Santa Anita's announcement delayed.

[andymays]

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/02/santa-anitas-announcement-dela.html

Excerpt:

Charles said Stronach is due in town shortly and that an announcement will be made at that time. It will be dirt, because there's no way in heck Stronach will OK another synthetic, but no track official will confirm that dirt will be the new racing surface. Charles announced on Jan. 18 that the track would replace its current synthetic Pro-Ride surface at the end of the meet and at the time expected to have a decision in a matter of days, not weeks.

Meanwhile, some in the Santa Anita press box were second guessing the decision to go back to dirt over the weekend, claiming the sealed tracks will lead to the type of breakdowns that plagued the SoCal tracks before the synthetics.

Two things about that:

(1) The bases are now new, not decades old like before the synthetic tracks were installed.

(2) The tighter scrutiny designed to spot unsound horses before they race, both while they warm up and then before they enter the starting gate, was not in place the last time we had sealed tracks.

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/02/santa-anitas-announcement-dela.html

[GaryG]

Meanwhile, some in the Santa Anita press box were second guessing the decision to go back to dirt over the weekend, claiming the sealed tracks will lead to the type of breakdowns that plagued the SoCal tracks before the synthetics.
I don't have the data, but it seems that there were fewer breakdowns when they just let the track go through the various stages of drying out. I guess the powers that be don't like slow or muddy tracks.

[andymays]

I don't have the data, but it seems that there were fewer breakdowns when they just let the track go through the various stages of drying out. I guess the powers that be don't like slow or muddy tracks.

I think the tracks do whatever they think will produce the least amount of scratches and injuries. If you don't seal it and the horses can't skip over it then you have other injuries.

I think a place like Emerald Downs (it rains a lot) would be a perfect candidate for synthetic but the people there will probably burn down the track if they try it.

[Kimsus]

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/02/santa-anitas-announcement-dela.html

Excerpt:

Charles said Stronach is due in town shortly and that an announcement will be made at that time. It will be dirt, because there's no way in heck Stronach will OK another synthetic, but no track official will confirm that dirt will be the new racing surface. Charles announced on Jan. 18 that the track would replace its current synthetic Pro-Ride surface at the end of the meet and at the time expected to have a decision in a matter of days, not weeks.

Meanwhile, some in the Santa Anita press box were second guessing the decision to go back to dirt over the weekend, claiming the sealed tracks will lead to the type of breakdowns that plagued the SoCal tracks before the synthetics.



I'm always a couple steps ahead of people here that were so gung ho about returning to dirt without looking at the consequences, I raised this point continually last week. What can I say I am that sharp.

[andymays]

I'm always a couple steps ahead of people here that were so gung ho about returning to dirt without looking at the consequences, I raised this point continually last week. What can I say I am that sharp.


Or a few years behind. That's what 80% of people were saying in 2007. Fast forward to 2010 and the 80% are on the other side. Especially the bulk of the Trainers who know best.

[delayjf]

They should copy Saratoga's track to a tee.

[Kimsus]

Or a few years behind. That's what 80% of people were saying in 2007. Fast forward to 2010 and the 80% are on the other side. Especially the bulk of the Trainers who know best.

Duabi/Meydan went Tapeta after years of running on dirt at Nad El Sheba, I'm not sure why there is such a strong anti-poly movement in NA when other tracks in the world are choosing to run on it, it is also peculiar that almost everywhere else in the world, synths are working out just fine.

[cj]

We'll see how fine they work in Dubai. They just opened.

I'm also not so naive as to think the switch wasn't in part to end American dominance on dirt.

[classhandicapper]

If SA goes back to dirt, what does that mean for Del Mar and Hollywood?

I think that adds a new complication for trainers, owners, and horseplayers that have preferences for one surface or another.

[FenceBored]

Duabi/Meydan went Tapeta after years of running on dirt at Nad El Sheba, I'm not sure why there is such a strong anti-poly movement in NA when other tracks in the world are choosing to run on it, it is also peculiar that almost everywhere else in the world, synths are working out just fine.

Have you seen some of the ties that British politicians wear! :eek: Mimicing foreign styles isn't always the smart thing to do.

[FenceBored]

If SA goes back to dirt, what does that mean for Del Mar and Hollywood?

I think that adds a new complication for trainers, owners, and horseplayers that have preferences for one surface or another.

And how would that be any harder on them than what people in the Midwest face with the assortment of surfaces there?

[illinoisbred]

And how would that be any harder on them than what people in the Midwest face with the assortment of surfaces there?
To tell you the truth,3 years back when Arlington still had a dirt surface,AP dirt form didn't always transfer to Hawthorne form. The 2 surfaces were quite different. It can present some great opportunities if you're willing to look at and use races 7-8 down in the PPs (then and now).

[Kimsus]

We'll see how fine they work in Dubai. They just opened.

I'm also not so naive as to think the switch wasn't in part to end American dominance on dirt.

There are alot of factors on the surface that may not be as apparent, you think dirt dominated breeders like synth tracks?

[classhandicapper]

And how would that be any harder on them than what people in the Midwest face with the assortment of surfaces there?

I guess it wouldn't but we are talking about a lot more of the premier races in the industry.

[rrbauer]

If SA goes back to dirt, what does that mean for Del Mar and Hollywood?

I think that adds a new complication for trainers, owners, and horseplayers that have preferences for one surface or another.

Del Mar is not going to change according to their GM.
Hollywood is not going to change since it will soon be a commercial development and why would they spend the money on a new surface.
Golden Gate seems happy with their synthetic (which BTW is owned by Stronach).

Santa Anita finds itself in a no-win situation; and, until they solve the drainage problem in the subsurface it won't matter what they do. Big rains will produce big problems.

[rwwupl]

Del Mar is not going to change according to their GM.
Hollywood is not going to change since it will soon be a commercial development and why would they spend the money on a new surface.
Golden Gate seems happy with their synthetic (which BTW is owned by Stronach).

Santa Anita finds itself in a no-win situation; and, until they solve the drainage problem in the subsurface it won't matter what they do. Big rains will produce big problems.


It should be noted that Del Mar (DMTC) applied for a new 20year lease from the State in the recent past and was granted only a one year extention . That may have something to do with their support of the synthetic. They would have to pay for any new track. ;)

[turfbar]

Now this is not a direct quote but paraphrasing,Nick Zito,for 100's of years US breeders have been breeding for speed why switch to a track that helps European breeding.


Turfbar

[rwwupl]

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/02/santa-anitas-announcement-dela.html

Excerpt:

Charles said Stronach is due in town shortly and that an announcement will be made at that time. It will be dirt, because there's no way in heck Stronach will OK another synthetic, but no track official will confirm that dirt will be the new racing surface. Charles announced on Jan. 18 that the track would replace its current synthetic Pro-Ride surface at the end of the meet and at the time expected to have a decision in a matter of days, not weeks.

Meanwhile, some in the Santa Anita press box were second guessing the decision to go back to dirt over the weekend, claiming the sealed tracks will lead to the type of breakdowns that plagued the SoCal tracks before the synthetics.

Two things about that:

(1) The bases are now new, not decades old like before the synthetic tracks were installed.

(2) The tighter scrutiny designed to spot unsound horses before they race, both while they warm up and then before they enter the starting gate, was not in place the last time we had sealed tracks.

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/02/santa-anitas-announcement-dela.html

I hope it will be dirt,because if it is another synthetic California racing will lose more of its meager loyal support and California can not afford that.

Santa Anita track President Ron Charles has had two synthetics installed now with out success. If he installs another and it has problems he would be called out in another sport, "STRIKE THREE!"

I give him more credit than that.

[FenceBored]

I guess it wouldn't but we are talking about a lot more of the premier races in the industry.

Than Keeneland vs. Churchill & NYRA? Don't forget the New York stables that make a pit stop in Lexington on their migration between NYRA and their winter bases.

[tzipi]

There are alot of factors on the surface that may not be as apparent, you think dirt dominated breeders like synth tracks?

"You think dirt dominated Breeders like synthetic tracks?" What's that mean?

The synthetic BC 's were a mess with Dirt championships turned into turf championships with top G1 TURF horses skipping the top turf races to run in and pretty much dominate the "dirt" races. For example, you had Gio Ponti a top G1 turf horses skip the Turf Classic to run in the Dirt championship? Yeah that would've happened at Belmont or CD,etc :rolleyes:
The DIRT BC's dominated. Great TURF fields and great DIRT fields that were seperated.

[Fingal]

Santa Anita finds itself in a no-win situation; and, until they solve the drainage problem in the subsurface it won't matter what they do. Big rains will produce big problems.

Exactly. No matter what kind of track they put in, the drainage system needs to be replaced, Not just a band aid solution on the cheap. Even Ron Charles said they couldn't get all the sand the cushion track people used & that's the problem ( IMO )

Remember the problems they had with the turf course in the late 1980's & all the options they used trying to save some $$ ? It ended up costing them more in the long run than if they bit the bullet, spent the money & did it right the first time. :rolleyes:

[Kimsus]

"You think dirt dominated Breeders like synthetic tracks?" What's that mean?

The synthetic BC 's were a mess with Dirt championships turned into turf championships with top G1 TURF horses skipping the top turf races to run in and pretty much dominate the "dirt" races. For example, you had Gio Ponti a top G1 turf horses skip the Turf Classic to run in the Dirt championship? Yeah that would've happened at Belmont or CD,etc :rolleyes:
The DIRT BC's dominated. Great TURF fields and great DIRT fields that were seperated.

I can see them adding a 3rd day to the BC championship if we don't already have 1 day too many, one exlusively held on dirt next time it's held at SA presuming obcourse they actually go through another surface change...I always said it was a third surface, let's make everyone happy.

[joanied]

We'll see how fine they work in Dubai. They just opened.

I'm also not so naive as to think the switch wasn't in part to end American dominance on dirt.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I also like the reply from the poster that said SA should copy Saratoga's surface...:ThmbUp:

[miesque]

I would like to point out that Saratoga exists in a diametrically different climate then where Santa Anita is located. It a fine yet extremely important point that some are overlooking. Its like saying, well why don't you use the same type of grass at Santa Anita you do at Arlington. Those So Cal turf courses have Bermuda grass for a reason.

[therussmeister]

They should copy Saratoga's track to a tee.

Including putting it in New York. Then they will have full fields. :D

[elhelmete]

Despite being in SoCal, SA (and OSA, of course) does experience a pretty big temperature swing throughout a day.

It'll be damn near freezing in the AM and warm up to 70 or so this time of year. Add in the shadows and the moisture funneled in by the mountains, and it can be tricky.

All of this points to the need for the very best base and surface and top-notch maintenance day to day.

[castaway01]

Exactly. No matter what kind of track they put in, the drainage system needs to be replaced, Not just a band aid solution on the cheap. Even Ron Charles said they couldn't get all the sand the cushion track people used & that's the problem ( IMO )

Remember the problems they had with the turf course in the late 1980's & all the options they used trying to save some $$ ? It ended up costing them more in the long run than if they bit the bullet, spent the money & did it right the first time. :rolleyes:

And the weather in that area of the country is unique because it is extremely dry for 10 months and extremely wet for 2 months, which is certainly a unique challenge. Plenty of places have "wet" periods, but usually not after having hardly any rain for the rest of the year.

[Tom]

Franky is just getting prices on enough of this to cover the whole track....

[DeanT]

Now this is not a direct quote but paraphrasing,Nick Zito,for 100's of years US breeders have been breeding for speed
Which is the problem, because "breeding for speed" results in 2.03 deaths per every 1000 starts. Horse racing will not be around forever unless they change the breed, whether we like it or not, imo. The general public will not stand for that kind of death rate any longer.

[gm10]

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/02/santa-anitas-announcement-dela.html

Excerpt:

Charles said Stronach is due in town shortly and that an announcement will be made at that time. It will be dirt, because there's no way in heck Stronach will OK another synthetic, but no track official will confirm that dirt will be the new racing surface. Charles announced on Jan. 18 that the track would replace its current synthetic Pro-Ride surface at the end of the meet and at the time expected to have a decision in a matter of days, not weeks.

Meanwhile, some in the Santa Anita press box were second guessing the decision to go back to dirt over the weekend, claiming the sealed tracks will lead to the type of breakdowns that plagued the SoCal tracks before the synthetics.

Two things about that:

(1) The bases are now new, not decades old like before the synthetic tracks were installed.

(2) The tighter scrutiny designed to spot unsound horses before they race, both while they warm up and then before they enter the starting gate, was not in place the last time we had sealed tracks.

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/02/santa-anitas-announcement-dela.html


If this happens, good luck explaining a rise of +30% in fatalities. Hope it will have been worth it for you.

[gm10]

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I also like the reply from the poster that said SA should copy Saratoga's surface...:ThmbUp:

Would never work. They are a continent apart, the atmospheric conditions are completely different.

[gm10]

Or a few years behind. That's what 80% of people were saying in 2007. Fast forward to 2010 and the 80% are on the other side. Especially the bulk of the Trainers who know best.


Yeah RIGHT!
A dead animal is cheaper than an injured animal. Have you not considered that these guys are running a business, not an animal welfare program?

[andymays]

If SA goes back to dirt, what does that mean for Del Mar and Hollywood?

I think that adds a new complication for trainers, owners, and horseplayers that have preferences for one surface or another.


The three surfaces are nothing alike right now so it wouldn't matter.

[andymays]

If this happens, good luck explaining a rise of +30% in fatalities. Hope it will have been worth it for you.


gm10 shove it "you know where" if you're implying that I want breakdowns. That is a low life comment and if the shoe fits then....... :ThmbDown:

Does John Shirreffs want Zenyatta to break down?

Do any of the others want their horses to break down?

What a friggin jerk you are! :ThmbDown:

[Indulto]

I can see them adding a 3rd day to the BC championship if we don't already have 1 day too many, one exlusively held on dirt next time it's held at SA presuming obcourse they actually go through another surface change...I always said it was a third surface, let's make everyone happy.Wouldn't that cannabalize races on the other two surfaces? Where would all the additional horses of reasonable quality come from?

The three days would have to be surface rather than gender-oriented, and be run on separate weekends far enough apart to allow some subset of those horses to run on more than one surface.

[classhandicapper]

The three surfaces are nothing alike right now so it wouldn't matter.

True, but I think the synthetics are more alike than synthetic is to dirt (though perhaps in some cases it's close).

Maybe it's just me, but if I owned some high level 2YOs and 3YOs, some older stakes horses, a turf horse I thought could handle synthetics, a horse that was doing really well on synthetic, a horse that hated synthetic, etc... my decision about where to keep them might be influenced by the surfaces at the various tracks on the circuit.

CA has so many major stakes, it's going to be kind of difficult to plan a long term campaign when some are run on synthetic and some on dirt.

Kentucky has a similar issue with Keeneland, but I think it's more relevant to places like CA and NY where there are sometime a series of races that horses point to.

I like the idea of going back to dirt, but I like consistency on a circuit also.

[andymays]

True, but I think the synthetics are more alike than synthetic is to dirt (though perhaps in some cases it's close).

Maybe it's just me, but if I owned some high level 2YOs and 3YOs, some older stakes horses, a turf horse I thought could handle synthetics, a horse that was doing really well on synthetic, a horse that hated synthetic, etc... my decision about where to keep them might be influenced by the surfaces at the various tracks on the circuit.

CA has so many major stakes, it's going to be kind of difficult to plan a long term campaign when some are run on synthetic and some on dirt.

Kentucky has a similar issue with Keeneland, but I think it's more relevant to places like CA and NY where there are sometime a series of races that horses point to.


Hollywood is more like dirt than any other synthetic surface. Right now Pro Ride is more like turf than any other synthetic surface. Del Mar has changed drastically from 2007 to 2009 so who knows what thats like.

Without a Breeders Cup on synthetic and Santa Anita going back to dirt all the major 3yo campaigns and other important races on dirt are going to attract the major contenders. With Santa Anita going to dirt it is a major blow to synthetic advocates and they know it. That's the reason for the earlier post by the jerk who said "he hopes I'm happy to see more horses break down".

Santa Anita has a bigger impact on the national scene and the triple crown trail than do Del Mar or Hollywood.

[gm10]

If this happens, good luck explaining a rise of +30% in fatalities. Hope it will have been worth it for you.


gm10 shove it "you know where" if you're implying that I want breakdowns. That is a low life comment and if the shoe fits then....... :ThmbDown:

Does John Shirreffs want Zenyatta to break down?

Do any of the others want their horses to break down?

What a friggin jerk you are! :ThmbDown:

WTF?
Suddenly I'm a low life? You are the guy who wants to bring back a surface that kills more animals. Hind leg injuries aren't life threatening you know. But if you can live with this, that is your right, of course.

[gm10]

Hollywood is more like dirt than any other synthetic surface. Right now Pro Ride is more like turf than any other synthetic surface. Del Mar has changed drastically from 2007 to 2009 so who knows what thats like.

Without a Breeders Cup on synthetic and Santa Anita going back to dirt all the major 3yo campaigns and other important races on dirt are going to attract the major contenders. With Santa Anita going to dirt it is a major blow to synthetic advocates and they know it. That's the reason for the earlier post by the jerk who said "he hopes I'm happy to see more horses break down".

Santa Anita has a bigger impact on the national scene and the triple crown trail than do Del Mar or Hollywood.


I think that the 'synthetic advocates' @ SA should hold out for one more Triple Crown Season. The plastic horses did well @ CD last year, and I reckon they will do well again this year.

[andymays]

[QUOTE=andymays]

WTF?
Suddenly I'm a low life? You are the guy who wants to bring back a surface that kills more animals. Hind leg injuries aren't life threatening you know. But if you can live with this, that is your right, of course.


WTF is right. Up yours! If you want to stick to the line that I want more horses to get killed then go ahead. Every time you post this junk though make sure you throw in John Shirreffs name too. That makes it a little harder for you doens't it?

[classhandicapper]

Hollywood is more like dirt than any other synthetic surface. Right now Pro Ride is more like turf than any other synthetic surface. Del Mar has changed drastically from 2007 to 2009 so who knows what thats like.

Without a Breeders Cup on synthetic and Santa Anita going back to dirt all the major 3yo campaigns and other important races on dirt are going to attract the major contenders. With Santa Anita going to dirt it is a major blow to synthetic advocates and they know it. That's the reason for the earlier post by the jerk who said "he hopes I'm happy to see more horses break down".

Santa Anita has a bigger impact on the national scene and the triple crown trail than do Del Mar or Hollywood.

I understand and agree.

I think it's a step in the right direction because I prefer dirt racing. But I was hoping they'd all switch back because I also like consistency and I can see some complications for planning because of this.

[andymays]

I understand and agree.

I think it's a step in the right direction because I prefer dirt racing. But I was hoping they'd all switch back because I also like consistency and I can see some complications for planning because of this.

It's a major war behind the scenes out here right now. There is some talk of Horsemen boycotting Del Mar if they don't go back.

[gm10]

[QUOTE=gm10]


WTF is right. Up yours! If you want to stick to the line that I want more horses to get killed then go ahead. Every time you post this junk though make sure you throw in John Shirreffs name too. That makes it a little harder for you doens't it?

??
Why would it? Because I prefer Zenyatta to RA?
I would love to see him answer this very question.

Andy, according to an article you posted yourself, dirt racing kills more than synthetic racing. Do you feel good about wanting a new dirt surface @ SA. If you do, you do. I don't, and I don't like you if you do. That doesn't make me a low life.

[gm10]

Hollywood is more like dirt than any other synthetic surface. Right now Pro Ride is more like turf than any other synthetic surface. Del Mar has changed drastically from 2007 to 2009 so who knows what thats like.

Without a Breeders Cup on synthetic and Santa Anita going back to dirt all the major 3yo campaigns and other important races on dirt are going to attract the major contenders. With Santa Anita going to dirt it is a major blow to synthetic advocates and they know it. That's the reason for the earlier post by the jerk who said "he hopes I'm happy to see more horses break down".

Santa Anita has a bigger impact on the national scene and the triple crown trail than do Del Mar or Hollywood.

I agree about HOL. But it does appear to be safe, though. I didn't follow the last meeting much, but I don't recall any major number of breakdowns.

[JustRalph]

We'll see how fine they work in Dubai. They just opened.

I'm also not so naive as to think the switch wasn't in part to end American dominance on dirt.


Ding!!!!

[PaceAdvantage]

I always said it was a third surface, let's make everyone happy.Who hasn't said it was a third surface?

[PaceAdvantage]

Now now children...you must play nice...or I delete your posts.

There will be no more of this "if you are against synth, you are pro-death" talk.

That's a silly argument, based on very little sound statistical data. Synths have not been around long enough here in the USA to form any sort of conclusion one way or another.

If dirt tracks were put under the kind of microscope synth tracks have been put under in terms of trying to figure out the ultimate configuration/maintenance regimen, I wonder if they too would be safer.

I tend to think there is a bit of complacency when it comes to dirt track maintenance, but I have nothing to back that feeling up...I just see tracks like Saratoga go through an entire meeting without a breakdown and I wonder how we ever got to the point of synths to begin with...

[FenceBored]

Now now children...you must play nice...or I delete your posts.

There will be no more of this "if you are against synth, you are pro-death" talk.


PA, in a nutshell, isn't that what the argument has been since the real push for synthetics began in 2006? Not as baldfaced as gm10's posts, but there nonetheless. Synthetic advocates brought up Barbaro, then it was George Washington, then they added Eight Belles. 'All these horses could have been saved if only we had synthetics everywhere.' Isn't the underlying message the same: 'If you love horses, you have to love synthetic tracks.'

[Kimsus]

Wouldn't that cannabalize races on the other two surfaces? Where would all the additional horses of reasonable quality come from?

The three days would have to be surface rather than gender-oriented, and be run on separate weekends far enough apart to allow some subset of those horses to run on more than one surface.

Is there a "facetious remarks" emoticon?

[rwwupl]

Now now children...you must play nice...or I delete your posts.

There will be no more of this "if you are against synth, you are pro-death" talk.
That's a silly argument, based on very little sound statistical data. Synths have not been around long enough here in the USA to form any sort of conclusion one way or another.

If dirt tracks were put under the kind of microscope synth tracks have been put under in terms of trying to figure out the ultimate configuration/maintenance regimen, I wonder if they too would be safer.

I tend to think there is a bit of complacency when it comes to dirt track maintenance, but I have nothing to back that feeling up...I just see tracks like Saratoga go through an entire meeting without a breakdown and I wonder how we ever got to the point of synths to begin with...


Thank you PA.. and Thank you DRF's Steven Crist :)

[rrbauer]

It should be noted that Del Mar (DMTC) applied for a new 20year lease from the State in the recent past and was granted only a one year extention . That may have something to do with their support of the synthetic. They would have to pay for any new track. ;)

It had to do with the state wanting more money out of the deal including selling the place.

[andymays]

It had to do with the state wanting more money out of the deal including selling the place.


That's a big part of it but there are also other issues involved.

The fact that Del Mar most likely got the state to pay for the new surface has a lot of people up in arms. Especially since the surface has been condemned by most of the Trainers who went there last year.

There is a lot of pushing and pulling in California and the ones that had all the clout a few short years ago don't have it anymore. It will play out "nasty" over the next year in my opinion.

[OntheRail]

Duabi/Meydan went Tapeta after years of running on dirt at Nad El Sheba, I'm not sure why there is such a strong anti-poly movement in NA when other tracks in the world are choosing to run on it, it is also peculiar that almost everywhere else in the world, synths are working out just fine.


Duabi/Meydan went Tapeta.. I really wonder how that will work out for them. At PIP you can feel the heat rising from the track and Northeast PA is not anything like Duabi as far as Temps go. Wonder if they ran some cooling lines in the base?

Also Hollywood was almost 85% sand at the end of the meet... and it was playing right.

[rwwupl]

That's a big part of it but there are also other issues involved.
The fact that Del Mar most likely got the state to pay for the new surface has a lot of people up in arms. Especially since the surface has been condemned by most of the Trainers who went there last year.

There is a lot of pushing and pulling in California and the ones that had all the clout a few short years ago don't have it anymore. It will play out "nasty" over the next year in my opinion.


Yes, you are right,there are more issues involved. Look for an interesting upcoming meeting at DMTC. I hope there are enough horses left there to conduct a meet appealing to the CUSTOMERS!

[toussaud]

kismus, 80 if not 90% of godolphin's horses are turf horses... horses that would excel over the surface. of course it's not a big deal to him. we are not him and they are not us.

if you don't think that the fact that godolphin last year in the golphin mile was the first win in years at his own track, didn't have any reason to do with why they installed tapeta, you are kidding yourself.


there is also no betting in dubai.

[gm10]

Now now children...you must play nice...or I delete your posts.

There will be no more of this "if you are against synth, you are pro-death" talk.

That's a silly argument, based on very little sound statistical data. Synths have not been around long enough here in the USA to form any sort of conclusion one way or another.

If dirt tracks were put under the kind of microscope synth tracks have been put under in terms of trying to figure out the ultimate configuration/maintenance regimen, I wonder if they too would be safer.

I tend to think there is a bit of complacency when it comes to dirt track maintenance, but I have nothing to back that feeling up...I just see tracks like Saratoga go through an entire meeting without a breakdown and I wonder how we ever got to the point of synths to begin with...

But the situation is completely different. Saratoga is located 3000 miles away, undergoes radically different weather, is only used in summer, and has a low number of annual racing days. It is a different kettle of fish altogether.

And there ARE less fatalities on the synthetic surfaces. If you support a change back from synthetic back to dirt, you are essentially saying that you are willing to accept more breakdowns. Nothing silly about that - my opinion anyway.

"Though the compilation of data concerning fatalities on all forms of racing surfaces is still a work in progress, every report done so far on synthetic surfaces comes to the same conclusion: when it comes to fatal injuries, synthetic surfaces are considerably safer than conventional dirt racetracks."

"In 52,266 races run over synthetic surfaces since the Shapiro-ordered mandate went into effect, the number of fatalities has fallen to 1.68 per 1,000 starters. That’s a 45.6- percent decrease."

http://www.dmtc.com/upload/groundcontrolxxx.pdf

[cj]

"In 52,266 races run over synthetic surfaces since the Shapiro-ordered mandate went into effect, the number of fatalities has fallen to 1.68 per 1,000 starters. That’s a 45.6- percent decrease."

http://www.dmtc.com/upload/groundcontrolxxx.pdf

These studies are put out by people with an agenda. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but everyone knows numbers can be manipulated to fit an agenda. It is also pretty clear to me this number has been on the rise as the tracks wear down. I don't see that in any of the studies. Where are the comparisons to dirt tracks that are brand new and have a brand new base?

45.6% seems like a sharp decrease. How many is that exactly per 1,000, starters in pure numbers?

[FenceBored]

If you support a change back from synthetic back to dirt, you are essentially saying that you are willing to accept more breakdownsI.


Case closed. Whether the presentation is gussied up with a nice makeup job, or a no nonsense straight from the shower look, the accusation is still there. For civility's sake the former is preferable, but at times the makeup blinds people to the underlying squalidness.

gm10 and I both understand the charge he's making everytime we debate the issue. He doesn't understand why I don't "get it," unable to grasp that his premise is not irrefutable.

[Kimsus]

kismus, 80 if not 90% of godolphin's horses are turf horses... horses that would excel over the surface. of course it's not a big deal to him. we are not him and they are not us.

if you don't think that the fact that godolphin last year in the golphin mile was the first win in years at his own track, didn't have any reason to do with why they installed tapeta, you are kidding yourself.

there is also no betting in dubai.

I find this hard to believe, from what I have observed from Sheik Mohammed throughout all the yrs I have been following this game, he cares about his horses, treats them very well, and he absolutely loves competition. He runs his horses on all surfaces, dirt/poly or turf and has done well, he has probably deduced synth is the best surface for his horses from an overall perspective.

Don't forget his horses have done very well on the dirt in the UAE Derby and Dubai World Cup from years past, he doesn't need to rig the game.

[andymays]

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

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.

Catastrophic breakdowns are caused by a number of factors. Any conclusion that fails to consider all variables is fatally flawed. In California, shortly after the introduction of the synthetic surfaces, pre-race veterinary scrutiny of all starters was enhanced. Any potential starter with even the hint of a pre-existing condition was not allowed to compete. Could it be that this heightened pre-race inspection has contributed to the purported reduction of injuries attributed to synthetic surfaces?

[FenceBored]

These studies are put out by people with an agenda. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but everyone knows numbers can be manipulated to fit an agenda. It is also pretty clear to me this number has been on the rise as the tracks wear down. I don't see that in any of the studies. Where are the comparisons to dirt tracks that are brand new and have a brand new base?

You don't even have to compare with new dirt tracks to see the flaws, you can compare the synthetic figures at the So Cal tracks to the figures from they're dirt analogues from 2000-2003. I try to stay with the So Cal trio, as the Bay Meadows situation makes No Cal less of an apples to apples comparison. There was a increase in fatalities beginning in 2004. Prior to that the numbers were roughly equivalent to (though tending lower than) what we're seeing with the synthetics (see attachment 1 [The rptYear 1999.1 is an anomoly from a change from fiscal to close to calendar year reporting and contains data for Del Mar and OSA 1998 meets. All other reporting years contain DMR, SA, OSA and two HOL meets]). So, was the increase a necessary consequence of running on dirt, or a temporary spike caused by some external factor unrelated to surface. Synthetic advocates claim it is the former. If the latter, then the decrease we have seen with synthetics could be explained, in part or in total, by the discontinuation of that external factor.

45.6% seems like a sharp decrease. How many is that exactly per 1,000, starters in pure numbers?

Without looking back at the article, I'm guessing that that's the 3.09 to 1.68 per 1,000 in Dr. Arthur's last chart (attachment 2).

[andymays]

You don't even have to compare with new dirt tracks to see the flaws, you can compare the synthetic figures at the So Cal tracks to the figures from they're dirt analogues from 2000-2003. I try to stay with the So Cal trio, as the Bay Meadows situation makes No Cal less of an apples to apples comparison. There was a increase in fatalities beginning in 2004. Prior to that the numbers were roughly equivalent to (though tending lower than) what we're seeing with the synthetics (see attachment 1 [The rptYear 1999.1 is an anomoly from a change from fiscal to close to calendar year reporting and contains data for Del Mar and OSA 1998 meets. All other reporting years contain DMR, SA, OSA and two HOL meets]). So, was the increase a necessary consequence of running on dirt, or a temporary spike caused by some external factor unrelated to surface. Synthetic advocates claim it is the former. If the latter, then the decrease we have seen with synthetics could be explained, in part or in total, by the discontinuation of that external factor.



Without looking back at the article, I'm guessing that that's the 3.09 to 1.68 per 1,000 in Dr. Arthur's last chart (attachment 2).


Very few people on the ground at Santa Anita or any southern california track believe the statistics anymore. They are the ones who are "living it" and they're the ones that know.

John Shirreffs who trains Zenyatta doesn't believe the statistics so why should anyone else?

[PaceAdvantage]

3.09 per 1,000 is well above even the well accepted national average, is it not?

Using that 3.09 as a base of comparison sounds awfully high.

But, if you're a synth backer, I suppose you need to hang your hat as high as possible because the drop is so steep...

[gm10]

These studies are put out by people with an agenda. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but everyone knows numbers can be manipulated to fit an agenda. It is also pretty clear to me this number has been on the rise as the tracks wear down. I don't see that in any of the studies. Where are the comparisons to dirt tracks that are brand new and have a brand new base?

45.6% seems like a sharp decrease. How many is that exactly per 1,000, starters in pure numbers?

Please read the article. I know it's long, but it's interesting.
Then show me the numbers that the dirt guys are publishing which have been manipulated to fit their agenda.

The number per 1000 starts fell from 3.09 to 1.68. So that's 1.41 horses per 1000 starters. That's more than 1 horse per day in the winter, 3 horses a day in the summer. I find that shocking.

[gm10]

Very few people on the ground at Santa Anita or any southern california track believe the statistics anymore. They are the ones who are "living it" and they're the ones that know.

John Shirreffs who trains Zenyatta doesn't believe the statistics so why should anyone else?

Where does he say that?

[andymays]

Where does he say that?


http://horseracing.bloginky.com/2009/10/06/shirreffs-running-on-synthetics-like-running-on-velcro/

Excerpt:

With the Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita Park just one month away and Keeneland’s Fall meet kicking off this Friday, one can bet the already heated debate surrounding the merits of synthetic tracks will be continue to be one of the foremost issues in the racing community.

California-based trainer John Shirreffs, who conditions undefeated champion Zenyatta, has long been a vocal opponent of synthetic tracks and, during a national teleconference today, he detailed why he feels the surface does more harm than good in developing young prospects.

“I personally hate synthetics,” Shirreffs said. “I’m more into developing young horses and I find that young horses really don’t like training on synthetics. I don’t know if you can imagine training on Velcro. When the foot lands, it doesn’t slide, it sticks to the ground. Depending on how synthetic the surface is, the horse can’t rotate the foot into the track and push off.

“Imagine running around flat-footed all the time without getting up on your toes and pushing off,” Shirreffs continued. “That’s probably how it would feel to a human.”

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

He is one of the leaders of the CTT who are looking to get rid of these junk surfaces. He has been quoted in several articles saying how much he hates synthetic surfaces.

He didn't say he "didn't like" or "didn't care for" he said "Hate"!


What's not to understand?

[PaceAdvantage]

The number per 1000 starts fell from 3.09 to 1.68. So that's 1.41 horses per 1000 starters. That's more than 1 horse per day in the winter, 3 horses a day in the summer. I find that shocking.More than one per day? Where the heck do you come up with that number?

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW, gm10 hasn't yet noticed that in another thread, he just linked to an article about Penn National, which shows (without Gill runners of course) that Penn National is SAFER than Santa Anita...PENN NATIONAL of all places is SAFER than Santa Anita's synth course!!! PENN NATIONAL, where they race on DIRT in the DEAD OF THE WINTER NIGHT.

T-bred times just published the following stat for Penn National for all of 2009 PLUS the first month of 2010:

Without Gill’s horses, the track had 17,317 starters and a breakdown ratio of 1 per 1,085 starts.That ought to put a scare into synth-backers like gm10.

[PaceAdvantage]

For those not participating in the Gill thread, here's the link:

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2010/February/04/Gill-accounts-for-five-of-21-Penn-National-breakdowns.ASPX

[gm10]

You don't even have to compare with new dirt tracks to see the flaws, you can compare the synthetic figures at the So Cal tracks to the figures from they're dirt analogues from 2000-2003. I try to stay with the So Cal trio, as the Bay Meadows situation makes No Cal less of an apples to apples comparison. There was a increase in fatalities beginning in 2004. Prior to that the numbers were roughly equivalent to (though tending lower than) what we're seeing with the synthetics (see attachment 1 [The rptYear 1999.1 is an anomoly from a change from fiscal to close to calendar year reporting and contains data for Del Mar and OSA 1998 meets. All other reporting years contain DMR, SA, OSA and two HOL meets]). So, was the increase a necessary consequence of running on dirt, or a temporary spike caused by some external factor unrelated to surface. Synthetic advocates claim it is the former. If the latter, then the decrease we have seen with synthetics could be explained, in part or in total, by the discontinuation of that external factor.



Without looking back at the article, I'm guessing that that's the 3.09 to 1.68 per 1,000 in Dr. Arthur's last chart (attachment 2).

I agree that my 'premise is not irrefutable'. But please be honest when you try.

You cannot leave out NoCal - because as YOUR OWN figures show, they were the worst offenders on dirt. That's just plain cheating.

Furthermore, why are you just picking the good dirt years? What is so unrepresentative about the 'bad' years 2005-2006?

Finally, as you quite rightly point out, you should not compare apples with pears. You cannot compare the 'absolute' number of breakdowns between the two surfaces, simply because horses are starting in more races (since the synthetics were installed ... hmmm I wonder why). Your first attachment does not take this into account at all.

But to sum up your post, even when leaving out the worst dirt tracks and only focusing on the good years (for dirt), the synthetics surfaces still produces less average breakdowns per starter.

Nice refuting.

[gm10]

http://horseracing.bloginky.com/2009/10/06/shirreffs-running-on-synthetics-like-running-on-velcro/

Excerpt:

With the Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita Park just one month away and Keeneland’s Fall meet kicking off this Friday, one can bet the already heated debate surrounding the merits of synthetic tracks will be continue to be one of the foremost issues in the racing community.

California-based trainer John Shirreffs, who conditions undefeated champion Zenyatta, has long been a vocal opponent of synthetic tracks and, during a national teleconference today, he detailed why he feels the surface does more harm than good in developing young prospects.

“I personally hate synthetics,” Shirreffs said. “I’m more into developing young horses and I find that young horses really don’t like training on synthetics. I don’t know if you can imagine training on Velcro. When the foot lands, it doesn’t slide, it sticks to the ground. Depending on how synthetic the surface is, the horse can’t rotate the foot into the track and push off.

“Imagine running around flat-footed all the time without getting up on your toes and pushing off,” Shirreffs continued. “That’s probably how it would feel to a human.”

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

He is one of the leaders of the CTT who are looking to get rid of these junk surfaces. He has been quoted in several articles saying how much he hates synthetic surfaces.

He didn't say he "didn't like" or "didn't care for" he said "Hate"!


What's not to understand?

You said he doesn't trust the stats.
Where does he say that.

[DeanT]

BTW, gm10 hasn't yet noticed that in another thread, he just linked to an article about Penn National, which shows (without Gill runners of course) that Penn National is SAFER than Santa Anita...PENN NATIONAL of all places is SAFER than Santa Anita's synth course!!! PENN NATIONAL, where they race on DIRT in the DEAD OF THE WINTER NIGHT.

That ought to put a scare into synth-backers like gm10.

Since dirt was much worse, it should not put as much a scare into the synth backers, as it does the people who want to go back to the way it was.....

[gm10]

BTW, gm10 hasn't yet noticed that in another thread, he just linked to an article about Penn National, which shows (without Gill runners of course) that Penn National is SAFER than Santa Anita...PENN NATIONAL of all places is SAFER than Santa Anita's synth course!!! PENN NATIONAL, where they race on DIRT in the DEAD OF THE WINTER NIGHT.

T-bred times just published the following stat for Penn National for all of 2009 PLUS the first month of 2010:

That ought to put a scare into synth-backers like gm10.

Please!!!

a) That does not include breakdowns during training, which is probably the same number as during racing. I refer to Fencebored's numbers for that.
b) It does not include horses who were eased and euthanized later.

My guess is that it's twice as lethal as SA.

[PaceAdvantage]

Since dirt was much worse, it should not put as much a scare into the synth backers, as it does the people who want to go back to the way it was.....Quoted nationwide figures, plus the newest figures released on Penn National tell me that the 3.09 per 1,000 is either a BOGUS number, or it has nothing to do with dirt in general, but everything to do with the track at Santa Anita specificially (at that time).

Meaning, something was wrong with the track, and it wouldn't have mattered if there was dirt or synth lying on the surface.

[PaceAdvantage]

Please!!!

a) That does not include breakdowns during training, which is probably the same number as during racing. I refer to Fencebored's numbers for that.
b) It does not include horses who were eased and euthanized later.

My guess is that it's twice as lethal as SA.The guy who just surmised that they were breaking down 3 per DAY in the summer is going to school me on numbers? That's rich.

What were they running on average? 100 horse fields per race?

[FenceBored]

Please read the article. I know it's long, but it's interesting.
Then show me the numbers that the dirt guys are publishing which have been manipulated to fit their agenda.

The number per 1000 starts fell from 3.09 to 1.68. So that's 1.41 horses per 1000 starters. That's more than 1 horse per day in the winter, 3 horses a day in the summer. I find that shocking.

The article is very interesting, in an illogical kind of way.

I especially like the part where Mr. Finley tries to garner sympathy for Mr. Shapiro by pointing out his losses in the Madoff scheme. As though highlighting Shapiro's ability to get duped by a charlatan in financial matters improves his credibility against the charge he fell for the used-car-lot treatment from synthetic track salesmen. :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

Trainer Bruce Headley last night on HRTV summed it up nicely, while answering a caller's question (Mike from N.Y., anyone we know?), Headley and his cohorts hated Santa Anita’s most recent incarnation of a dirt track and Headley feels the surface should be sandy loam.

People forget how the trainers complained about Santa Anita's dirt track, because of the wood mixture added in to save maintenance costs. Bruce wants a return to sandy loam, the original surface. However, that won’t happen as it is too expensive to install and maintain.

Returning to dirt is not so simple, because the trainers hated the most recent dirt surface, and the pressing problem with the drainage system.

[gm10]

The guy who just surmised that they were breaking down 3 per DAY in the summer is going to school me on numbers? That's rich.

What were they running on average? 100 horse fields per race?

There about 3000 runners per day in summer.
Assume 2000 of those run on the dirt.
Then 1.41 * 2 = 2.82 more horses will break down.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against dirt tracks like Saratoga or Churchill Downs, but it's clear to me that the synthetics might be a solution in some parts of the country.

[cj]

Please read the article. I know it's long, but it's interesting.
Then show me the numbers that the dirt guys are publishing which have been manipulated to fit their agenda.

The number per 1000 starts fell from 3.09 to 1.68. So that's 1.41 horses per 1000 starters. That's more than 1 horse per day in the winter, 3 horses a day in the summer. I find that shocking.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no agenda for "dirt guys".

There is no way that 3.09 is the national average on dirt...not even close. But again, how about for tracks recently rebuilt from the base up? There is no fair comparison. It is painfully obvious the rate of breakdowns has increased since synthetics were first installed. Is that a consequence of the track? I don't know, but nobody seems to mention it.

[gm10]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no agenda for "dirt guys".

There is no way that 3.09 is the national average on dirt...not even close. But again, how about for tracks recently rebuilt from the base up? There is no fair comparison. It is painfully obvious the rate of breakdowns has increased since synthetics were first installed. Is that a consequence of the track? I don't know, but nobody seems to mention it.

I don't agree that the number of breakdowns has increased on the synthetics. I wouldn't mind seeing any numbers on that if you have any.

3.09 does look like a high number, and it would be worth seeing this split up by state/track.

However ... even if you don't trust this ... what about the decline in California?

[FenceBored]

I agree that my 'premise is not irrefutable'. But please be honest when you try.


I always try to be honest Mr. Zenyatta-is-a-dirt-horse.


You cannot leave out NoCal - because as YOUR OWN figures show, they were the worst offenders on dirt. That's just plain cheating.


My own figures? I don't have any figures that are 'my own.' For California I use the CHRB's numbers. As to excluding Northern California, it's like this. Southern California has a nice steady rotation which has been in existence throughout the entire period of the PDF CHRB Annual Reports. Northern California has been in a state of flux over the past few years due to the uncertainty and later closure of Bay Meadows. I could devote a good chunk of my spare time to trying to figure out how the number of racing days have been divided over the past 14 years, or I could focus on the cleaner sample. Gee, I wonder which I should do?


Furthermore, why are you just picking the good dirt years? What is so unrepresentative about the 'bad' years 2005-2006?


I don't know what's so unrepresentative about 2005-2006. You tell me. All I can tell you is that there is indeed a spike there. The 'why' is unknown. Here's a quirky idea, remember the MRLS outbreak in Kentucky in 2002? Well, 30% of the US foal crop is from Kentucky. What if, and this is really out there, whatever mechanism caused the MRLS resulted in a slight reduction in the soundness of some surviving 2002 foals and 2003 foals from mares exposed to that mechanism. The 2002 foals are 3yos of 2005, so if they had a slightly elevated risk of breaking down this would show up in the years 2004-2007, the prime racing years for those two crops. Like I said, I know of no evidence to support the idea, it's just a wild hare. A cross check would be against the (non-existent) statistics from other areas of the country for those years.


Finally, as you quite rightly point out, you should not compare apples with pears. You cannot compare the 'absolute' number of breakdowns between the two surfaces, simply because horses are starting in more races (since the synthetics were installed ... hmmm I wonder why). Your first attachment does not take this into account at all.


They are? At Del Mar in 2002 there were 370 races with 3,021 starters (w/ 4 fatalities that's a rate of 1.32 combined main track and turf), as compared with Del Mar in 2008 with 371 races and 3,188 starters (w/ 6 fatalitites that's a rate of 1.88 combined main track and turf). Where are all those extra races, huh? And 167 additional starts is nice, but it ain't all that much.


But to sum up your post, even when leaving out the worst dirt tracks and only focusing on the good years (for dirt), the synthetics surfaces still produces less average breakdowns per starter.

Nice refuting.

2002 1.32
2008 1.88

Yep, that's nice refuting.

[DeanT]

Meaning, something was wrong with the track, and it wouldn't have mattered if there was dirt or synth lying on the surface.
You might be right. But they did not install synth there because they had 50M bucks lying around, they installed it because they had a problem.

I hope this Gill thing wakes up everyone in racing. Racing has a serious problem. and if racehorses keep dieing there will be no racing.

[cj]

I don't agree that the number of breakdowns has increased on the synthetics. I wouldn't mind seeing any numbers on that if you have any.

3.09 does look like a high number, and it would be worth seeing this split up by state/track.

However ... even if you don't trust this ... what about the decline in California?

We've been over this 1,000 times. The track was old, the base was worn out. They didn't want to spend money to fix it. Rubber came along and they thought it was a panacea. It has also been noted vet tests became a lot stricter when rubber was installed. Of course, that was in part to twist the numbers.

I'm not going to come up with numbers I could twist any way I see fit. Delmar had tons of breakdowns this year, probably more than all the other years put together. Santa Anita has had a rash of them, both in the mornings and in racing. I really didn't follow Hollywood. It is hard to have many breakdowns when most races have 4 or 5 horses.

[PaceAdvantage]

There about 3000 runners per day in summer.
Assume 2000 of those run on the dirt.
Then 1.41 * 2 = 2.82 more horses will break down.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against dirt tracks like Saratoga or Churchill Downs, but it's clear to me that the synthetics might be a solution in some parts of the country.I was under the impression you were speaking specifically about Santa Anita, and had somehow made some strange math error.

I should have realized you wouldn't make such an obvious blunder, but you could have been more clear in your original post. The fact that you were extrapolating strictly Southern California numbers to the rest of the country didn't help ease the confusion...

[rwwupl]

gm10 quote:

And there ARE less fatalities on the synthetic surfaces. If you support a change back from synthetic back to dirt, you are essentially saying that you are willing to accept more breakdowns. Nothing silly about that - my opinion anyway.

"Though the compilation of data concerning fatalities on all forms of racing surfaces is still a work in progress, every report done so far on synthetic surfaces comes to the same conclusion: when it comes to fatal injuries, synthetic surfaces are considerably safer than conventional dirt racetracks."

"In 52,266 races run over synthetic surfaces since the Shapiro-ordered mandate went into effect, the number of fatalities has fallen to 1.68 per 1,000 starters. That’s a 45.6- percent decrease."http://www.dmtc.com/upload/groundcontrolxxx.pdf[/QUOTE]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

The term was popularized in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed. The most plausible, given current evidence, is Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843-1911).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To show another side of this insane argument concerning horse race fatalities in ca. and Del Mar in particular:

In the four years before the 2006 bad year at Del Mar, you will find in the CHRB Annual Report a "Racing Fatalities" section each year. It is broken down to show total fatalities at each track for the year and then fatalities during racing only,then fatalities during training only and then "other" fatalities.

The following explanation is quoted next:

Race fatalities are the fatalities that occur during or subsequent to a race at the listed racetrack. Training fatalities occur during
active training. Other fatalities include fatalities from illness or accidents not associated with racing or training. Training and
other fatalities include the operating racetrack and all other auxiliary training facilities reporting through the official veterinarian
during the association’s meet. For example, during the Los Angeles Turf Club/SA meet, training and other fatalities would
include occurrences at San Luis Rey Downs, Fairplex Park, and Hollywood Park.

The numbers can be presented as I outline below and according to the official CHRB Report:

D/Mar Total....Racing Training Other
04/05 17 7 7 3
03/04 22 10 7 5
02/03 13 8 3 2
01/02 17 4 9 4

There were 3,213 races run at Del Mar during this period on dirt for Thoroughbreds.

There were a total of 69 thoroughbred fatalities listed in all catagories (including in the barn and at auxillary facilities) and if you do that math, the average would be 1.87 per 1000 starts for the four year period prior to the bad year(2006) that the synthetic supporters love to quote in comparing the new synthetics to the old dirt.

The new progressive statistics will tell you that in 52,000 races on NEW synthetic tracks the fatality rate has been driven down from 3.09 per 1000 starts to 1.68 per start as opposed to the numbers on the OLD dirt (WOW!!).

They skip over fast that the CHRB numbers previously were published were "flawed",in their opinion and they had to do considerable reconstruction to fit the new format of number of fatalities per 1000 starts, as no previous record was kept.

I think the work should be done by people without an opinion and an axe to grind when the figures are "reconstucted" to show the CHRB what a great decision they made to mandate the synthetics in Ca.

Once the numbers are presented to the CHRB, they are rubber stamped and take on the air of credibility.

Poo-Poo

Again,

Lies,Damned Lies and Statistics.

[cj]

You might be right. But they did not install synth there because they had 50M bucks lying around, they installed it because they had a problem.

I hope this Gill thing wakes up everyone in racing. Racing has a serious problem. and if racehorses keep dieing there will be no racing.

Yep...the slots are creating purses too big for horses that are old, beaten up, and lame. It is one of the many negative side effects of slots for the sport. Welfare for horsemen, plain and simple, especially horsemen that have no business running for that kind of money.

[illinoisbred]

Yep...the slots are creating purses too big for horses that are old, beaten up, and lame. It was one of the many negative side effects of slots for the sport. Welfare for horsemen, plain and simple, especially horsemen that have no business running for that kind of money.
The truth, the whole truth, the absolute truth!

[gm10]

I always try to be honest Mr. Zenyatta-is-a-dirt-horse.




My own figures? I don't have any figures that are 'my own.' For California I use the CHRB's numbers. As to excluding Northern California, it's like this. Southern California has a nice steady rotation which has been in existence throughout the entire period of the PDF CHRB Annual Reports. Northern California has been in a state of flux over the past few years due to the uncertainty and later closure of Bay Meadows. I could devote a good chunk of my spare time to trying to figure out how the number of racing days have been divided over the past 14 years, or I could focus on the cleaner sample. Gee, I wonder which I should do?

That's one reason why you look at fatality per start. It normalizes the data.


I don't know what's so unrepresentative about 2005-2006. You tell me. All I can tell you is that there is indeed a spike there. The 'why' is unknown. Here's a quirky idea, remember the MRLS outbreak in Kentucky in 2002? Well, 30% of the US foal crop is from Kentucky. What if, and this is really out there, whatever mechanism caused the MRLS resulted in a slight reduction in the soundness of some surviving 2002 foals and 2003 foals from mares exposed to that mechanism. The 2002 foals are 3yos of 2005, so if they had a slightly elevated risk of breaking down this would show up in the years 2004-2007, the prime racing years for those two crops. Like I said, I know of no evidence to support the idea, it's just a wild hare. A cross check would be against the (non-existent) statistics from other areas of the country for those years.


Hey it's an interesting explanation. Can't knock it although it does sound far-fetched. It will/would definitely show in other numbers if this was a generational effect.



They are? At Del Mar in 2002 there were 370 races with 3,021 starters (w/ 4 fatalities that's a rate of 1.32 combined main track and turf), as compared with Del Mar in 2008 with 371 races and 3,188 starters (w/ 6 fatalitites that's a rate of 1.88 combined main track and turf). Where are all those extra races, huh? And 167 additional starts is nice, but it ain't all that much.


I'm not saying there are more races, I'm saying horses start more often. That is reflected in increased field size (given a constant number of races).


2002 1.32
2008 1.88

Yep, that's nice refuting.

Come on now. Please quote your source, and let's focus on the bigger picture rather than trying to find exceptions to the rule.

[gm10]

I was under the impression you were speaking specifically about Santa Anita, and had somehow made some strange math error.

I should have realized you wouldn't make such an obvious blunder, but you could have been more clear in your original post. The fact that you were extrapolating strictly Southern California numbers to the rest of the country didn't help ease the confusion...

Ok, but if it's true ... isn't 3 horses per day a lot?

[cj]

Ok, but if it's true ... isn't 3 horses per day a lot?

Who cares if it isn't true?

[DeanT]

Cj and whomever might be interested, imo, the problems go much deeper than band aid solutions. The hyperbole is incredible. I like to read unbiased people who are smart and maybe you might too. Here is one fella:

http://horsetrainingscience.blogspot.com

What I learned from him:

Synthetic tracks are safer, but nowhere near what they are advertised.

Training makes a difference, because when horses are trained in a way that is diametrically opposed to the way they are in the US and Canada, breakdowns virtually disappear - he uses Australia to contrast this, where they have a breakdown rate of 0.39 per thousand.

Michael Dickinson is not a two bit hack hawking Tapeta, he is a brilliant guy who created Tapeta to help racing, and it does work in the way he intended it to.

He is someone who recognizes that track surfaces can make a difference but we have to change the way we do everything here, to make racing safer. For example, this snippet from last year "So it says here first, watch the news for future complaints about the continuance of breakdowns even with 'safe' surfaces becoming more commonplace. Next up, maybe we'll get more drugs banned - but once again accidents will happen at an seemingly alarming rate."

and "The point is missed entirely in my opinion, the focus should be on the individual horses themselves. Some can run on asphalt and be just fine, others will get hurt running on cotton candy."
Just an FYI for those who may be interested.

[Bobzilla]

I'd be interested to know, if possible, what the respective breakdown ratios would be if the reports were restricted to tracks where G1 races were conducted over the course of the year. As Crist pointed out in a recent article, the dirt track grouping will always include 2nd and 3rd tier tracks that don't have the money to adequately improve their tracks. And unfortunately, these tracks will always be the tracks where older, tired, beat-up, drug-abused and overly exploited animals will be sent before...and I hate bringing this up..... they are shipped off to their ultimate destination. It doesn't seem like numbers derived from these kinds of comparisons (where the lower level tracks are included) could possibly yield information of any compelling value.

[andymays]

Cj and whomever might be interested, imo, the problems go much deeper than band aid solutions. The hyperbole is incredible. I like to read unbiased people who are smart and maybe you might too. Here is one fella:

http://horsetrainingscience.blogspot.com

What I learned from him:

Synthetic tracks are safer, but nowhere near what they are advertised.

Training makes a difference, because when horses are trained in a way that is diametrically opposed to the way they are in the US and Canada, breakdowns virtually disappear - he uses Australia to contrast this, where they have a breakdown rate of 0.39 per thousand.

Michael Dickinson is not a two bit hack hawking Tapeta, he is a brilliant guy who created Tapeta to help racing, and it does work in the way he intended it to.

He is someone who recognizes that track surfaces can make a difference but we have to change the way we do everything here, to make racing safer. For example, this snippet from last year "So it says here first, watch the news for future complaints about the continuance of breakdowns even with 'safe' surfaces becoming more commonplace. Next up, maybe we'll get more drugs banned - but once again accidents will happen at an seemingly alarming rate."

Just an FYI for those who may be interested.


The only thing I would add is that synthetic surfaces are safer when it comes to breakdowns when they are brand new but as they wear out they become less safe. Del Mar and Arlington 2007 were nothing like 2009. They only stay "new" for about a year. Even when they are new they produce more soft tissue injuries.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'd be interested to know, if possible, what the respective breakdown ratios would be if the reports were restricted to tracks where G1 races were conducted over the course of the year. As Crist pointed out in a recent article, the dirt track grouping will always include 2nd and 3rd tier tracks that don't have the money to adequately improve their tracks. And unfortunately, these tracks will always be the tracks where older, tired, beat-up, drug-abused and overly exploited animals will be sent before...and I hate bringing this up..... they are shipped off to their ultimate destination. It doesn't seem like numbers derived from these kinds of comparisons (where the lower level tracks are included) could possibly yield information of any compelling value.An excellent and compelling point by Crist. Couple that with the microscope all the horses were under PRE-RACE after synths were installed in California, and you have statistics that really aren't revealing the whole truth.

[FenceBored]

I'm not saying there are more races, I'm saying horses start more often. That is reflected in increased field size (given a constant number of races).

3,188 starters in 2008 at Del Mar in 370 races
3,021 starters in 2002 at Del Mar in 371 races
------
0,167 difference, or an additional 0.45 starter per race.


[quote=gm10]
Come on now. Please quote your source, and let's focus on the bigger picture rather than trying to find exceptions to the rule.

The source was the previous paragraph of mine! :bang:

The fatalities came from the CHRB data, the numbers for races and starters came from the American Racing Manuals for 2003 and 2009 respectively.

As for them being exceptions, why do you automatically assume they're exceptions? Because you want them to be? You try being honest for a change.

[andymays]

An excellent and compelling point by Crist. Couple that with the microscope all the horses were under PRE-RACE after synths were installed in California, and you have statistics that really aren't revealing the whole truth.


It's good that prominent people like Crist are filling the public in on the reality. The infomercial tactics on the part of the synthetic advocates is being exposed on a daily basis.

[andymays]

The other thing that nobody is factoring in is the increased drug testing in California and everywhere else. Milk Shaking was rampant prior to 2007 and stuff like that contributed to the rash in breakdowns and fatalities. Especially from 2003 to 2006.

[cj]

Cj and whomever might be interested, imo, the problems go much deeper than band aid solutions. The hyperbole is incredible. I like to read unbiased people who are smart and maybe you might too. Here is one fella:

http://horsetrainingscience.blogspot.com

What I learned from him:

Synthetic tracks are safer, but nowhere near what they are advertised.

Training makes a difference, because when horses are trained in a way that is diametrically opposed to the way they are in the US and Canada, breakdowns virtually disappear - he uses Australia to contrast this, where they have a breakdown rate of 0.39 per thousand.

Michael Dickinson is not a two bit hack hawking Tapeta, he is a brilliant guy who created Tapeta to help racing, and it does work in the way he intended it to.

He is someone who recognizes that track surfaces can make a difference but we have to change the way we do everything here, to make racing safer. For example, this snippet from last year "So it says here first, watch the news for future complaints about the continuance of breakdowns even with 'safe' surfaces becoming more commonplace. Next up, maybe we'll get more drugs banned - but once again accidents will happen at an seemingly alarming rate."

and "The point is missed entirely in my opinion, the focus should be on the individual horses themselves. Some can run on asphalt and be just fine, others will get hurt running on cotton candy."
Just an FYI for those who may be interested.

If all this is true, and I actually believe a lot of it is, were breakdowns really the biggest problem in the industry? I think a lot more pressing problems then maybe losing an extra horse every thousand starts could have been addressed, but that is just my two cents.

And yes, I love horses and hate to see one put down, but what has been the upside of synthetics. More starters? No. More handle? No. Safer? Dubious at best. Tons of money spent to find all this out? Yep.

[DeanT]

If all this is true, and I actually believe a lot of it is, were breakdowns really the biggest problem in the industry? I think a lot more pressing problems then maybe losing an extra horse every thousand starts could have been addressed, but that is just my two cents.

Change racing? That takes work and tough decisions. All changing a track takes is a bulldozer.

I dont begrudge them for changing the track, and (despite the hyperbole) I dont think any reasonable person could say that they are not slightly safer for the horses, but there is something sooooo racing about this whole escapade ......... taking care of a patient that comes in with stomach pain, and doing surgery on his ankle.

Having said that, going back to what once was is equally stupid, imo. Short fields, bad drainage, falling handles and horses doing faceplants in the stretch plagued California racing long before synthetics were introduced, and they will again if dirt is reintroduced. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a differing result is insanity, and we will see very soon if California racing fits that description.

[cj]

Change racing? That takes work and tough decisions. All changing a track takes is a bulldozer.

I dont begrudge them for changing the track, and (despite the hyperbole) I dont think any reasonable person could say that they are not slightly safer for the horses, but there is something sooooo racing about this whole escapade ......... taking care of a patient that comes in with stomach pain, and doing surgery on his ankle.

Having said that, going back to what once was is equally stupid, imo. Short fields, bad drainage, falling handles and horses doing faceplants in the stretch plagued California racing long before synthetics were introduced, and they will again if dirt is reintroduced. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a differing result is insanity, and we will see very soon if California racing fits that description.

You get no argument from me on that front. The surface has very little to do with the problems of California racing. Of course, it had little to do with the shape of things before the last change and that didn't stop it from happening.

Imagine if all this rubber money had been spent to update the 1890s tote system we have today?

[gm10]

Who cares if it isn't true?

And would you care to back that up with data?

[gm10]

[QUOTE=gm10]I'm not saying there are more races, I'm saying horses start more often. That is reflected in increased field size (given a constant number of races).

3,188 starters in 2008 at Del Mar in 370 races
3,021 starters in 2002 at Del Mar in 371 races
------
0,167 difference, or an additional 0.45 starter per race.




The source was the previous paragraph of mine! :bang:

The fatalities came from the CHRB data, the numbers for races and starters came from the American Racing Manuals for 2003 and 2009 respectively.

As for them being exceptions, why do you automatically assume they're exceptions? Because you want them to be? You try being honest for a change.

Can I consult those numbers online? I would like to see comparisons between more than two years and more than one track.

[FenceBored]

And would you care to back that up with data?

Seeing how you casually dismiss any evidence contrary to your expectations, what difference would that make in having a discussion with you? :bang:

[gm10]

If all this is true, and I actually believe a lot of it is, were breakdowns really the biggest problem in the industry? I think a lot more pressing problems then maybe losing an extra horse every thousand starts could have been addressed, but that is just my two cents.

And yes, I love horses and hate to see one put down, but what has been the upside of synthetics. More starters? No. More handle? No. Safer? Dubious at best. Tons of money spent to find all this out? Yep.

More starters? "In 2005, the last year where every California race meet was run over dirt, average field size statewide at the major California tracks was 7.5 starters per race. In 2008, the most recent year for which complete statistics are available, the average combined field size at the same tracks was 8.0. "

More handle? "The horse racing business is bad most everywhere. According to Equibase, $15.5 billion was wagered in North America in 2006. In 2009, the final number dipped to $12.3 billion. That’s a 20.6-percent ecrease.
Some tracks with synthetic surfaces may be down in handle, but they aren’t down nearly as much as the North American average. If anything, synthetic surfaces seem to have helped tracks prevent the type of devastating handle decreases that are plaguing the rest of the industry."


Safer? "In 52,266 races run over synthetic surfaces since the Shapiro-ordered mandate went into effect, the number of fatalities has fallen to 1.68 per 1,000 starters. That’s a 45.6- percent decrease."

[gm10]

Seeing how you casually dismiss any evidence contrary to your expectations, what difference would that make in having a discussion with you? :bang:

I'm not dismissing it, I'm asking you for more data. You obviously have access to the data, please share it with us.

[FenceBored]

I'm not dismissing it, I'm asking you for more data. You obviously have access to the data, please share it with us.


As I only have the ARMs for 2002, 2006 and 2008 (the 2003, 2007, 2009 editions respectively) that is the only data I have to hand. I will post for the three major So Cal tracks when I have time in the next day or two. Anyone else with ARMS for other years who would like to provide the data (number of races and starters for each of the meets) for those tracks in other years between 1996 and 2008 feel free. Or, if someone can point me to an online reference for that information going back a significant number of years, I'd be obliged.

PA, is there any way to get a table to format nicely in the editor, or is 'attaching' a screenshot of the table in other software the best way to handle it?

[FenceBored]

The CHRB data for 2008 is by track, not by meet at track, so OSA is consolidated under SA and HOL's Fall meet is lumped in with the Spring meet. Therefore, I have generated the chart twice, once with the 2002 and 2006 data by meet at track, then a second chart with the 2002 and 2006 data consolidated ala the 2008 data.

This is the first time I've looked at more than the DMR data, and I must say, the world is a strange and wonderous place.

Feel free to double check the math. Although it was pulled from Excel, there was some cutting and pasting involved to format things, and even though I double checked everything, mistakes can happen.

[cj]

More starters? "In 2005, the last year where every California race meet was run over dirt, average field size statewide at the major California tracks was 7.5 starters per race. In 2008, the most recent year for which complete statistics are available, the average combined field size at the same tracks was 8.0. "

More handle? "The horse racing business is bad most everywhere. According to Equibase, $15.5 billion was wagered in North America in 2006. In 2009, the final number dipped to $12.3 billion. That’s a 20.6-percent ecrease.
Some tracks with synthetic surfaces may be down in handle, but they aren’t down nearly as much as the North American average. If anything, synthetic surfaces seem to have helped tracks prevent the type of devastating handle decreases that are plaguing the rest of the industry."


Safer? "In 52,266 races run over synthetic surfaces since the Shapiro-ordered mandate went into effect, the number of fatalities has fallen to 1.68 per 1,000 starters. That’s a 45.6- percent decrease."

Spin, spin, spin. I could argue with you on each of these, and already have on the third.

I'll just give a few quick notes as this is tiresome. Of course field size is up. The reason...more and more cheap races and maiden races. Also, the addition of turf sprints. The same would have happened on dirt in my opinion.

Where are the numbers that handle is down less on synthetic tracks? I haven't seen them, but I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it?

[gm10]

Spin, spin, spin. I could argue with you on each of these, and already have on the third.

I'll just give a few quick notes as this is tiresome. Of course field size is up. The reason...more and more cheap races and maiden races. Also, the addition of turf sprints. The same would have happened on dirt in my opinion.

Where are the numbers that handle is down less on synthetic tracks? I haven't seen them, but I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it?

Just read the article. If handle is down 20% I'm guessing dirt handle hasn't gone up.

Your field size argument is pure speculation. You would post the data if you knew for sure.

[gm10]

The CHRB data for 2008 is by track, not by meet at track, so OSA is consolidated under SA and HOL's Fall meet is lumped in with the Spring meet. Therefore, I have generated the chart twice, once with the 2002 and 2006 data by meet at track, then a second chart with the 2002 and 2006 data consolidated ala the 2008 data.

This is the first time I've looked at more than the DMR data, and I must say, the world is a strange and wonderous place.

Feel free to double check the math. Although it was pulled from Excel, there was some cutting and pasting involved to format things, and even though I double checked everything, mistakes can happen.

Do you have something similar for 2003-2004-2005-2007? Thx.

[cj]

Just read the article. If handle is down 20% I'm guessing dirt handle hasn't gone up.

Your field size argument is pure speculation. You would post the data if you knew for sure.

I have read the article. Why do you keep asking me to read it?

No it isn't speculation, but I don't have time to run queries for the fun of it.

[cj]

And would you care to back that up with data?

You missed the point. I didn't say it was or wasn't true. I said if it isn't, and you asked 'if', who cares?

[PaceAdvantage]

PA, is there any way to get a table to format nicely in the editor, or is 'attaching' a screenshot of the table in other software the best way to handle it?First, you have to go into UserCP and make sure you aren't using the WYSIWYG editor...use either STANDARD or ENHANCED.

Next, make sure you surround whatever text you want to format with the CODE tags.

Third, make sure the font of the text you want to format is COURIER or COURIER NEW font.

The best way to do it is to set your table up in Notepad first, then copy and paste it here to the editor (tabs will work if you do it in Notepad).

The big key is making sure your editor is not set to WYSIWYG mode (UserCP, Edit Options, Scroll to bottom)

Example:

HorseName Date Finish SpdFig
--------- ---- ------ ------
HorseA 1/1/10 1 85
HorseB 1/1/10 5 79
HorseC 1/1/10 7 74

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Tough to compare breakdown rates on polycrap vs dirt.

One track has all the jockeys grabbing while going halves in 50....the other has half the field wanting to be on the lead or near the lead going 46.

Most breakdowns happen when horses are stressed or tired. Tough to be stressed or tired when the entire field is relaxing waiting for a 1/4 mile sprint.

I think racing would be much safer if we made all the horses swim for 5 minutes in a pool at the head of the stretch then they all hop out and run a 1/4 mile to wire.

[andymays]

]Tough to compare breakdown rates on polycrap vs dirt.[/B]

One track has all the jockeys grabbing while going halves in 50....the other has half the field wanting to be on the lead or near the lead going 46.

Most breakdowns happen when horses are stressed or tired. Tough to be stressed or tired when the entire field is relaxing waiting for a 1/4 mile sprint.

I think racing would be much safer if we made all the horses swim for 5 minutes in a pool at the head of the stretch then they all hop out and run a 1/4 mile to wire.


I would say it's more like impossible to compare the California tracks for several reasons. If they would have put in a new dirt track with a new base at the same time they put in a new synthetic surface you could almost compare apples to apples. Since 2007 there have been other changes with race day vet inspections and better testing for milk shaking and other stuff. Other than that you have to defer to the Trainers.

[FenceBored]

First, you have to go into UserCP and make sure you aren't using the WYSIWYG editor...use either STANDARD or ENHANCED.

Next, make sure you surround whatever text you want to format with the CODE tags.

Third, make sure the font of the text you want to format is COURIER or COURIER NEW font.

The best way to do it is to set your table up in Notepad first, then copy and paste it here to the editor (tabs will work if you do it in Notepad).


Thanks.

I've had the editor in WYSIWYG and beat my head against the wall trying to get CODE to work. Should have just asked.

[gm10]

You missed the point. I didn't say it was or wasn't true. I said if it isn't, and you asked 'if', who cares?

And if it is true, do you care?

[gm10]

I have read the article. Why do you keep asking me to read it?

No it isn't speculation, but I don't have time to run queries for the fun of it.

No problemo. I will do them for you tonight or tomorrow (don't have access to the database right now).

So how shall we test your hypothesis? Look at average purses and relative number of turf sprints over the years?

[cj]

And if it is true, do you care?

Of course.

[cj]

No problemo. I will do them for you tonight or tomorrow (don't have access to the database right now).

So how shall we test your hypothesis? Look at average purses and relative number of turf sprints over the years?

Well, there were no turf sprints at Delmar and scant few at Hollywood until recently. The biggest thing I mentioned was the increase in cheap races, especially maiden claimers.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tough to compare breakdown rates on polycrap vs dirt.

One track has all the jockeys grabbing while going halves in 50....the other has half the field wanting to be on the lead or near the lead going 46.

Most breakdowns happen when horses are stressed or tired. Tough to be stressed or tired when the entire field is relaxing waiting for a 1/4 mile sprint.

I think racing would be much safer if we made all the horses swim for 5 minutes in a pool at the head of the stretch then they all hop out and run a 1/4 mile to wire.

Exactly why aws are safer. There is less muscle fatigue, less stress to the pulmanary system and less stress on the joints, resulting from the reduced need to quickly accelearate out of the gate. However, I percieve you are not a fan of the less stressful form of racing.

Don't you think the finishes are more exiciting, because the outcome of the race is in doubt up to the wire?

[miesque]

Tough to compare breakdown rates on polycrap vs dirt.

One track has all the jockeys grabbing while going halves in 50....the other has half the field wanting to be on the lead or near the lead going 46.

Most breakdowns happen when horses are stressed or tired. Tough to be stressed or tired when the entire field is relaxing waiting for a 1/4 mile sprint.

I think racing would be much safer if we made all the horses swim for 5 minutes in a pool at the head of the stretch then they all hop out and run a 1/4 mile to wire.


This one of the reasons why I think turf horses tend to have more longevity to their careers at the top level in my opinion coupled with the fact they have a kinder surface (in most circumstances) when they are charging and they tend to have stouter pedigrees.

[FenceBored]

Exactly why aws are safer. There is less muscle fatigue, less stress to the pulmanary system and less stress on the joints, resulting from the reduced need to quickly accelearate out of the gate. However, I percieve you are not a fan of the less stressful form of racing.

Don't you think the finishes are more exiciting, because the outcome of the race is in doubt up to the wire?

Don't you realize that aws are manufactured in ways that harm the environment? I percieve you are not a fan of Mother Earth.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Exactly why aws are safer. There is less muscle fatigue, less stress to the pulmanary system and less stress on the joints, resulting from the reduced need to quickly accelearate out of the gate. However, I percieve you are not a fan of the less stressful form of racing.

Don't you think the finishes are more exiciting, because the outcome of the race is in doubt up to the wire?

Then say that AWS's make jockeys hold their horses and sprint home......don't say the surface is some miracle product that will keep horses from breaking down.

No.....I hate synthetics.....I like horse racing.....synthetics make it jockey racing.

[rwwupl]

Then say that AWS's make jockeys hold their horses and sprint home......don't say the surface is some miracle product that will keep horses from breaking down.

No.....I hate synthetics.....I like horse racing.....synthetics make it jockey racing.



Bingo! I also like to bet on horse racing, NOT Jockey racing.

[Show Me the Wire]

Don't you realize that aws are manufactured in ways that harm the environment? I percieve you are not a fan of Mother Earth.

Oh FenceBored another straw argument from you. Can't argue the relationship of exertion and safety, so throw crap at the wall to see what sticks. :faint:

[Show Me the Wire]

Then say that AWS's make jockeys hold their horses and sprint home......don't say the surface is some miracle product that will keep horses from breaking down.

No.....I hate synthetics.....I like horse racing.....synthetics make it jockey racing.

I don't understand, your setiments, unless you hold zilly's belief jockeys are mere passengers. It is jockey racing on the dirt too.

[gm10]

Well, there were no turf sprints at Delmar and scant few at Hollywood until recently. The biggest thing I mentioned was the increase in cheap races, especially maiden claimers.

Here's a breakdown of MC races per year for SoCal only (dirt/poly).

(Year ### MC Races ### Total Races ### Proportion of MC's)

2003 461 1576 29.25%
2004 462 1580 29.24%
2005 470 1627 28.89%
2006 465 1562 29.77%
2007 468 1606 29.14%
2008 502 1624 30.91%
2009 453 1519 29.82%
2010 44 151 29.14%

Really not much of a difference imo.

[Tom]

Don't you realize that aws are manufactured in ways that harm the environment? I percieve you are not a fan of Mother Earth.

How?
And how many have been made so far? Really, are you blaming the polar icecaps on Santa Anita now? :lol:

[andymays]

How?
And how many have been made so far? Really, are you blaming the polar icecaps on Santa Anita now? :lol:


I think that guy on that TV series called "Breaking Bad" invented synthetics. At least I heard he cooked it up. ;)

[FenceBored]

Oh FenceBored another straw argument from you. Can't argue the relationship of exertion and safety, so throw crap at the wall to see what sticks. :faint:

So you admit you hate the planet.

We've not established that AWS are safer, and you're inventing reasons for why they're safer. Maybe you should stop assuming your conclusions.

[Show Me the Wire]

So you admit you hate the planet.

We've not established that AWS are safer, and you're inventing reasons for why they're safer. Maybe you should stop assuming your conclusions.


I hate no one or anything, not even you. However. the planet isn't going to last forever, one day the sun will burn out.

[andymays]

Andy:

Thanks for your comments. Horsemen have been unable to reconcile their experiences on the synthethic surfaces with Dr. Arthur's conclusions. As you know Dr. Arthur has refused to provide the raw data underlying his conclusionary reports. As evidence of Dr. Arthur's incompetence or misfeasance, I direct your attention to his summary found on page 36 of the CHRB Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007-2008

(http://chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2008_annual_reports.pdf). In Table I Fatalities by Track & Surface, Dr. Arthur adds fatality figures from Los Alamitos (including Quarter Horse Racing) to establish his conclusion that synthetics are safer than dirt. Please note that 50 of the 77 fatalities reported on dirt are from Los Alamitos. Absent the inclusion of the Los Alamitos fatalities the report would show 27 fatalities on dirt vs. 43 fatalities on synthetics. Without the Los Alamitos fatalities, Dr. Arthur's conclusion regarding the fatality rate per 1,000 starts would be reversed and would rightfully show that synthetic surfaces are significantly more harmful than dirt surfaces. He has promulgated more recent studies which continue to fly in the face of the experience of most California Horsemen. Quite simply, Dr. Arthur must submit his data for peer review and validation before it can be accepted. His continual refusal to allow interested parties access to the underlying data (redacted with regard to names of horses, trainers, etc.) is indefensible.

[Tom]

If you don't provide the raw data, your study is meaningless.
End of story.

[andymays]

If you don't provide the raw data, your study is meaningless.
End of story.


When you combine the Trainer email above (post #133) with the fact that we are comparing dirt surfaces with decades old bases to new synthetic surfaces with new material and new bases you can see what's been going on. Then add the increased race day and on track vet inspections over the last couple of years.

We should expect transparency from racing officials like Rick Arthur and we get just the opposite. I'm sure he feels that he knows what's best for everyone and people like that have helped bring racing down in my opinion.

[rwwupl]

Andy:

Thanks for your comments. Horsemen have been unable to reconcile their experiences on the synthethic surfaces with Dr. Arthur's conclusions. As you know Dr. Arthur has refused to provide the raw data underlying his conclusionary reports. As evidence of Dr. Arthur's incompetence or misfeasance, I direct your attention to his summary found on page 36 of the CHRB Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007-2008

(http://chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2008_annual_reports.pdf). In Table I Fatalities by Track & Surface, Dr. Arthur adds fatality figures from Los Alamitos (including Quarter Horse Racing) to establish his conclusion that synthetics are safer than dirt. Please note that 50 of the 77 fatalities reported on dirt are from Los Alamitos. Absent the inclusion of the Los Alamitos fatalities the report would show 27 fatalities on dirt vs. 43 fatalities on synthetics. Without the Los Alamitos fatalities, Dr. Arthur's conclusion regarding the fatality rate per 1,000 starts would be reversed and would rightfully show that synthetic surfaces are significantly more harmful than dirt surfaces. He has promulgated more recent studies which continue to fly in the face of the experience of most California Horsemen. Quite simply, Dr. Arthur must submit his data for peer review and validation before it can be accepted. His continual refusal to allow interested parties access to the underlying data (redacted with regard to names of horses, trainers, etc.) is indefensible.


Andy,

As you know, I asked the CHRB and Dr. Arthur in early September of last year to reconcile his data with the previous data known and asked that he detail how he reached his conclusions,as his conclusions were different from mine and others that I knew of.

The answer I got was that he worked hard and he knew what he was doing.

That was not a satisfactory answer but I got no help from anyone in an official capacity, perhaps it was because the CHRB heard from Dr. Arthur what they wanted to hear . The CHRB rubber stamped the Dr. Arthur report, giving it an air of credibility,without peer revue.

The "reconstructing" of previous data and keying on the one year bad number at Del Mar to prove a point that Dr. Arthur and the CHRB had a vested interest in bothered me a great deal, especially when it was known that Del Mar had been negotiating with Keeneland a year before the mandate and committed to polytrack exclusively. After the bad year(2006) Del Mar (Craig Fravel V.P.) gave an "over the top" presentation to the CHRB about Polytrack and Richard Shapiro ,CHRB Chair, pushed for the mandate for synthetics.

It had the appearance of stacking the deck with circumstance and statistics to support the move to synthetics.

I am pleased that others are asking the right questions and asking for detailed explanations in the interest of reaching a conclusion that we all can believe in and support.

Your efforts to find the truth should be recognized by all fair minded people.

Thanks.

[andymays]

Andy,

As you know, I asked the CHRB and Dr. Arthur in early September of last year to reconcile his data with the previous data known and asked that he detail how he reached his conclusions,as his conclusions were different from mine and others that I knew of.

The answer I got was that he worked hard and he knew what he was doing.

That was not a satisfactory answer but I got no help from anyone in an official capacity, perhaps it was because the CHRB heard from Dr. Arthur what they wanted to hear . The CHRB rubber stamped the Dr. Arthur report, giving it an air of credibility,without peer revue.

The "reconstructing" of previous data and keying on the one year bad number at Del Mar to prove a point that Dr. Arthur and the CHRB had a vested interest in bothered me a great deal, especially when it was known that Del Mar had been negotiating with Keeneland a year before the mandate and committed to polytrack exclusively. After the bad year(2006) Del Mar (Craig Fravel V.P.) gave an "over the top" presentation to the CHRB about Polytrack and Richard Shapiro ,CHRB Chair, pushed for the mandate for synthetics.

It had the appearance of stacking the deck with circumstance and statistics to support the move to synthetics.

I am pleased that others are asking the right questions and asking for detailed explanations in the interest of reaching a conclusion that we all can believe in and support.

Your efforts to find the truth should be recognized by all fair minded people.

Thanks.

Thanks Roger and thank you for the role you've played in exposing the misleading information. :ThmbUp:

We need the racing media to expose this sham for what it is.

It's unfortunate that to this day there are still people who don't or won't get what's been going on! (see post #133)

[andymays]

http://santaanita.com/content/workout-webcam

Not Good!

Sat
Feb 69 am54° FPrecip:
25%
10 am57° FPrecip:
40%
11 am58° FPrecip:
50%
12 pm59° FPrecip:
65%
1 pm60° FPrecip:
75%
2 pm61° FPrecip:
70%
3 pm60° FPrecip:
60%
4 pm58° FPrecip:


By the way did I tell everyone to read post #133! ;)

[andymays]

Santa Anita Cancelled today!

[affirmedny]

Santa Anita Cancelled today!

somebody tell HRTV please.they're still showing the pick6 show for like the 10th time in the last 12 hours

[illinoisbred]

Post#133-incredible. Keep up your good work Andy!

[andymays]

]Post#133-[/SIZE]incredible. Keep up your good work Andy!


Thanks! :ThmbUp:

I wish more people would pay attention as this unfolds. The biggest fraud ever in Horse Racing. ;)

[joanied]

Andy:

Thanks for your comments. Horsemen have been unable to reconcile their experiences on the synthethic surfaces with Dr. Arthur's conclusions. As you know Dr. Arthur has refused to provide the raw data underlying his conclusionary reports. As evidence of Dr. Arthur's incompetence or misfeasance, I direct your attention to his summary found on page 36 of the CHRB Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007-2008

(http://chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2008_annual_reports.pdf). In Table I Fatalities by Track & Surface, Dr. Arthur adds fatality figures from Los Alamitos (including Quarter Horse Racing) to establish his conclusion that synthetics are safer than dirt. Please note that 50 of the 77 fatalities reported on dirt are from Los Alamitos. Absent the inclusion of the Los Alamitos fatalities the report would show 27 fatalities on dirt vs. 43 fatalities on synthetics. Without the Los Alamitos fatalities, Dr. Arthur's conclusion regarding the fatality rate per 1,000 starts would be reversed and would rightfully show that synthetic surfaces are significantly more harmful than dirt surfaces. He has promulgated more recent studies which continue to fly in the face of the experience of most California Horsemen. Quite simply, Dr. Arthur must submit his data for peer review and validation before it can be accepted. His continual refusal to allow interested parties access to the underlying data (redacted with regard to names of horses, trainers, etc.) is indefensible.

Something stinks in Denmark....ah...Santa Anita.

[andymays]

Something stinks in Denmark....ah...Santa Anita.


Ya think? Post #133 says it all and confirms what many of us thought all along.

[gm10]

Ya think? Post #133 says it all and confirms what many of us thought all along.

I may not be thinking what you like me to be thinking.
Your link in #133 doesn't work btw.

[Kimsus]

Santa Anita Cancelled today!

I smell a grassy knoll behind the book depository building...

[andymays]

I smell a grassy knoll behind the book depository building...


Did you check the date of post #139? :rolleyes:

[Kimsus]

Did you check the date of post #139? :rolleyes:
Yesterday why?

[andymays]

Yesterday why?


Your post #146 makes no sense. Did I miss something?

[andymays]

31 minutes into the Roger Stein show he goes over the synthetic thing with Lenny Shulman. Lenny also talks about the NY situation.

They both basically say the Rick Arthur of the CHRB is cooking the numbers on breakdowns and fatalities.



http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

archives up about 10:00 am pst.

[Kimsus]

Your post #146 makes no sense. Did I miss something?

I was making light that maybe all these cancellations at SA are in a conspiracy type of nature by the anti-synth freemasons. :rolleyes:

[andymays]

I may not be thinking what you like me to be thinking.
Your link in #133 doesn't work btw.


Go to the CHRB site. Click on Publications. Click on Annual Reports. Click on 2007-2008.


http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_report.htm


Table on page 40 of the pdf (too large to fit here as an attachment)

[cj]

P40 attached.

Andy, learn some computer skills.

[andymays]

P40 attached.

Andy, learn some computer skills.


Thanks! :)

If you have some time let me know how you saved only one page by email or on the board.

Thanks again! :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

Andy, learn some computer skills.OUCH! :lol:

[andymays]

OUCH! :lol:


What Ouch? He's right! ;) I really wanted a screen shot of the table if possible.

What's everyones opinion of the email and the Los Alamitos stuff in the table used to promote sythetic surfaces?

[andymays]

Washout causes changes in plans

http://www.drf.com/news/article/110652.html

Excerpt:

In reaction to Santa Anita's disrupted training, and with another rainstorm forecast for late Tuesday and early Wednesday, Sadler sent Dave in Dixie, the 3-year-old colt Sidney's Candy, and the 3-year-old filly Crisp to Hollywood Park on Sunday to train this week.

Excerpt:

The recent cancellations led track officials to say last month that the surface will be replaced this summer, but they have not stated what material will be used. There are scores of trainers who want a dirt track installed, while others wish that a synthetic surface that drains adequately would be installed.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Andy,

What is the panic going on out there??Oh nevermind,I know what it is.They have been stumped on the press release.They don't quite know how to say it.An all weather surface with 6 inches of rain.How do you call it that when you resist the obvious and call it at least wet-fast??!!!!It's a conundrum!!!I talked to the Turfway "officials" about this and all it did was pi$$ them off and they told me to get lost!!!It's not an alternate surface,it's magic dirt.Impervious to mother nature.Bow down!!:D

[andymays]

Andy,

What is the panic going on out there??Oh nevermind,I know what it is.They have been stumped on the press release.They don't quite know how to say it.An all weather surface with 6 inches of rain.How do you call it that when you resist the obvious and call it at least wet-fast??!!!!It's a conundrum!!!I talked to the Turfway "officials" about this and all it did was pi$$ them off and they told me to get lost!!!It's not an alternate surface,it's magic dirt.Impervious to mother nature.Bow down!!:D


There is a war raging to put in another synthetic surface. I'm told it is lead by Madeline Auerbach. They know Unusual Heat will lose value on a dirt surface.

http://www.unusualheat.com/index.html

Excerpt:

Some of Unusual Heat's accomplishments at stud include:

All time single year record holder for California stallion progeny earnings with $5,827,513 in 2008.

One of only two sires in California history to have progeny earnings of over $5 Million for a single year and ties the record set by Cee's Tizzy of doing it twice (2008 and 2009).

2008 and 2009 Champion Sire of California Conceived Foals by Earnings and Turf Earnings.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Instead of debating dirt vs AWS the Californians should take the third way - turf

California has the climate to handle all turf racing so they should do the following to shake up American racing

1. Race 4 days a week
2. Have an outer turf track (replacing the current AWS) and an inner turf track (retaining the current inner turf track) at DMR, HOL and SA. Using the moveable rail you could get away with 2 days racing each week on the outer turf and the inner turf
3. Do a deal with Betfair to allow Americans to bet on Cal racing with Betfair

The turf should have less injuries than the dirt plus provide a surface people can live with. Also the turf racing will appeal to UK horse players and make the Europeans happy to fly in their horses to add to the horse population. Finally the time zone of Cal racing is such that the Betfair players on the UK have time to bet it after their main racing is over for the day. So you will get plenty of great liquidity on Betfair on the Cal racing (I don't think East Coast racing will work as well on Betfair in terms of attracting interest outside America as the timezone is bad and clashes with UK racing)

It does not have to be Betfair as the Cal people could set up their own betting exchange. However with Betfair you already have an existing customer base ready to go. Adding American bettors to the current players will see liquidity improve out of sight

Turf racing is the best surface and seems to be the premier surface in most racing countries. You could not use it all year round on the east coast but on the west coast you definitely could

I know the one big argument against this is that going all turf breaks with the traditions of American dirt racing. But it seems American dirt racing is heading for extinction. Maybe it is time to try something radical and shake things up. I guess they were trying to do that with AWS and it did not work but from what I have seen turf is a better surface than AWS and dirt

[BirdstoneFTW]

P40 attached.

Andy, learn some computer skills.

What I get out of that is Los Al would be better served shutting down and synthetic tracks shouldn't be used for training. The extensive training on the synthetic tracks is probably why these they get worn down so easily.

Well, that's my stats spin for you all :lol: :lol: