be answering, and we're trying, but standardized data across jurisdictions is hard to come by, and that's assuming it exists in the first place (this, of course, is another problem altogether, but Mary Scollay, D.V.M., of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is working to fix that).

Whether you're in racing for the majesty of the Thoroughbred or as strictly a business venture, the safety of the equine athlete is a primary concern. Citing simple statistics to prove a point rather than taking the time to dissect the problem is not only an injustice to the horse but also poor business.
Posted by Eddie D. at 9:07 AM
Labels: dirt, surfaces, synthetic
9 comments:
Michelle said...
Amen!

January 26, 2010 11:56 AM
Ted Grevelis said...
Ed - these are EXACTLY the questions that need to be asked and answered. Additionally, there has been some anecdotal evidence that the synthetics appear to be harder on a horse's soft tissue and joints than traditional dirt. I'd like to see that measured as well. Nicely done.

January 26, 2010 12:09 PM
RiverHeightsFangirl said...
Hi! tctwitstexas here (Twitter). I am so glad to see intelligent and long 'arguments' over surfaces now. I just read about Kinsella...

January 26, 2010 12:23 PM
Fran Jurga said...
Excellent! You are so right! There's just so much we don't know and we need to be careful how we compare surfaces and statistics and even injuries. Surely there are parallels in other sports that could be followed?

January 26, 2010 12:58 PM
Colins Ghost said...
Nice! Agree 100%...the complexity of this debate deserves more then anecdotal evidence but can't be told by throwing around a statistic or two either.

January 26, 2010 1:26 PM
Keith McCalmont said...
well said.

off topic, but...my favourite place to see statistics mis-used is in debating potential baseball hall of famers. i believe david segui received a vote this year.

January 26, 2010 2:44 PM
Ted Grevelis said...
Sad news today that makes your point:

Kinsella, who sold for a sale-topping $2.2 million at the 2007 Fasig-Tipton Saratoga yearling sale, was euthanized Jan. 25 after breaking down following a workout over Santa Anita’s Pro-Ride surface.

January 26, 2010 3:13 PM
gib. said...
I agree that there are many variables to consider when evaluating track safety that go beyond, "is real, or is it synthetic."

Installation is key factor. I do not follow Santa Anita racing, but my understanding is that the old dirt track did not drain well. I've been told that the synthetic surfaces (is Santa Anita the track on its second one?) were installed without solving the drainage system problems.

It could also be possible that new training techiques figure in this equation. I would like to see statistics that compare breakdowns today to thirty/forty/fify years ago when horses ran more frequently. It is possible that new training, or even breeding, practices have softened up the modern stock.

As for Keith's off topic Baseball Hall of Fame commet, ditto, ditto, ditto. All the major sports have changed so drastically that very few of the old standards that dictated greatness are still good benchmarks.

January 26, 2010 5:12 PM
The_Knight_Sky said...
Any state veterinarian can scratch out horses before they load into the gate, and thereby lowering the risks of breakdowns. I have no problem with that policy.

However if stringent policing is reducing the "risky horses" from competing that is not a function of the new synthetics surfaces.

We are right back where we started from five years ago before the synthetics era was thrust upon us. We have gained nothing but lost the integrity of traditional main track racing.

Dr. Fager, Citation, Secretariat, et. al may very well not have excelled on these new surfaces. We owe it to preserve the tradition of American main track racing.

January 27, 2010 1:30 PM

Post a Comment


Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Ed DeRosa

Ed began attending the races with his grandfather at Thistledown near Cleveland, though the first bet he actually remembers making occurred on dog racing at Wheeling Downs in 1986. He hit place wagers on seven of ten races and won enough to buy the Speak N Spell/Speak N Math combo pack. He stuck with win-place wagers until 1997 when he discovered the pick three. A graduate of Denison University, Ed joined Thoroughbred Times as a staff writer in May 2002. He won the Bill Leggett Award for magazine writing for his story on the 2005 Breeders’ Cup Mile. His favorite horse is Real Quiet (not pictured)
My Blog List
Brooklyn Backstretch Jessica Chapel / Railbird v2 SuperfectaBlog Green but Game Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance Daily Racing Form: Community: Crist Blog with Steven Crist Blog Archive
▼ 2010 (11)
▼ January (11)
Statistics

[andymays]

I read it and responded on the blog but my comments haven't shown up yet! :eek:

[Show Me the Wire]

There's no pleasing you synth addicts, is there? You complain that nobody mentions injuries/fatalities on dirt, and you complain when someone does mention them. :bang:

I realize that some believe that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," but that really shouldn't be taken as an excuse to engage in a complete lack of consistency.


That is where you err. I am not a synth addict. I am trying to be objective. I gave some very good reasons why I think AWS are safer from a physiology viewpoint. I see AWS having a positve impact on keeping horses alive, which in turn makes an owner's investment a little more secure. If you invest a large sum of money on a horse, I believe you would rather deal with some soft tissue injuries that are treatable than having your horse break its leg and be euthanized.

To answer andymays question about larger vet bills. Yes, I would prefer to pay a little more to a vet, so my horse can race again, then pay one time fee to the vet and have my horse put down.

Tha above is my postiton on AWS fencebored, a position which does not include posting conflicting posts. If I had my druthers, I don"t want to hear about any horse breaking down on any surface.

[andymays]

That is where you err. I am not a synth addict. I am trying to be objective. I gave some very good reasons why I think AWS are safer from a physiology viewpoint. I see AWS having a positve impact on keeping horses alive, which in turn makes an owner's investment a little more secure. If you invest a large sum of money on a horse, I believe you would rather deal with some soft tissue injuries that are treatable than having your horse break its leg and be euthanized.

To answer andymays question about larger vet bills. Yes, I would prefer to pay a little more to a vet, so my horse can race again, then pay one time fee to the vet and have my horse put down.

Tha above is my postiton on AWS fencebored.


Trainers want their horses to be able to race and not in rehab. That was my point.

If synthetics were "all that" then why do they want dirt? Must be a diabolical conspiracy to hurt horses. :eek: :rolleyes:

[Show Me the Wire]

Trainers want their horses to be able to race and not in rehab. That was my point.

If synthetics were "all that" then why do they want dirt?

They can't race if they are put down, but they can race after treatment and that is my point.

[andymays]

They can't race if they are put down, but they can race after treatment and that is my point.


Don't you think Trainers want that too? That's how they earn a living isn't it?

[Kimsus]

During the first year and a half many of them were lying and manipulating the statistics. That's why these Trainers have had enough and aren't afraid to speak out anymore.

Do you think Trainers want a new dirt surface because they will have more injuries and fatalities?

Trainers are the guys that know better than anyone.

Not all the Trainers, let's make that clear, however maybe the one's that are shouting louder at the moment, as I said I don't know what their motives are, but from what we know there are more supposedly hind end injuries as opposed to less catastrophic injuries with synthetics, you would think they would seek solutions Ie. Maintenance issues, or asking tracks in Austrailia why it works for them first before going completely back to square one. I have no doubts some have their own agenda's, horseracing is like this closed society perforated with tradionalists that resist even entertaining ideas. No wonder the game has struggled as we have seen by dwindling tracks and handle.

[Show Me the Wire]

Don't you think Trainers want that too? That's how they earn a living isn't it?


Your question implied that AWS is costing owners money due to rehab. I am pointing out even if that is true, I think the owner's would rather spend the money than lose their investment entirely.

[cj]

They can't race if they are put down, but they can race after treatment and that is my point.

Not to sound like the grim reaper, but what is cheaper on an owner? A horse breaking down and being put down or a horse that can't race for a year and comes back, usually slower and less competitive than before the injury?

Keep in mind that most horses filling these cards are cheap, slow horses that need to be on the track to make money. I realize the top horses are a different story.

[andymays]

Not all the Trainers, let's make that clear, however maybe the one's that are shouting louder at the moment, as I said I don't know what their motives are, but from what we know there are more supposedly hind end injuries as opposed to less catastrophic injuries with synthetics, you would think they would seek solutions Ie. Maintenance issues, or asking tracks in Austrailia why it works for them first before going completely back to square one. I have no doubts some have their own agenda's, horseracing is like this closed society perforated with tradionalists that resist even entertaining ideas. No wonder the game has struggled as we have seen by dwindling tracks and handle.


About 80%. :eek:

[Show Me the Wire]

Not to sound like the grim reaper, but what is cheaper on an owner? A horse breaking down and being put down or a horse that can't race for a year and comes back, usually slower and less competitive than before the injury?

Keep in mind that most horses filling these cards are cheap, slow horses that need to be on the track to make money. I realize the top horses are a different story.



I said:

If you invest a large sum of money on a horse, I believe you would rather deal with some soft tissue injuries that are treatable than having your horse break its leg and be euthanized

Does the above answer your question. No owner has to rehab a horse.

At least Papa Clem has a chance to go to stud.

[46zilzal]

I talked to many trainers at Fort Erie and it is the only dirt track where they can run. Many have gone to Woodbine but their horses simply don't run well there so they stay at the Fort. NONE of them care for synthocrap, NONE

[andymays]

I talked to many trainers at Fort Erie and it is the only dirt track where they can run. Many have gone to Woodbine but their horses simply don't run well there so they stay at the Fort. NONE of them care for synthocrap, NONE

What most people don't realize is that in the beginning many Trainers who spoke out were targeted by the Tracks who had them and they made it tougher to get stalls and other necessities.

Trainers have finally had enough. :ThmbUp:

[Show Me the Wire]

I talked to many trainers at Fort Erie and it is the only dirt track where they can run. Many have gone to Woodbine but their horses simply don't run well there so they stay at the Fort. NONE of them care for synthocrap, NONE

If I had a horse that didn't like the surface, I wouldn't care for it either. The lack of my horses' verastiltiy would bias my judgment too, since my earning potential is curtailed.

[cj]

I said:

If you invest a large sum of money on a horse, I believe you would rather deal with some soft tissue injuries that are treatable than having your horse break its leg and be euthanized

Does the above answer your question. No owner has to rehab a horse.

At least Papa Clem has a chance to go to stud.

I wasn't addressing you specifically, but the point is most owners and trainers have cheap horses. Most don't want to deal with rehabbing horses for months on end while receiving no purse money. I'm sure some people like their horses and do this without money as goal, but probably more are in it for what it is...a business.

[Show Me the Wire]

To answer your question cj, it is cheaper to get rid of the horse in those cases. But your question isn't a surface specific question, unless you are saying that AWS is costing owner's of cheaper stock more money becasue AWS is preventing catastrophic injuries.

Interesting thought.

[cj]

To answer your question cj, it is cheaper to get rid of the horse in those cases. But your question isn't a surface specific question, unless you are saying that AWS is costing owner's of cheaper stock more money becasue AWS is preventing catastrophic injuries.

Interesting thought.

I'm not saying it in quite those terms. I'm saying the minor injuries are costing them more money. I don't know the math because we don't have specific numbers. If 10 horses were breaking down on dirt, and now it is only 5, but 20 horses are getting new injuries that didn't happen on dirt, what is the overall effect? I really don't know, and nobody else does either.

[FenceBored]

That is where you err. I am not a synth addict. I am trying to be objective. I gave some very good reasons why I think AWS are safer from a physiology viewpoint. I see AWS having a positve impact on keeping horses alive, which in turn makes an owner's investment a little more secure. If you invest a large sum of money on a horse, I believe you would rather deal with some soft tissue injuries that are treatable than having your horse break its leg and be euthanized.

To answer andymays question about larger vet bills. Yes, I would prefer to pay a little more to a vet, so my horse can race again, then pay one time fee to the vet and have my horse put down.

Tha above is my postiton on AWS fencebored, a position which does not include posting conflicting posts. If I had my druthers, I don"t want to hear about any horse breaking down on any surface.

On this we most certainly agree, in that I understand you to be saying that you don't want them to breakdown (and I only add the clarification because some fool might misinterpret your use of 'hear,' but we both know your heart's in the right place).

As to the statistics, I repeat myself ad nauseum (my own if not yours), the decision was made because of a spike. Any falloff in catastrophic breakdowns since then may be unrelated to the introduction of synthetics. Furthermore, if the numbers on synthetics are not significantly improved over the long term average of figures on dirt for these individual tracks (not just some national average), then it is appropriate and responsible to question whether the associated dislocations from introducing synthetics were warranted.

[FenceBored]

I'm not saying it in quite those terms. I'm saying the minor injuries are costing them more money. I don't know the math because we don't have specific numbers. If 10 horses were breaking down on dirt, and now it is only 5, but 20 horses are getting new injuries that didn't happen on dirt, what is the overall effect? I really don't know, and nobody else does either.

Sadly, that's an important factor to consider in a full cost/benefit analysis of the situation. For an owner who doesn't have his own farm to rehab them at, he still going to be paying a significant day rate to have them boarded at the track, or at an off-track facility. If the owner is already losing money, or close to the line, the additional expense might be too much to absorb. As individuals have noted in the Gill thread, not everyone has an easy time finding a home for the horses they no longer want.

[FenceBored]

Aren't you ignoring the obvious here, even if you dispute this one number "24 deaths down to 3". How many other tracks that have sigificantly cut down oncatastrophic injuries? Are they all lying, is this all made up fluff? Seems a little unrealistic doesn't it?

Nobody questions the veracity of the "24 to 3" figure. What reasonable and responsible people do, is ask more questions, not just jump off the cliff.

That's great, but will it hold up over time, i.e. will the numbers be the same in 5 years, 10 years, or will they be worse than the dirt numbers?
What are the safest of the current tracks, i.e. can dirt be as safe or safer than the claims for synthetics?
What have been the historic catastrophic breakdown rates at the tracks which have recently installed synthetics, and how do the early results on synthetics compare to them?
And, so on.

[Kimsus]

Nobody questions the veracity of the "24 to 3" figure. What reasonable and responsible people do, is ask more questions, not just jump off the cliff.

That's great, but will it hold up over time, i.e. will the numbers be the same in 5 years, 10 years, or will they be worse than the dirt numbers?
What are the safest of the current tracks, i.e. can dirt be as safe or safer than the claims for synthetics?
What have been the historic catastrophic breakdown rates at the tracks which have recently installed synthetics, and how do the early results on synthetics compare to them?
And, so on.

Correct, then why ignore the success of pro ride in Australia or other regions where there is a larger sample. Isn't this a knee jerk reaction without allowing time and study to the problem.

[Show Me the Wire]

.......................As to the statistics, I repeat myself ad nauseum (my own if not yours), the decision was made because of a spike. Any falloff in catastrophic breakdowns since then may be unrelated to the introduction of synthetics. Furthermore, if the numbers on synthetics are not significantly improved over the long term average of figures on dirt for these individual tracks (not just some national average), then it is appropriate and responsible to question whether the associated dislocations from introducing synthetics were warranted.


This is where we disagree, as I have been saying to ad nausea, the switch was made due to economics. The racing base was deteriorating. It was too cost prohibitive to repair the base to its original specs, but the tracks needed some other reason than economics to justify a change to AWS. Safety of the horse became the battle cry.

Even though economics was and is the driving factor and not safety, I believe that AWS are safer surfaces and will continue to improve. Meyden recently installed a Tapeta track and the richest race in the world will be run on this track. It makes complete sense for owners that want to win this event continue to run their horses on AWS tracks and that should be a boon for California. I say it makes sense based on all the evidence, quoted on this board, dirt horses perform poorly on AWS. So as an owner if I want to win the largest purse, I certainly won't be prepping my horse on dirt, but on AWS. The only major racing circuit with all the large venues having AWS is California and as a result more owners will eventually migrate to prep on the surface.

Santa Anita deviating from the rest of the venues will only harm itself even more. It will be the sole venue without AWS, which will lead to more inconsistency in horse's performances and possibly increase injuries due to the constant switching from surface to surface.

The choice of a aws in Dubai should send a strong message to California about the future of racing surfaces.

[andymays]

Correct, then why ignore the success of pro ride in Australia or other regions where there is a larger sample. Isn't this a knee jerk reaction without allowing time and study to the problem.


http://www.perthturftalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6824

Excerpt:

However Racing and Wagering WA has already raised concerns about the plans.

RAWA’s chief curator Geoff Murphy said he was not sure the new technology was suited to Western Australia’s hot conditions.

“While these surfaces work in France and Ireland and in the eastern states of Australia, there may be issues of it standing up to WA summers,” Mr Murphy said.

Mr Murphy said there also could be steep maintenance costs involved once Pro-Ride was installed.

[FenceBored]

This is where we disagree, as I have been saying to ad nausea, the switch was made due to economics. The racing base was deteriorating. It was too cost prohibitive to repair the base to its original specs, but the tracks needed some other reason than economics to justify a change to AWS. Safety of the horse became the battle cry.

That ignores the fact that the AWS systems were more expense to install than an entirely new dirt track from a new drainage system on up. The reason they "needed some other reason than economics to justify a change to AWS," was because from an economic standpoint it didn't make sense unless the ongoing maintainance costs are lower (which they claimed they were) and/or it offered some other benefit.

Even though economics was and is the driving factor and not safety, I believe that AWS are safer surfaces and will continue to improve. Meyden recently installed a Tapeta track and the richest race in the world will be run on this track. It makes complete sense for owners that want to win this event continue to run their horses on AWS tracks and that should be a boon for California. I say it makes sense based on all the evidence, quoted on this board, dirt horses perform poorly on AWS. So as an owner if I want to win the largest purse, I certainly won't be prepping my horse on dirt, but on AWS. The only major racing circuit with all the large venues having AWS is California and as a result more owners will eventually migrate to prep on the surface.


Whoa! :eek: That's a lot of assumptions there Tex.

The evidence does not suggest that the synthetic tracks are ipso facto safer than dirt. There are dirt tracks with lower fatality numbers, and lower numbers during dirt years at the tracks in So Cal. I haven't looked to see how consistent GGF's race dates have been over the years especially with the closing of Bay Meadows.
Yes, Meyden has installed Tapeta. Yes, the Dubai World Cup offers the largest purse in the world. However, the Arc offers a higher purse than the BC Turf, but you don't see American turf runners flocking to Paris every fall. There is a significant, but limited number of American owners who have been willing to ship to Dubai over the years. Given the switch to AWS while the US is still 90% dirt main tracks, we'll have to see if this causes any change to the number of shippers.
Meyden bound owners will not necessarily flock to California. You can race/train on AWS year-round in the Mid-West. Turfway to Keeneland to Arlington, Woodbine, then PID, back to Keeneland and then Turfway. It's a nice little circuit, smack dab in the middle of dirt country. You don't want to run at Turfway (and why should you?), well, give your horse a few weeks down time and then ship to Dubai and prep them over the Meyden course. No muss, no fuss, no California.


Santa Anita deviating from the rest of the venues will only harm itself even more. It will be the sole venue without AWS, which will lead to more inconsistency in horse's performances and possibly increase injuries due to the constant switching from surface to surface.

The choice of a aws in Dubai should send a strong message to California about the future of racing surfaces.

Yeah, that's the ticket. You forgot the plagues of locusts which will descend on the downhill course at SA if they change the main track back to dirt.

[FenceBored]

Correct, then why ignore the success of pro ride in Australia or other regions where there is a larger sample. Isn't this a knee jerk reaction without allowing time and study to the problem.

The question isn't whether pro-ride works for the applications in Australlia for which it has been installed. The question is whether it works in the context of the Santa Anita installation. A Honda Civic may meet your needs in bring home your dog food, but I have no use for one as I can't carry a ton of hay on it.

[46zilzal]

Woodbine had a lot of trouble early on with kick back and uneveness. The manufacturers came in twice and added jelly cord which has seemed to do the trick there. They have had NO cancellations based upon their surface and it has been fairly consistent even in the very cold weather near the end of their long long season in December.

SOME ONE is doing it right

[Show Me the Wire]

That ignores the fact that the AWS systems were more expense to install than an entirely new dirt track from a new drainage system on up. The reason they "needed some other reason than economics to justify a change to AWS," was because from an economic standpoint it didn't make sense unless the ongoing maintainance costs are lower (which they claimed they were) and/or it offered some other benefit.



Whoa! :eek: That's a lot of assumptions there Tex.

The evidence does not suggest that the synthetic tracks are ipso facto safer than dirt. There are dirt tracks with lower fatality numbers, and lower numbers during dirt years at the tracks in So Cal. I haven't looked to see how consistent GGF's race dates have been over the years especially with the closing of Bay Meadows.
Yes, Meyden has installed Tapeta. Yes, the Dubai World Cup offers the largest purse in the world. However, the Arc offers a higher purse than the BC Turf, but you don't see American turf runners flocking to Paris every fall. There is a significant, but limited number of American owners who have been willing to ship to Dubai over the years. Given the switch to AWS while the US is still 90% dirt main tracks, we'll have to see if this causes any change to the number of shippers.
Meyden bound owners will not necessarily flock to California. You can race/train on AWS year-round in the Mid-West. Turfway to Keeneland to Arlington, Woodbine, then PID, back to Keeneland and then Turfway. It's a nice little circuit, smack dab in the middle of dirt country. You don't want to run at Turfway (and why should you?), well, give your horse a few weeks down time and then ship to Dubai and prep them over the Meyden course. No muss, no fuss, no California.




Yeah, that's the ticket. You forgot the plagues of locusts which will descend on the downhill course at SA if they change the main track back to dirt.

First it is very true, installing the new infrastructure and the surface was less expensive than repairing the old base, drainage and surface to the original specs.

Another poster even pointed out the fact Santa Anita complained it would cost too much money to repair the old dirt surface.

Second, about the turf races, American horses are not good enough to beat the Good European horses, so the Americans don't even try.

American owners and trainers have been sending American horses to compete in Dubai. Really don't see that changing too much in the future.

Third based on that 0 for 40 something statistic being bandied about regarding dirt to synthetic, it would be a good thing for horses to prep on aws for Dubai's purses.

Regarding the safety issue, I posted my beliefs regarding increased safety based on my physiology discussion. You may want to read and understand why I think the aws surface is kinder to the horses' pulmonary system, limbs and joints. FYI lamboguy, brought to light the aws to dirt injury problem

[FenceBored]

First it is very true, installing the new infrastructure and the surface was less expensive than repairing the old base, drainage and surface to the original specs.

Another poster even pointed out the fact Santa Anita complained it would cost too much money to repair the old dirt surface.


I'm sorry, but I gots to call BS on that notion. SA spent $10 million to have Cushion Track installed. You really expect me to believe that ripping out the old track and drainage and installing a new drainage/base/dirt cushion would have been more than $10 million? Sorry, Charlie, Homey don't play that (to mix pop culture references).



Second, about the turf races, American horses are not good enough to beat the Good European horses, so the Americans don't even try.


American owners and trainers have been sending American horses to compete in Dubai. Really don't see that changing too much in the future.


You were citing the purse, and greed. Well, if that's the only determining factor, as you alleged, then the Arc would be a more common destination. If they don't think they've got a shot under the circumstances (race conditions, competition) that's something else again. It might be that we'll see a hardening of surface factions in the US and the pool from which potential Dubai shippers are drawn will shrink. I think there was a better chance that Jackson might have considered Dubai for Rachel if it was still dirt. He sure liked the attention he got with Curlin over there two years ago.


Third based on that 0 for 40 something statistic being bandied about regarding dirt to synthetic, it would be a good thing for horses to prep on aws for Dubai's purses.


But, if you're wrong about the same number of shippers, then you're wrong on those non-existent shippers needing a place to prep for Dubai.


Regarding the safety issue, I posted my beliefs regarding increased safety based on my physiology discussion. You may want to read and understand why I think the aws surface is kinder to the horses' pulmonary system, limbs and joints. FYI lamboguy, brought to light the aws to dirt injury problem

Did you have data to support your thinking, or was this just another of your "thought experiments?"

[Robert Goren]

So far, the only thing I have gathered from this thread is that if the track(dirt or AWS) isn't properly maintained you are going to have injuries. It is no great secret that when money is tight the first thing to be cut is maintenance. After watching what the tracks have done to the betting areas which the general public can see, one can only imagine what is going in areas that are not quite so visual. To me it a wonder that we have any horses sound enough run at any track dirt or AWS. JMO

[andymays]

So far, the only thing I have gathered from this thread is that if the track(dirt or AWS) isn't properly maintained you are going to have injuries. It is no great secret that when money is tight the first thing to be cut is maintenance. After watching what the tracks have done to the betting areas which the general public can see, one can only imagine what is going in areas that are not quite so visual. To me it a wonder that we have any horses sound enough run at any track dirt or AWS. JMO


Synthetic surfaces wear out from weather, usage, and maintenance. Del Mar 2009 was nothing like Del Mar 2009 and Arlington 2007 was nothing like Arlington 2009.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/01/santa-anita-has-lost-13.html

Excerpt:

One of the main problems, according to Baffert, is that track superintendents -- save Hollywood Park's Dennis Moore -- do not know how to take care of synthetics.
"And I feel bad for them because I wouldn't know what to do with it either," he said.

If Baffert had his way, he would have utilized Moore's knowledge.
"That Hollywood Park surface is not bad," he said. "Dennis Moore, I don't know what he did to that track, but it's really not a bad race track. If you have a horse with brilliance, it actually shows up there. Once they get back to Santa Anita, it's like they are stuck in the mud. They just don't go anywhere. It's terrible."

Del Mar is in the same boat, according to the man who's trained three Kentucky Derby winners and has a bevy of contenders in his barn this year.
"They're stuck there, and they're so hard-headed," Baffert said. "I would hope Del Mar will do something down there, but I don't know. Or at least make it like Hollywood. If they could make it like Hollywood, it wouldn't be bad."

So why didn't Santa Anita enlist the aid of Moore? Why doesn't Del Mar get on the phone and give him a jingle?

"Because these tracks, they don't like to ask the other guys," Baffert said. "If somebody's doing well, for some reason nobody works together. Dennis Moore is the only guy that's figured these things out. So if I'm going to bring somebody in, I'll bring Dennis in and pay him to help these guys out. He's the only guy that knows. I know it sounds logical, but it's too easy, it's too simple. Everybody hates everybody in racing, and that's the problem."
Zenyatta's trainer, John Shirreffs, was not weeping when he heard about Santa Anita's decision. He thinks Zenyatta is an even better horse on dirt, if that's possible, and the fact she ran on synthetics might have affected Horse of the Year balloting.


"You see these crocodile tears?" Shirreffs said sarcastically. "Now the question is, did that cost (Zenyatta) Horse of the Year?"

[Show Me the Wire]

Did you have data to support your thinking, or was this just another of your "thought experiments?"

There is plenty of data about exertion and lung tissue, joint and limb damage from quick acceleration. Its all right there for you to locate, if you desire.

All you do is post the same questions over and over. I feel bad for you. :) It is easy to prove anything I am saying as wrong, just post the facts that prove me wrong.

For starters you could furnish us with the estimate to refurbish Santa Anita to its original specs.

[FenceBored]

There is plenty of data about exertion and lung tissue, joint and limb damage from quick acceleration. Its all right there for you to locate, if you desire.

When you ask questions, I post either the data, or links to materials from which to glean the data. That you are unwilling or unable to post similarly, is telling, no?

All you do is post the same questions over and over. I feel bad for you. :) It is easy to prove anything I am saying as wrong, just post the facts that prove me wrong.


It is easy, as evidenced by my repetition of evidence. That you ignore facts that don't agree with your irrational belief system is hardly my fault.

For starters you could furnish us with the estimate to refurbish Santa Anita to its original specs.

Well, Andy talked with a guy from a company that installs new tracks about a month ago, remember (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=804978)? Even using 3x Andy's already increased estimate of $2.5m ($7.5m) that's still 25% cheaper than the Cushion Track install. Now, here's where you start to wave your hands about and mumble some silliness in order to avoid having to admit you're wrong.