Another Synthetic Thread

[andymays]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100426/BUSINESS/4260330/Horse+industry+rushes+to+synthetic+racetrack+stall s

Excerpt:

And California reports that its four major thoroughbred tracks saw fatality rates drop to 1.95 horses per 1,000 starts after synthetic surfaces were required to be installed by the end of 2007, compared with a rate of 3.09 on dirt.

(see email excerpt from CHRB official below) ;)

Excerpt:

University of Maine engineering professor Mick Peterson, who specializes in racing surfaces and consults with tracks, including Churchill, said the synthetic track materials do seem to break down in North America faster than originally thought.

Excerpt:

“I think there’s a place for them in bad weather but not for southern California,” three-time Derby winning trainer Bob Baffert said of synthetic tracks. “We don’t get that kind of bad weather.”

But Baffert noted the safety of dirt surfaces could be improved with better maintenance. California’s dirt tracks “were in such poor condition,” he said. “They hadn’t been redone since Seabiscuit.”

And, he said, synthetics cause different types of horse injuries, like soft-tissue damage. “I don’t need a study,” he said. “I have my own study going on every day because this is what I do for a living.”

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

This is an email excerpt from a high ranking CHRB official in 2008.

"Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc."

[Roy C]

Yawn. Rather then sit here and post 200 messages a day about this, why don't you just not watch or bet those type of tracks? We get it, you don't like them.

[andymays]

Yawn. Rather then sit here and post 200 messages a day about this, why don't you just not watch or bet those type of tracks? We get it, you don't like them.


Right, and rather than jump in a thread you don't like why don't you get in one you do?

The topic is the topic. Is there something in the article you disagree with?

[Grits]

:lol: LOLOLOL:lol: Great come back!

AndyM, don't care what you write about! Been concerned--you've been gone for weeks.

[Igeteven]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100426/BUSINESS/4260330/Horse+industry+rushes+to+synthetic+racetrack+stall s

Excerpt:

And California reports that its four major thoroughbred tracks saw fatality rates drop to 1.95 horses per 1,000 starts after synthetic surfaces were required to be installed by the end of 2007, compared with a rate of 3.09 on dirt.

(see email excerpt from CHRB official below) ;)

Excerpt:

University of Maine engineering professor Mick Peterson, who specializes in racing surfaces and consults with tracks, including Churchill, said the synthetic track materials do seem to break down in North America faster than originally thought.

Excerpt:

“I think there’s a place for them in bad weather but not for southern California,” three-time Derby winning trainer Bob Baffert said of synthetic tracks. “We don’t get that kind of bad weather.”

But Baffert noted the safety of dirt surfaces could be improved with better maintenance. California’s dirt tracks “were in such poor condition,” he said. “They hadn’t been redone since Seabiscuit.”

And, he said, synthetics cause different types of horse injuries, like soft-tissue damage. “I don’t need a study,” he said. “I have my own study going on every day because this is what I do for a living.”

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

This is an email excerpt from a high ranking CHRB official in 2008.

"Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc."

Andy

As we all know, they put them in to manipulate the surface and create carryovers. In addition, they got some what of a kick back from the manufacture,

As of know, it's in the hands of Stronach, what is he going to do? That's the big question. At Hollywood Park, they have been putting dirt on top of the plastic track, I call it poly dirt now, but Stonach will be calling the shots now, with HP closing, he will control horse racing in California. At a meeting at Santa Anita, the president doesn't even know what he is going to do.

I only play curtain type of bets, but to play race after race on the plastic tracks, nobody can win, unless you wheel , wheel, and wheel.

I have gone to Kentucky racing , it's better all way around, except where they have plastic tracks.

This is the way it is and nothing can be done about it.

I am sorry to write this, but it's true.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Andy

As we all know, they put them in to manipulate the surface and create carryovers. In addition, they got some what of a kick back from the manufacture,
...

Can you clarify the "we" in this statement? If it is referring to you and Andy and a select few, that's okay. I'd just hate to be considered part of the collective "we" that subscribes to this lunacy. Thanks.

[Igeteven]

Can you clarify the "we" in this statement? If it is referring to you and Andy and a select few, that's okay. I'd just hate to be considered part of the collective "we" that subscribes to this lunacy. Thanks.


I give up, we are all the select few, I am sick of hearing about these type of surface. We have internet , we can go where we want

Now I give you some real good advise, take my advise and do what you please.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

[hazzardm]

As we all know, they put them in to manipulate the surface and create carryovers. In addition, they got some what of a kick back from the manufacture,



Brown eyes

[Igeteven]

Brown eyes

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[andymays]

Does the email excerpt from the CHRB official in 2008 bother anyone?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can they compare injuries and fatalities when they didn't keep accurate records?

[Igeteven]

Does the email excerpt from the CHRB official in 2008 bother anyone?


Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc.

How can they compare injuries and fatalities when they didn't keep accurate records?

Andy, you are right on the nail

The Tracks, the CHRB, only care about money, the surface was NEVER interned to put in for the safety of the horses or the jockey,s

Believe me on this, all of the jockey's that ride on it will come down with lung problems later in life. Unfortunately, it will take a few wrongful death law suits for the tracks to change. It will come later down the road. This Country always has been a dollar short and hour late on matters such as this.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...We have internet , we can go where we want...


Bingo Bango Lester... That's the approach that works best... I am a fully fledged member of this "we"... :ThmbUp:

[Igeteven]

Bingo Bango Lester... That's the approach that works best... I am a fully fledged member of this "we"... :ThmbUp:

The handle and economics will prevail

:jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump:

[Kimsus]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100426/BUSINESS/4260330/Horse+industry+rushes+to+synthetic+racetrack+stall s

Excerpt:

And California reports that its four major thoroughbred tracks saw fatality rates drop to 1.95 horses per 1,000 starts after synthetic surfaces were required to be installed by the end of 2007, compared with a rate of 3.09 on dirt.

(see email excerpt from CHRB official below) ;)

Excerpt:

University of Maine engineering professor Mick Peterson, who specializes in racing surfaces and consults with tracks, including Churchill, said the synthetic track materials do seem to break down in North America faster than originally thought.

Excerpt:

“I think there’s a place for them in bad weather but not for southern California,” three-time Derby winning trainer Bob Baffert said of synthetic tracks. “We don’t get that kind of bad weather.”

But Baffert noted the safety of dirt surfaces could be improved with better maintenance. California’s dirt tracks “were in such poor condition,” he said. “They hadn’t been redone since Seabiscuit.”

And, he said, synthetics cause different types of horse injuries, like soft-tissue damage. “I don’t need a study,” he said. “I have my own study going on every day because this is what I do for a living.”

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

This is an email excerpt from a high ranking CHRB official in 2008.

"Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc."

Why not post all the exerpts to this, instead of picking and choosing exerpts from a report to slant or dominate one position over another. Wouldn't this improve your position towards the anti-synth debate rather than making this thread seemingly another anti - synth rant.

[Greyfox]

Excerpt:

And California reports that its four major thoroughbred tracks saw fatality rates drop to 1.95 horses per 1,000 starts after synthetic surfaces were required to be installed by the end of 2007, compared with a rate of 3.09 on dirt.

"

If that stat is true, that seems like a good reason to keep the stuff.

Personally, I have no trouble winning on poly surfaces.
In fact I enjoy that a horse doesn't necessarily have to be up close to or among the pacesetters to win.
To believe that poly was put in to increase carryovers just doesn't hold water.
Come to think of it, poly's not supposed to hold water either.

[andymays]

Why not post all the exerpts to this, instead of picking and choosing exerpts from a report to slant or dominate one position over another. Wouldn't this improve your position towards the anti-synth debate rather than making this thread seemingly another anti - synth rant.


The link is there.

Yes, I post articles that I find interesting and that have things in them that I agree with.

The email excerpt from the CHRB official has never been seen before. What do you think of the content?

[FenceBored]

Why not post all the exerpts to this, instead of picking and choosing exerpts from a report to slant or dominate one position over another. Wouldn't this improve your position towards the anti-synth debate rather than making this thread seemingly another anti - synth rant.

Uh, because that would be a violation of Federal Copyright laws?

He started with a link to the article, which everyone is free to follow and read for themselves.

[andymays]

If that stat is true, that seems like a good reason to keep the stuff.

Personally, I have no trouble winning on poly surfaces.
In fact I enjoy that a horse doesn't necessarily have to be up close to or among the pacesetters to win.
To believe that poly was put in to increase carryovers just doesn't hold water.
Come to think of it, poly's not supposed to hold water either.


Greyfox, what about the email excerpt?

How can they produce a number given the email excerpt from the CHRB official?

[Greyfox]

Greyfox, what about the email excerpt?

How can they produce a number given the email excerpt from the CHRB official?

The e mail has no credibility without a name attached. Sorry - Zero credibility.

[andymays]

The e mail has no credibility without a name attached. Sorry - Zero credibility.


The entire email was forwarded to PA and CJ. They have it.

It was sent to me by a person that posts here. If they want to put it up they can.

[Kimsus]

The link is there.

Yes, I post articles that I find interesting and that have things in them that I agree with.

The email excerpt from the CHRB official has never been seen before. What do you think of the content?

I fixed that, I mean't exerpts from both sides. The back end injuries is nothing new, the main point was and always should be is concentrating on the reduction catastrophic injuries. Since the anti - synth people seem to ignore the the stats in other reports that it has, I see this conversation nonsensical anymore, I suspect it is a waste of time tryinng to force a round peg into a square hole.

[andymays]

I fixed that, I mean't exerpts from both sides. The back end injuries is nothing new, the main point was and should be concentrating on is the reduction of reducing catastrophic injuries. Since the anti - synth people seem to ignore the the stats in other reports that it has, I see this conversation nonsensical anymore, I suspect it is a waste of time in forcing a round peg into a square hole.


Kimsus, did you read the email excerpt?

It kind of makes the numbers they throw out irrelevant doesn't it?


Paulick has a short deal on the article at his site.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/nicholson-i-think-personally-that-we-were-on-automatic-pilot-with-dirt-surfaces-for-too-many-years/

[Kimsus]

Kimus, did you read the email excerpt? It kind of makes the numbers they throw out irrelevant doesn't it?

Who's the source? Does the emailer have an angle? How do they know? All good questions wouldn't you agree. Point is you have good horsemen on both sides. Would it be prudent to ignore the opinion of Richard Mandella who is a proponent of synthetic tracks? Yet Bob Baffert's word is taken as the gospel, in terms of safety records I would educately guess Mandella's lack of breakdowns is far better than Baffert's is.

[andymays]

Who's the source? Does the emailer have an angle? How do they know? All good questions wouldn't you agree. Point is you have good horsemen on both sides. Would it be prudent to ignore the opinion of Richard Mandella who is a proponent of synthetic tracks? Yet Bob Baffert's word is taken as the gospel, in terms of safety records I would educately guess Mandella's lack of breakdowns is far better than Baffert's is.


It's from a high ranking CHRB official and it was sent to about 4 other people in the CHRB along with a couple of other people. Is that good enough?

[Kimsus]

It's from a high ranking CHRB official and it was sent to about 4 other people in the CHRB along with a couple of other people. Is that good enough?

Ok, but I think we would all like a name attached to it. Otherwise anyone can throw out opinions/numbers when no face is attached to it.

Furthermore, I am curious why you are so steadfast in your belief in Baffert's opinion when he has fostered a reputation of being very hard on his horses, and ignoring a trainer of Mandella's ilk who is one of the most conservative & safe horsemen in So Cal?

[Greyfox]

Ok, but I think we would all like a name attached to it. Otherwise anyone can throw out opinions/numbers when no face is attached to it.



:ThmbUp: I agree.
We don't know who sent the e mail.
Even if we did know who sent the e mail, we don't know when it was sent.
Was it recent? Or last year? Or when?
We don't know whether or not the e mailer has changed his/her mind and now believes otherwise. When he/she wrote the e mail he/she may not have been party to information that he may have now.
Certainly, the e mail was not intended for public distribution.
The e mail has questionable credibility .

[andymays]

Ok, but I think we would all like a name attached to it. Otherwise anyone can throw out opinions/numbers when no face is attached to it.

Furthermore, I am curious why you are so steadfast in your belief in Baffert's opinion when he has fostered a reputation of being very hard on his horses, and ignoring a trainer of Mandella's ilk who is one of the most conservative & safe horsemen in So Cal?

Mandella likes the theory of how they are supposed to work as do most people. They reality is that they don't come close to working like they were supposed to. Mandella hasn't been too vocal lately has he?

[andymays]

:ThmbUp: I agree.
We don't know who sent the e mail.
Even if we did know who sent the e mail, we don't know when it was sent.
Was it recent? Or last year? Or when?
We don't know whether or not the e mailer has changed his/her mind and now believes otherwise. When he/she wrote the e mail he/she may not have been party to information that he may have now.
Certainly, the e mail was not intended for public distribution.
The e mail has questionable credibility .


Sent in 2008.

The email asserts that statistics on injuries and breakdowns kept in California prior to synthetics were not kept (or not kept well). Therefore how can you give a breakdown rate per thousand and compare it to anything?

Bottom line is that they fudged the numbers to fit their position.

[lamboguy]

i have recently learned that there are training centers in ocala that now have synthetic surface. i would think that would make a big difference in injuries on tracks that do have the synthetic. but it has thrown another monkey wrench into the game of handicapping.

i had one yesterday that suffered a soft tissue injury in a stake race in woodbine yesterday that had already run on the surface

[andymays]

i have recently learned that there are training centers in ocala that now have synthetic surface. i would think that would make a big difference in injuries on tracks that do have the synthetic. but it has thrown another monkey wrench into the game of handicapping.

i had one yesterday that suffered a soft tissue injury in a stake race in woodbine yesterday that had already run on the surface


Synthetic surfaces have a place in racing but they are not the cure all they were touted to be. Not even close.

[Audioslavery]

Does anyone else think that we wouldn't be blessed with Zenyatta if it weren't for her career primarily on synthetic surfaces? It seems to make sense at first glance...

She was raced at an older age, sure, but she has been healthy throughout career.

[andymays]

Does anyone else think that we wouldn't be blessed with Zenyatta if it weren't for her career primarily on synthetic surfaces? It seems to make sense at first glance...

She was raced at an older age, sure, but she has been healthy throughout career.


Her Owner and Trainer speak out against synthetic surfaces on a regular basis.

[46zilzal]

Does anyone else think that we wouldn't be blessed with Zenyatta if it weren't for her career primarily on synthetic surfaces? It seems to make sense at first glance...


No

[Kimsus]

Her Owner and Trainer speak out against synthetic surfaces on a regular basis.

Interesting if this were indeed true, then shouldn't they be commended for accepting the hand that was dealt them and running Zenyatta regardless of the surface, as I understand they were pointing to the BC and that was their reason for staying out west? Whether we like it or not synth tracks are a part of racing today, what amuses me is Zenyatta is continually criticized as a horse that doesn't ship east or tries dirt races yet Rachel Alexandra isn't held to the same standard by shipping out west and running on synth, I see both horses as comtemporaries and for Zenyatta's critics there will always be the same excuses. Ie. she had a gruelling campaign...ect...

[andymays]

Interesting if this were indeed true , then shouldn't they be commended for accepting the hand that was dealt them and running Zenyatta regardless of the surface, as I understand they were pointing to the BC and that was their reason for staying out west? Whether we like it or not synth tracks are a part of racing today, what amuses me is Zenyatta is continually criticized as a horse that doesn't ship east or tries dirt races yet Rachel Alexandra isn't held to the same standard by shipping out west and running on synth, I see both horses as comtemporaries and for Zenyatta's critics there will always be the same excuses. Ie. she had a gruelling campaign...ect...


Here's one of many article with quotes.

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

Excerpt:


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.”

[46zilzal]

People who THINK they know pace, just don't understand what an aberration this mare is....SHE should not be, and runs just enough each time NO MATTER what is paced in front of her.....HISTORICALLY these types are at the mercy of traffic and she is not that lucky to have done it 16 times.

[kenwoodallpromos]

All I will say is I like as accurate stats as possible in many aspects of TBred racing!!

[FenceBored]

All I will say is I like as accurate stats as possible in many aspects of TBred racing!!

:ThmbUp: You said it.

[andymays]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/racing-news/2010/April/26/Sidneys-Candy-follows-proven-path-to-dirt.aspx

Excerpt:

Baffert said Sidney’s Candy should have no trouble with the transition.
“Sidney’s Candy should be the favorite, he’s the one that beat [Lookin At Lucky],” Baffert said. “I’ve watched him work twice here and he looks phenomenal. He’ll run well. Our horses in California, once they get off the synthetic, they really move up on the dirt, especially speed horses. They can utilize their speed a lot more.”

[Foolish Pleasure]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziconotide


break down numbers in California skyrocketed out of nowhere up over 50% year over year in 2005.

IS it a coincidence this was FDA approved in DEC 2004 and subsequently started being mass produced?


Why am I the one pointing out the obvious here? how many know nothing racing jourmalists are there exactly?

how many sources of this crap are there in the world-am I supposed to believe the idiot horsemen are even smart enough to use a straw name? Nah lets waste millions on bullshit surfaces sold by conmen.


install these joke surfaces so these people can get away with even more crap and decimate the breed even more,

10yrs we going to be down to nothing but 2-4yos racing.
THe avg age has plummeted, the number of races per horse has plummeted,
the synthetic surfaces have addressed nothing and solved nothing.

[Foolish Pleasure]

Right Bill- that new drug was synthetic venom.

good thing you advocating for synthetic tracks so they can keep giving the crap to the animals.


This is from a Bill Finley piece at ESPN:


Quote:
CHRB reports show a significant increase in horse deaths across all tracks that began in 2004, before the synthetic tracks were put in. During a period that ran from Nov. 2003 to Nov. 2004, 243 horses died at the California tracks. During the very next fiscal year the number jumped to 320 and has never been below 300 since. I suspect that around that time some new drug cropped up on the backstretches of California's tracks that is still in widespread use today and is contributing to a lot of fatalities.









By the way the idea that Zenyatta would have been successful on the old speed ball Cali tracks is laughable beyond belief,

just as funny as thinking Winning Colors would have been anything on a synthetic surface

[kenwoodallpromos]

Depends on what study you read, and how they arte done, the weather, etc.
"Since 2006, when Hollywood Park installed the first artificial oval, to September of this year, the fatality rate has fallen to 1.70 per 1,000 starts, from 3.09 per 1,000 on dirt. Here at Santa Anita Park, where the Breeders’ Cup World Championships will be held for the second consecutive year beginning Friday, fatalities fell to 1.59 per 1,000 starts, from 2.89.

“It is what it is, which is a pretty dramatic fall-off, contrary to what some trainers think,” said Dr. Rick Arthur, equine medical director for the California Horse Racing Board. “When racehorses are at their best, I am absolutely convinced that they are safer on the synthetics than they are dirt.”

Arthur warned that synthetic surfaces were not a cure-all for saving horses’ lives, and cited several factors that have contributed to the fact that the United States has the worst mortality rate for thoroughbreds in the world. In fact, one aspect of the study supported a growing sentiment in the veterinary community that the overuse of legal and illegal medications has imperiled the welfare of racehorses: the fatality rates did not decrease during training hours.

“There are no medication regulations in the mornings,” Arthur said."

[Tom]

Ken, how does your workout method do on the synths? Better than dirt, worse, same?

[andymays]

Depends on what study you read, and how they arte done, the weather, etc.
"Since 2006, when Hollywood Park installed the first artificial oval, to September of this year, the fatality rate has fallen to 1.70 per 1,000 starts, from 3.09 per 1,000 on dirt. Here at Santa Anita Park, where the Breeders’ Cup World Championships will be held for the second consecutive year beginning Friday, fatalities fell to 1.59 per 1,000 starts, from 2.89.

“It is what it is, which is a pretty dramatic fall-off, contrary to what some trainers think,” said Dr. Rick Arthur, equine medical director for the California Horse Racing Board. “When racehorses are at their best, I am absolutely convinced that they are safer on the synthetics than they are dirt.”

Arthur warned that synthetic surfaces were not a cure-all for saving horses’ lives, and cited several factors that have contributed to the fact that the United States has the worst mortality rate for thoroughbreds in the world. In fact, one aspect of the study supported a growing sentiment in the veterinary community that the overuse of legal and illegal medications has imperiled the welfare of racehorses: the fatality rates did not decrease during training hours.

“There are no medication regulations in the mornings,” Arthur said."


Did you read the email excerpt in post #10?

The numbers aren't accurate. The numbers collected in the last few years are accurate but prior to that they aren't. It's impossible to make an accurate comparison. It's in the email excerpt.

[Greyfox]

"Since 2006, when Hollywood Park installed the first artificial oval, to September of this year, the fatality rate has fallen to 1.70 per 1,000 starts, from 3.09 per 1,000 on dirt. Here at Santa Anita Park, where the Breeders’ Cup World Championships will be held for the second consecutive year beginning Friday, fatalities fell to 1.59 per 1,000 starts, from 2.89.

."

A National Equine Injury Data base is reporting:

"Based upon a year’s worth of data beginning November 1, 2008, from 378,864 total starts in Thoroughbred flat races at 73 racetracks participating in the Equine Injury Database, 2.04 fatal injuries were recorded per 1,000 starts."

Unfortunately I couldn't find rates at various tracks but it would appear that the poly tracks in So Cal are doing better. Of course that may also be due to having more intact horses on the grounds.

One would have to speculate that with less casualties, the number of injuries to jockeys and time lost due to injuries would be lower at those tracks as well. Unfortunately, a National Data Base compiling Jockey injuries is not being kept though it is apparent it should be.

[Kimsus]

A National Equine Injury Data base is reporting:

"Based upon a year’s worth of data beginning November 1, 2008, from 378,864 total starts in Thoroughbred flat races at 73 racetracks participating in the Equine Injury Database, 2.04 fatal injuries were recorded per 1,000 starts."

Unfortunately I couldn't find rates at various tracks but it would appear that the poly tracks in So Cal are doing better. Of course that may also be due to having more intact horses on the grounds.

One would have to speculate that with less casualties, the number of injuries to jockeys and time lost due to injuries would be lower at those tracks as well. Unfortunately, a National Data Base compiling Jockey injuries is not being kept though it is apparent it should be.

It is a lost cause Greyfox, you will never convince the anti-synthezers, for every stat you produce or every good report written as was the one written by Bill Findley, It will fall on deaf ears. I've given up trying to reason with these folks, if they cannot accept by now that synthetics do reduce fatal injuries, they never will. Not in a year, or 5 or in a decade.

[nijinski]

A National Equine Injury Data base is reporting:

"Based upon a year’s worth of data beginning November 1, 2008, from 378,864 total starts in Thoroughbred flat races at 73 racetracks participating in the Equine Injury Database, 2.04 fatal injuries were recorded per 1,000 starts."

Unfortunately I couldn't find rates at various tracks but it would appear that the poly tracks in So Cal are doing better. Of course that may also be due to having more intact horses on the grounds.

One would have to speculate that with less casualties, the number of injuries to jockeys and time lost due to injuries would be lower at those tracks as well. Unfortunately, a National Data Base compiling Jockey injuries is not being kept though it is apparent it should be.

This was about two months after tougher steroid use law was implemented,
A good deal of trainers even the top ones had to change things , like not
bring their horses right back after strong efforts.
That may well have an effect on the stats.

[Greyfox]

This was about two months after tougher steroid use law was implemented,
A good deal of trainers even the top ones had to change things , like not
bring their horses right back after strong efforts.
That may well have an effect on the stats.

The bottom line is the So Cal tracks are lower than the national average for catastrophic breakdowns ending in fatality. I don't know why. Certainly I would suggest that poly materials are probably assisting in that safety record.
Less steroid use? Maybe? But that would apply across all tracks.

I'm open to any ideas. So far I haven't seen any convincing evidence from any of the anti-synthetics group that poly surfaces are terrible. If you have it, bring it out.

[nijinski]

Doesn't seem possible that this is accurate looking at the Equus Memorial Wall.

Hollywood Park has had clusters of catastrophic breakdowns , they are
listed with horses and connections names .

I see no difference with the exception of the bottom claimers at dirt tracks.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Ken, how does your workout method do on the synths? Better than dirt, worse, same?
My using median 3 and 4f Plubber workout indicates that So Cal and Arlington tracks can have weather and maintainence variations to a greater extent than Plubber tracks. It is not a great predictor of early speed winning on Plubber anywhere. My top 2 tote choices if both between 1-1 and 3-1 in sprints is more accurate on Plubber and many other tracks.
My old Show betting system holds up fairly well for show on Plubber but only at a decent win odds price!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Doesn't seem possible that this is accurate looking at the Equus Memorial Wall.

Hollywood Park has had clusters of catastrophic breakdowns , they are
listed with horses and connections names .

I see no difference with the exception of the bottom claimers at dirt tracks.
IMHO ANY clusters of leg problems during races means the track is at fault somehow; This could be for a variety of reasons including the base, weather, bad maintainence, bad cushion composition, general bad drainage.
As a reminder, Hawthorne had a strict total inside to outside bias for a week at one point; Lone Star's track speed can vary week to week; NY tracks are usually very consistent regarless of weather. Arlington had a far turn problem with dirt AND turf tracks in the same spot that was not fixed until replacing the track surface, base and all. No specific cause was ever revealed. SA had a Plubber mixture cushion composition problem and caused Steve Wood to quit, tried to fix it by adding material but that did not work. As far as I remember, TP, Kee, Woodbine, Hollywood, GGF, and some English Plubber tracks have not have serious uncontrollable problems.
Some may remember that my urging for Ca was to slow down the tracks when they kept sealing (rolling) and otherwise artificially speeding up the tracks, including SA's turf track. That is when tracks would be sealed and precipitation predictions of less than 1/2" of rain would come true.
OF course, Ca and many of its trainers bred for speed.
Plubber does tend to cause winning odds to be longer than tracks running an average first quarter of faster than 23 second IMHO.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Ken, how does your workout method do on the synths? Better than dirt, worse, same?
From Brisnet "At a glanced":
"TRACK BIAS MEET(11/13 - 12/20) (Bris only listby DIRT or TURF)

Distance #
Surface type
# of Races
Wire Best
Style Best
Posts
6.0f Dirt 60 45% E Mid/Out
6.5f Dirt 35 34% P Inside

[Foolish Pleasure]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-A6mn-dTL._SS500_.jpg

[Foolish Pleasure]

I think it is wonderful you people want nothing more than to completely decimate the entire breed and foolish enough to call that progress.
They do nothing but enable scumbag trainers to run lesser sound horses.

It is insanity as if you doing the horses a favor by installing surfaces that enable this.





Blind as bats.


How can you people actually bet on the sport look at the horses on the synthetic tracks and not see they are noticably shorter? How can you possibly be successful and not see this?

Golden Gate has never had anywhere close to the unsound horses racing daily that they do now-all have to do is actually look at the animals.

[Foolish Pleasure]

Likewise I think it is great that you people are so blind,

to suggest that pack racing where 95% of the field is within two lengths of each other most of the race is somehow safer for the jockeys.


Just have to be blind and wanna be ignorant.


It is like restrictor plate racing in NASCAR, all they did was slow down the horses which greatly reduce the physical stresses however that also puts them in a pack which is likewise quite dangerous. If you can't see this, why are you betting? Has to be a simpler sport out there to follow.



There are no other excuses. IF a total idiotic moron like me can see all this you people have to purposefully be ignoring it.


There is no other reason, I am so sorry you can't win on dirt that you will embrace any possible thing to mitigate that-

stop lying. stop pretending the earth is flat.

it is ridiculous.

[PaceAdvantage]

People who THINK they know pace, just don't understand what an aberration this mare is....SHE should not be, and runs just enough each time NO MATTER what is paced in front of her.....HISTORICALLY these types are at the mercy of traffic and she is not that lucky to have done it 16 times.And I'll bet the all weather surfaces, plus the overabundance of cream puff competition has absolutely nothing to do with her success rate, right 46? It's only about the folks whom you think don't understand pace as well as you do... :rolleyes:

[Trotman]

:lol: :lol: :lol: PA you made my day

[Greyfox]

IF a total idiotic moron like me can see all this you people have to purposefully be ignoring it.
.

Yes, because we're conspiring to totally decimate the thoroughbred breed. :rolleyes:

[kenwoodallpromos]

"But Baffert noted the safety of dirt surfaces could be improved with better maintenance. California’s dirt tracks “were in such poor condition,” he said. “They hadn’t been redone since Seabiscuit.”
So, who was trying to decimate the breed?
Personally, when the rashes of breakdowns in Ca on dirt was occuring, I lobbied for slower tracks but the tracks kept them constantly among the fastest in the country. And the horses were not packed as tightly together as now. I would not have minded them being slower dirt.
When SA and Hollywood first put in Plubber, they tried everything they could do to speed them up as much as possible.
Oct 20, 2008, SA: ""My advice is to play it like you play Belmont Park," said retired Hall of Fame jockey Gary Stevens, now a TV analyst, who rode in the Legends race here Saturday. "It's not like the old (speed-favoring) Santa Anita. If a horse gets loose on an easy lead, he can go gate to wire. But if you go too fast, you pay the price."

Steady running style best

"Horses don't have the same turn of foot they do on dirt," said Jerry Bailey, another retired Hall of Famer and TV analyst who rode in the Legends race. "If you're laying back, thinking you're going to make up four or five lengths in an eighth of a mile, it's not going to happen. There is no instant acceleration. It's going to take you longer."