Santa Anita checking out dirt!

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/113184.html

Excerpt:

Haines is a former general manager of Santa Anita, and one of his first challenges will be a decision on whether to keep or remove Santa Anita's artificial track surface. Haines acknowledged that the issue of track surface is moving toward resolution.

A track surface committee, including representatives from Santa Anita and the California Thoroughbred Trainers, has inspected dirt surfaces in Argentina and will be traveling to Spain for further investigation next month.

Haines expects the committee to return with a recommendation that will be reviewed by MID chairman Frank Stronach. Asked if the current Pro-Ride surface will be replaced, Haines said, "Eventually, yes." He added that, "we are up against it now" in terms of time. Haines expects the current surface to remain through fall.

"I wouldn't think we would be able to do anything this summer, and we could go through next year with it," Haines said, referring to the winter meet.

[andymays]

I've got to say these guys are something else.

They have to go to Argentina and Spain to find out what to do. You can't make this stuff up. Everythings falling apart and they need to go to Spain and Argentina.

Only in California do they do these things. I had a feeling they would have to go out of State or out of Country to figure this out. I guess we don't know how to do anything in this Country anymore. :rolleyes:

Make a friggin decision and concentrate on getting some horses and race them. :bang:


Or better yet go check out Monmouth and ask them what to do!

[Stillriledup]

That's crazy stuff....but at least the change is in the works.

[rwwupl]

I've got to say these guys are something else.

They have to go to Argentina and Spain to find out what to do. You can't make this stuff up. Everythings falling apart and they need to go to Spain and Argentina.

Only in California do they do these things. I had a feeling they would have to go out of State or out of Country to figure this out. I guess we don't know how to do anything in this Country anymore. :rolleyes:

Make a friggin decision and concentrate on getting some horses and race them. :bang:


Or better yet go check out Monmouth and ask them what to do!


You make some good points...but I think the problem is more than what to do, there is a question of how,considering the legal problems and who will pay and when... stay tuned.

[andymays]

You make some good points...but I think the problem is more than what to do, there is a question of how,considering the legal problems and who will pay and when... stay tuned.


Stronach has the dough but he just wants to make everyone miserable before he pulls the trigger.

He's supposed to be a Leader and all he does in bring uncertainty into California. That's the last thing we need.

Thank god for Monmouth.

[Stillriledup]

Stronach has the dough but he just wants to make everyone miserable before he pulls the trigger.

He's supposed to be a Leader and all he does in bring uncertainty into California. That's the last thing we need.

Thank god for Monmouth.

WHy is he supposed to be a leader?

I mean, it would be great if he WAS a leader, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[andymays]

WHy is he supposed to be a leader?

I mean, it would be great if he WAS a leader, but that doesn't seem to be the case.


Every day I'm scared to turn on the computer because whenever there's an article about California it's always something dysfunctional.

They should get all of these guys and put them on an island in their underwear and give them bows and arrows and let them go at it. If we're lucky we never see them again.

[Robert Goren]

I've got to say these guys are something else.

They have to go to Argentina and Spain to find out what to do. You can't make this stuff up. Everythings falling apart and they need to go to Spain and Argentina.

Only in California do they do these things. I had a feeling they would have to go out of State or out of Country to figure this out. I guess we don't know how to do anything in this Country anymore. :rolleyes:

Make a friggin decision and concentrate on getting some horses and race them. :bang:


Or better yet go check out Monmouth and ask them what to do! It is an election year in California. Some how I don't see any the politicians there giving vast amounts of money to the race tracks. That Monmouth park give away had better work or that tea party governor will be out on his ear.

[andymays]

It is an election year in California. Some how I don't see any the politicians there giving vast amounts of money to the race tracks. That Monmouth park give away had better work or that tea party governor will be out on his ear.


Are Nancy Pelosi and Frank Stronach the same person?

Sci Fi channel. :eek:

[joanied]

And I would bet that the only reason they'll go back to dirt is to get SA as the permanent location for the BC.

Having to go to other countires is ridiculous...and who is paying for these trips...bte they will stay in the best hotels, eat the best food, take a tour of the track and come home STILL not knowing what in hell they're doing :bang:

[David-LV]

Spain??? Do they even have race tracks there?

These guys are completely clueless. More like mental midgets.:bang:

If they don't replace that garbage surface now and I mean right now the party is over for California racing.

There running 4 horse races now, another year? Good Luck because they are going to need it.

________
David-LV

[Bruddah]

Are Nancy Pelosi and Frank Stronach the same person?

Sci Fi channel. :eek:

Now that's damn scarey. I don't know which emoticon to use in response. The rolling on the floor laughing my ass off. The Sad. The shock.

Do you think Frank has a Nancy wig and high heels?

[samyn on the green]

You just can not go from English rubbers to California dirt. Santa Anita is making a very wise choice transitioning into Spanish soil. Don't you all know that Arab foundation studs that are the starting point of the stud book made there way to England when English pirates raided Spanish ships? The entire British Empire of the 16th century was based on theft. It only makes sense that the descendants of these wrangled horses get to run on their native soil at Santa Anita. Not only will the horses will be running in races with Spanish names but they will be running on Spanish land. Bravo Santa Anita.

[andymays]

You just can not go from English rubbers to California dirt. Santa Anita is making a very wise choice transitioning into Spanish soil. Don't you all know that Arab foundation studs that are the starting point of the stud book made there way to England when English pirates raided Spanish ships? The entire British Empire of the 16th century was based on theft. It only makes sense that the descendants of these wrangled horses get to run on their native soil at Santa Anita. Not only will the horses will be running in races with Spanish names but they will be running on Spanish land. Bravo Santa Anita.


I'm waiting to hear the press release about how they found the best dirt in the world in Spain and they have to ship it in at a cost of 1 Trillion dollars. :D Go get em. :ThmbUp:

Then they wake up one day with the best dirt in the world and no horses to run on it. :rolleyes:

The truth is they probably have the best dirt in the world right in Bruce Headley's back yard down the street.

[46zilzal]

good now I may consider betting it again.

[andymays]

Now that's damn scarey. I don't know which emoticon to use in response. The rolling on the floor laughing my ass off. The Sad. The shock.

Do you think Frank has a Nancy wig and high heels?


That's Barney Frank I think. I'm confused. :confused:

[gm10]

I've got to say these guys are something else.

They have to go to Argentina and Spain to find out what to do. You can't make this stuff up. Everythings falling apart and they need to go to Spain and Argentina.

Only in California do they do these things. I had a feeling they would have to go out of State or out of Country to figure this out. I guess we don't know how to do anything in this Country anymore. :rolleyes:

Make a friggin decision and concentrate on getting some horses and race them. :bang:


Or better yet go check out Monmouth and ask them what to do!


That sort of tells me that they're not taking the dirt option very seriously. Also, the synthetic is a big success in terms of producing horses that are competitive on a national level, and secondly, isn't there still legislation that forces the big Californian meets to operate on a synthetic surface?

[joanied]

That's Barney Frank I think. I'm confused. :confused:

:lol:

[Fager Fan]

And I would bet that the only reason they'll go back to dirt is to get SA as the permanent location for the BC.

Having to go to other countires is ridiculous...and who is paying for these trips...bte they will stay in the best hotels, eat the best food, take a tour of the track and come home STILL not knowing what in hell they're doing :bang:

Considering the BC wants synth, what makes you think going to dirt is meant to placate the BC? Particularly considering Santa Anita will be paying for the surface, and they have nothing to do with the BC being at their track, including getting any money from the event?

Regarding studying surface options, it makes sense to check out the surface that sees similar weather conditions, and talking face to face to those who know most about it and how they maintain it. Picking on things like their hotel and food is petty - they're a private company, and you're not paying a cent of their hotel and food. If the CHRB had done similar research before their mandate, perhaps Santa Anita and others wouldn't be out tens of millions of dollars.

[Fager Fan]

That sort of tells me that they're not taking the dirt option very seriously. Also, the synthetic is a big success in terms of producing horses that are competitive on a national level, and secondly, isn't there still legislation that forces the big Californian meets to operate on a synthetic surface?

It is? Where are you getting that idea? The synthetic isn't producing anything. As has always been the case, some top horses race in CA due to their trainer being based there. That some horses who have been running well when they've gotten out of their and hit the dirt is simple logic - the horses were bred to be dirt horses.

[joanied]

Considering the BC wants synth, what makes you think going to dirt is meant to placate the BC? Particularly considering Santa Anita will be paying for the surface, and they have nothing to do with the BC being at their track, including getting any money from the event?

Regarding studying surface options, it makes sense to check out the surface that sees similar weather conditions, and talking face to face to those who know most about it and how they maintain it. Picking on things like their hotel and food is petty - they're a private company, and you're not paying a cent of their hotel and food. If the CHRB had done similar research before their mandate, perhaps Santa Anita and others wouldn't be out tens of millions of dollars.

It's pretty obvious that running the BC on synthetic isn't getting the best American horses...going back to dirt will pretty well insure that all the best horses will show up. IMO, if SA wants to host the BC on a permanent basis, it needs to go back to dirt...in fact, if they want larger fields, they need to go back to dirt...that is my opinion.

Alot of good it did when they did all their research & studied different options as to what synthetic surface to put down...they screwed that up, so, IMO, visiting other countries looking for dirt is ridiculous...and if they found the perfect dirt in a foreign country...what then? Can you imagine the cost of importing dirt!?!
OK...they're a private company...so guess they can spend what they like on these trips...I sure don't want to sound petty!

[Igeteven]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/113184.html

Excerpt:

Haines is a former general manager of Santa Anita, and one of his first challenges will be a decision on whether to keep or remove Santa Anita's artificial track surface. Haines acknowledged that the issue of track surface is moving toward resolution.

A track surface committee, including representatives from Santa Anita and the California Thoroughbred Trainers, has inspected dirt surfaces in Argentina and will be traveling to Spain for further investigation next month.

Haines expects the committee to return with a recommendation that will be reviewed by MID chairman Frank Stronach. Asked if the current Pro-Ride surface will be replaced, Haines said, "Eventually, yes." He added that, "we are up against it now" in terms of time. Haines expects the current surface to remain through fall.

"I wouldn't think we would be able to do anything this summer, and we could go through next year with it," Haines said, referring to the winter meet.

This goes to show you how stupid people are and here is a classic example what is stated above.

1. Go to another countries to see and buy dirt

2. Goes to show you, that the track is making tons of money for a junket trip
that will produce nothing.

3. Go to Oaklawn, go to Monmouth to see a great dirt track or go to the fire trails on the mountains above the track and you will see dirt.

People want dirt, the question is, who is going to pay for it, if Stronach can pass the buck to someone else, he will do it.

Free world trip at the expense of the take out. Let raise it more, we will sent the committee to the moon to collect dust and bring it back

Will will race horses on that surface.

[gm10]

It is? Where are you getting that idea? The synthetic isn't producing anything. As has always been the case, some top horses race in CA due to their trainer being based there. That some horses who have been running well when they've gotten out of their and hit the dirt is simple logic - the horses were bred to be dirt horses.

Uuuh, call it what you want, but they are winning on the dirt whereas the dirt trained horses can't win on the synthetic. I'd rather be training on the synthetic if that's the deal.

[Valuist]

I've got to say these guys are something else.

They have to go to Argentina and Spain to find out what to do. You can't make this stuff up. Everythings falling apart and they need to go to Spain and Argentina.

Only in California do they do these things. I had a feeling they would have to go out of State or out of Country to figure this out. I guess we don't know how to do anything in this Country anymore. :rolleyes:

Make a friggin decision and concentrate on getting some horses and race them. :bang:


Or better yet go check out Monmouth and ask them what to do!

Unbelievable. You've got great dirt tracks at places like Saratoga, the Fair Grounds and Oaklawn and you have to go to Spain? I didn't even know they had racing in Spain. I don't think I've ever seen a past performance with a running line from Madrid Park or Barcelona Downs.

[andymays]

Unbelievable. You've got great dirt tracks at places like Saratoga, the Fair Grounds and Oaklawn and you have to go to Spain? I didn't even know they had racing in Spain. I don't think I've ever seen a past performance with a running line from Madrid Park or Barcelona Downs.


Out here they always gravitate towards whatever is most difficult and expensive.

[Robert Goren]

Why don't they just put in the same stuff that they had before they put in poly.:confused:

[gm10]

Unbelievable. You've got great dirt tracks at places like Saratoga, the Fair Grounds and Oaklawn and you have to go to Spain? I didn't even know they had racing in Spain. I don't think I've ever seen a past performance with a running line from Madrid Park or Barcelona Downs.

there's a reason for that ... it's really low grade!

there is something to be said about the climate, though
Spain's dry, sunny climate is closer to that of LA than say, Saratoga or Churchill are

[andymays]

Why don't they just put in the same stuff that they had before they put in poly.:confused:


They gave it all away in little jars as a promotion. Not kidding.

[nearco]

I don't know that they would learn much from Spain, but the big tracks in Buenos Aires run monster cards of 17 races per day. Their dirt though is closer to sand than American dirt which tends to be more loamy.
I've never seen the Spanish stuff, but from what I've read it's more of a sand surface too. So maybe SA is considering going with a sand track?

[Fager Fan]

Uuuh, call it what you want, but they are winning on the dirt whereas the dirt trained horses can't win on the synthetic. I'd rather be training on the synthetic if that's the deal.

Again, no kidding, they weren't bred to be synthetic horses, so it's a surprise to you?

The horses who are based and trained over it do the best they can, and some of the good horses (not all, some are moved so they can race on dirt) rise to the top despite the footing. They still run in mediocre fashion most of the time, but they beat up those who are even worse at handling the surface.

The best of those horses ship to a dirt race, and voila!, the horse is better on dirt. Of course he's better on dirt - he's a dirt horse.

[Fager Fan]

I don't know that they would learn much from Spain, but the big tracks in Buenos Aires run monster cards of 17 races per day. Their dirt though is closer to sand than American dirt which tends to be more loamy.
I've never seen the Spanish stuff, but from what I've read it's more of a sand surface too. So maybe SA is considering going with a sand track?

Yes. Everyone is quick to jump on silly things like the cost of airfare without thinking there could be some logic to the decision.

In this case, Stronach had talked in a prior article about this surface, how the locale mirrors that of Santa Anita, and that they have drainage systems that are new and said to be excellent.

[Bruddah]

I don't know that they would learn much from Spain, but the big tracks in Buenos Aires run monster cards of 17 races per day. Their dirt though is closer to sand than American dirt which tends to be more loamy.
I've never seen the Spanish stuff, but from what I've read it's more of a sand surface too. So maybe SA is considering going with a sand track?

Well Duuhhh! If it's sand they are going out of country to inspect, all they need do is go up and down the California coast line. Just another way to justify them being paid ridiculous salaries and taking an all expense junket. Meanwhile they report they aren't making any money.

If they were running a REAL Business, Corporation or Industry, their asses wouldn't be in those cushy jobs by the end of the week. Especially in this economy. Just a bunch of inbred blueblood idiots that are fortunate that nepotisim is still allowed and not a Federal Crime.

[OntheRail]

I've got to say these guys are something else.

They have to go to Argentina and Spain to find out what to do. You can't make this stuff up. Everythings falling apart and they need to go to Spain and Argentina.

Only in California do they do these things. I had a feeling they would have to go out of State or out of Country to figure this out. I guess we don't know how to do anything in this Country anymore. :rolleyes:

Make a friggin decision and concentrate on getting some horses and race them. :bang:


Or better yet go check out Monmouth and ask them what to do!


Well they are from California Horse Racing... and we know that the Rockies are to hard to cross... they can't come East to Monmouth. So they must go down and around hence Argentina and Spain. :lol:

[Steve R]

That sort of tells me that they're not taking the dirt option very seriously. Also, the synthetic is a big success in terms of producing horses that are competitive on a national level, and secondly, isn't there still legislation that forces the big Californian meets to operate on a synthetic surface?
Where are you getting your information to claim any special success for horses transitioning from AWSs to dirt? My database shows 45 horses since 2007 that have won a graded race on both an AWS and dirt. Of these, 21 won their first graded race on dirt and later on an AWS. The other 24 won first on an AWS and then on dirt. Statistically it seems as if there is no preference for moving from one surface to the other. Either a horse can handle both or it doesn't, but there is nothing to suggest suitability to an AWS enhances prospects on dirt, or are you just using anecdotal evidence?

[cuzimahustler]

hey if u dont like the CA surface there will be New York racing......maybe. :confused:

[joanied]

They gave it all away in little jars as a promotion. Not kidding.

:lol: ...maybe they can run another promotion and ask everyone to bring back their little jars of dirt :jump:

[Tom]

California ran out of dirt? :lol:

[gm10]

Where are you getting your information to claim any special success for horses transitioning from AWSs to dirt? My database shows 45 horses since 2007 that have won a graded race on both an AWS and dirt. Of these, 21 won their first graded race on dirt and later on an AWS. The other 24 won first on an AWS and then on dirt. Statistically it seems as if there is no preference for moving from one surface to the other. Either a horse can handle both or it doesn't, but there is nothing to suggest suitability to an AWS enhances prospects on dirt, or are you just using anecdotal evidence?

I have posted this many times before, I will have a look tomorrow
I remember something about the Pro Ride that I posted last year that illustrates this

just a remark, you have a sample size of 45
there is no need to restrict yourself to graded action - I said "they are competitive on a national level", that doesn't exclude non-graded stakes

anyway, I will assume that you are using the term "statistically" in a general sense

[toussaud]

Argentina is supposed to have one of the best dirt tracks on earth, bar none.

i understand the hate for cali racing but alot here jumping the gun just to be jumping the gun

[gm10]

Again, no kidding, they weren't bred to be synthetic horses, so it's a surprise to you?

The horses who are based and trained over it do the best they can, and some of the good horses (not all, some are moved so they can race on dirt) rise to the top despite the footing. They still run in mediocre fashion most of the time, but they beat up those who are even worse at handling the surface.

The best of those horses ship to a dirt race, and voila!, the horse is better on dirt. Of course he's better on dirt - he's a dirt horse.

this is complete BS
you are just randomly guessing with this - there is nothing in here that can be verified

- why is it that horses who have no experience with the surface outperform their peers who have been training and running on it? aren't those bred for the dirt then?
- define "some of the good horses (not all, some are moved so they can race on dirt)"
- define "They still run in mediocre fashion most of the time"
- define "the horse is better on dirt" - so the horse has a better finishing position? but wait, weren't you talking about the "good horses", ie those who had already been winning?

[rrbauer]

The game is broken most places. It's on life-support in California and it doesn't matter a hill of beans what they do with the surface at Santa Anita. Stronach has proven that he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to owning/running racetracks so as long as he's in the game in Calif it's a no-win situation.

[Tom]

Give it up......many more horses show vast improvement getting OFF the plastic than those going to it.

[gm10]

Where are you getting your information to claim any special success for horses transitioning from AWSs to dirt? My database shows 45 horses since 2007 that have won a graded race on both an AWS and dirt. Of these, 21 won their first graded race on dirt and later on an AWS. The other 24 won first on an AWS and then on dirt. Statistically it seems as if there is no preference for moving from one surface to the other. Either a horse can handle both or it doesn't, but there is nothing to suggest suitability to an AWS enhances prospects on dirt, or are you just using anecdotal evidence?

One question about your methodology ... do you think it's fair to use races from 2007 onwards?
This would mean that a lot of synthetic graded stakes could only have been won by "dirt horses" - simply because there hardly was any synthetic racing before 2007 (I count 33 synthetic graded stakes before 2007 - there were 122 in 2008 alone!)

What are your numbers if you look from, say, 2008 onwards?

[BluegrassProf]

this is complete BS
you are just randomly guessing with this - there is nothing in here that can be verified

- why is it that horses who have no experience with the surface outperform their peers who have been training and running on it? aren't those bred for the dirt then?
- define "some of the good horses (not all, some are moved so they can race on dirt)"
- define "They still run in mediocre fashion most of the time"
- define "the horse is better on dirt" - so the horse has a better finishing position? but wait, weren't you talking about the "good horses", ie those who had already been winning?Man, I've just gotta ask...I'm honestly curious:

Given the enormous spectrum of people involved in the industry - from trainers, exercise riders, and jockeys to bettors, fans, and tractor drivers - who all acknowledge very real issues with synthetic surfaces (from surface-to-surface compatability and maintenance variability to questions of safety, many of them supported both empirically and anecdotally), why is it that you feel such an almost moral imperative to rally so aggressively in their support?

It seems as though you dismiss obvious questions/concerns out of little more than principle, which is something that, sadly, got CA tracks to precisely where they are. Doing so hardly does the sport any favors, whether you're a track manager or fan or otherwise.

Personally, I'm not getting involved in the debate, so don't ask; others here provide far better substance than I. I'm just curious to know what motivates you here. It's fascinating.

[gm10]

One question about your methodology ... do you think it's fair to use races from 2007 onwards?
This would mean that a lot of synthetic graded stakes could only have been won by "dirt horses" - simply because there hardly was any synthetic racing before 2007 (I count 33 synthetic graded stakes before 2007 - there were 122 in 2008 alone!)

What are your numbers if you look from, say, 2008 onwards?

Nevermind, I did a quick query.

I see 28 horses who won a graded stakes on both surfaces. 19 of those (=68%) won a graded race on the synthetic before going on to win a graded stakes on the dirt.

Maybe I made a mistake ... so here are the results of the query

HORSE_NAME SURFACE_TYPE MIN(RO.RACE_DATE)
AMEN HALLELUJAH P 16/01/2010
AMEN HALLELUJAH D 27/02/2010
AMERICAN LION P 21/11/2009
AMERICAN LION D 04/03/2010
AURORA LIGHTS P 26/09/2009
AURORA LIGHTS D 27/02/2010
AUTISM AWARENESS D 03/08/2008
AUTISM AWARENESS P 25/05/2009
BLAME P 31/10/2009
BLAME D 27/11/2009
BLIND LUCK P 10/04/2009
BLIND LUCK D 04/02/2010
COLONEL JOHN P 03/01/2008
COLONEL JOHN D 23/08/2008
CONVEYANCE P 16/01/2010
CONVEYANCE D 20/02/2010
DELIGHTFUL KISS D 06/02/2007
DELIGHTFUL KISS P 09/06/2008
EINSTEIN (BRZ) D 28/11/2008
EINSTEIN (BRZ) P 03/07/2009
EL GATO MALO P 01/12/2008
EL GATO MALO D 05/10/2008
GABBY'S GOLDEN GAL D 06/06/2009
GABBY'S GOLDEN GAL P 31/01/2010
GAYEGO D 04/12/2008
GAYEGO P 10/11/2009
GENERAL QUARTERS D 14/02/2009
GENERAL QUARTERS P 04/11/2009
INDIAN BLESSING D 10/06/2007
INDIAN BLESSING P 13/01/2008
INDYANNE D 07/12/2008
INDYANNE P 10/04/2008
INFORMED DECISION P 18/10/2008
INFORMED DECISION D 05/02/2009
INTANGAROO P 02/02/2008
INTANGAROO D 05/03/2008
LEAH'S SECRET P 21/10/2006
LEAH'S SECRET D 11/02/2008
LOOKIN AT LUCKY P 08/09/2009
LOOKIN AT LUCKY D 13/03/2010
MAREN'S MEADOW P 22/03/2008
MAREN'S MEADOW D 08/09/2008
MATT'S BROKEN VOW P 17/05/2008
MATT'S BROKEN VOW D 23/08/2008
MINE THAT BIRD P 10/05/2008
MINE THAT BIRD D 05/02/2009
MISREMEMBERED P 18/07/2009
MISREMEMBERED D 10/03/2009
MONTEREY JAZZ P 02/02/2008
MONTEREY JAZZ D 26/04/2008
PAPA CLEM D 04/11/2009
PAPA CLEM P 16/01/2010
TOUGH TIZ'S SIS P 06/10/2007
TOUGH TIZ'S SIS D 09/06/2008
ZENYATTA P 13/01/2008
ZENYATTA D 04/05/2008

[gm10]

Man, I've just gotta ask...I'm honestly curious:

Given the enormous spectrum of people involved in the industry - from trainers, exercise riders, and jockeys to bettors, fans, and tractor drivers - who all acknowledge very real issues with synthetic surfaces (from surface-to-surface compatability and maintenance variability to questions of safety, many of them supported both empirically and anecdotally), why is it that you feel such an almost moral imperative to rally so aggressively in their support?

Before I answer this question, can you show me the empirical evidence of your claim?

I have no doubt that are issues with maintaining a new surface, btw.

It seems as though you dismiss obvious questions/concerns out of little more than principle, which is something that, sadly, got CA tracks to precisely where they are. Doing so hardly does the sport any favors, whether you're a track manager or fan or otherwise.

Personally, I'm not getting involved in the debate, so don't ask; others here provide far better substance than I. I'm just curious to know what motivates you here. It's fascinating.

apart from my belief that it is producing more competitive animals and as such helping the breed (the original goal of thoroughbred racing) ...

a) because the evidence that I've been seeing suggests that it is safer (yes there are more hind leg injuries but ask the horse if it'd rather be dead or have a treatable injury - the one paying the bill may give you a different answer, though!)
b) because I enjoy synthetic racing (I enjoy dirt racing too but it can become tedious after a while, a bit of diversity never hurts)
c) once upon a time I held a serious edge in the betting - that has largely gone now, but I guess there is still some positively charged residu in my mind

all of these are (ultimately) selfish arguments - I fully acknowledge that

[Fager Fan]

a) because the evidence that I've been seeing suggests that it is safer (yes there are more hind leg injuries but ask the horse if it'd rather be dead or have a treatable injury - the one paying the bill may give you a different answer, though!)

You apparently aren't familiar with how incredibly damaging soft tissue injuries are. This isn't between "dead" and "treatable injury" - it's a range of injuries going from dead to treatable injury. Among the most treatable injuries are fractures and chips, provided they're not a slab fracture of the knee. With fractures, the horse can be given a few months off and return good as new, whether it's to racing or another endeavor. A tendon or suspensory? You could be looking at a year or more just to heal well enough to go back into training, with the horse not likely to make it back to the races, and if he does, he won't return to his former level. You've got to catch these injuries really early to avoid all that I just typed, which happens less frequently than catching it later.

So you're left with a horse who is useless as a racehorse. Ever tried to give away a horse with a soft tissue injury? No one wants them. They can pick up horses every day of the week, so why are they going to take one that they have to pay board and vet expenses on for a year or more before they can start working with the horse? Why would they want the horse who is compromised athletically for the rest of its life?

No one wants a dead horse on the track, but soft tissue injuries are nothing to take lightly, as if they're just some little problem.

[Fager Fan]

this is complete BS
you are just randomly guessing with this - there is nothing in here that can be verified

- why is it that horses who have no experience with the surface outperform their peers who have been training and running on it? aren't those bred for the dirt then?

What is difficult for you about the idea that a good horse who has gotten used to the surface has an advantage over the good horse who hasn't gotten used to it? You have heard from trainers who talk of the surface using different muscles?

- define "some of the good horses (not all, some are moved so they can race on dirt)"

Summer Bird comes to mind as a horse who couldn't stand the synth so he was moved to a trainer on the East Coast. IWR was another who was moved East.

- define "They still run in mediocre fashion most of the time"

You haven't noticed that these horses have run better when they moved to their preferred surface? The examples (see two above) are plentiful.

- define "the horse is better on dirt" - so the horse has a better finishing position? but wait, weren't you talking about the "good horses", ie those who had already been winning?

You don't know a better performance when you see one? If you don't, I can't help you. You could try looking at times, Beyers, and competition beaten.

[gm10]

You apparently aren't familiar with how incredibly damaging soft tissue injuries are. This isn't between "dead" and "treatable injury" - it's a range of injuries going from dead to treatable injury. Among the most treatable injuries are fractures and chips, provided they're not a slab fracture of the knee. With fractures, the horse can be given a few months off and return good as new, whether it's to racing or another endeavor. A tendon or suspensory? You could be looking at a year or more just to heal well enough to go back into training, with the horse not likely to make it back to the races, and if he does, he won't return to his former level. You've got to catch these injuries really early to avoid all that I just typed, which happens less frequently than catching it later.

So you're left with a horse who is useless as a racehorse. Ever tried to give away a horse with a soft tissue injury? No one wants them. They can pick up horses every day of the week, so why are they going to take one that they have to pay board and vet expenses on for a year or more before they can start working with the horse? Why would they want the horse who is compromised athletically for the rest of its life?

No one wants a dead horse on the track, but soft tissue injuries are nothing to take lightly, as if they're just some little problem.

You are confusing two separate issues. The way we treat horses when they are no longer part economically exploitable, and whether the horse wants to live or die.

[gm10]

What is difficult for you about the idea that a good horse who has gotten used to the surface has an advantage over the good horse who hasn't gotten used to it? You have heard from trainers who talk of the surface using different muscles?


Yes - the dirt horse has an advantage on the dirt and vice versa. But wait. No. The dirt horse does NOT have an advantage on the dirt. Why not? They are bred for it aren't they?


Summer Bird comes to mind as a horse who couldn't stand the synth so he was moved to a trainer on the East Coast. IWR was another who was moved East.

Anecdotal evidence! This is why I asked for a definition.

You haven't noticed that these horses have run better when they moved to their preferred surface? The examples (see two above) are plentiful.


You are tying to prove that it is their prefered surface. You can't use what you are trying to prove as evidence.


You don't know a better performance when you see one? If you don't, I can't help you. You could try looking at times, Beyers, and competition beaten.

Ah that's interesting .... times? They run quicker over the 'plastic', you know. I don't use BSF. And the competition they beat ... well that's the whole point isn't it. You are again using the outcome (dirt is better) as evidence.

[Steve R]

One question about your methodology ... do you think it's fair to use races from 2007 onwards?
This would mean that a lot of synthetic graded stakes could only have been won by "dirt horses" - simply because there hardly was any synthetic racing before 2007 (I count 33 synthetic graded stakes before 2007 - there were 122 in 2008 alone!)

What are your numbers if you look from, say, 2008 onwards?
As you noted in a later post, the numbers get pretty small if you use fewer years --- and the stats become dicey. How about beginning in 2008 as you suggest but include horses that ran 1st, 2nd or 3rd in graded races on both surfaces? I figure if a horse placed in a graded race, it was well-suited enough for the surface. This way the sample size increases to 103 between January 1, 2008 and last week. The breakdown is 54 initial wins or placings on dirt and 49 on an AWS. The point is that there is no definitive evidence about how one surface relates to later success on another.

[Fager Fan]

You are confusing two separate issues. The way we treat horses when they are no longer part economically exploitable, and whether the horse wants to live or die.

The confusion was on your part, when you mistakenly thought that soft tissue injuries are simple little injuries. Perhaps you can ask the horse if he'd prefer to have a fracture than a bow. Let me know what he says.

[gm10]

As you noted in a later post, the numbers get pretty small if you use fewer years --- and the stats become dicey. How about beginning in 2008 as you suggest but include horses that ran 1st, 2nd or 3rd in graded races on both surfaces? I figure if a horse placed in a graded race, it was well-suited enough for the surface. This way the sample size increases to 103 between January 1, 2008 and last week. The breakdown is 54 initial wins or placings on dirt and 49 on an AWS. The point is that there is no definitive evidence about how one surface relates to later success on another.

Using 1st, 2nd, 3rd doesn't sound like the way to go to me. You are really diluting the concept of "handling the surface" if you are already looking at third place.

So let's try an alternative experiment.

Let's look at all synthetic races during 2009, and see on which surface the winner had raced on in its previous race.


Move Strike %
T -> P 12.2%
P -> P 12.0%
D -> P 9.4%


This tells us that 12% of the synthetic winners came from turf/synthetic and only 9% came off a dirt race. This is surprising - I thought turf would be closer to 10-10.5%. Anyway, in this experiment, the dirt-to-poly angle is clearly not a good one.

So let's turn the situation around. I half-randomly select some dirt tracks to see how well the poly-to-dirt angle worked. The tracks were

Churchill Downs
Philadelphia
Belmont
Saratoga
Gulfstream
Turf Paradise
Santa Rosa
Hastings
Hawthorne

Results:


Move Strike %
T -> D 9.06%
P -> D 11.95%
D -> D 11.29%


Conclusion from this: turf-to-dirt is tricky. Dirt-to-dirt is OK. However, poly-to-dirt is better than dirt-to-dirt. Not a lot, admittedly, but it is in stark contrast to the dirt-to-poly angle.

[FenceBored]

Using 1st, 2nd, 3rd doesn't sound like the way to go to me. You are really diluting the concept of "handling the surface" if you are already looking at third place.


Of course, it doesn't. If a method doesn't affirm your hypothesis, it must not be the right one.


So let's turn the situation around. I half-randomly select some dirt tracks to see how well the poly-to-dirt angle worked. The tracks were



"Half-randomly select?" There's a phrase that doesn't inspire confidence in your methodology. I believe the technical term is cherry-pick.

[gm10]

Of course, it doesn't. If a method doesn't affirm your hypothesis, it must not be the right one.


Do you agree or disagree that it dilutes the concept?



"Half-randomly select?" There's a phrase that doesn't inspire confidence in your methodology. I believe the technical term is cherry-pick.

When I say, half-randomly, I mean randomly while making sure that that there will be a certain number of synthetic invaders (Churchill, Philadelphia, Hastings, Santa Rosa, Turf Paradise). It was about getting enough data, no cherry picking involved at all. Feel free to come up with your own list, I will gladly run the same query.

[FenceBored]

Do you agree or disagree that it dilutes the concept?


I think it's funny that you argue that Summer Bird (4th in a graded stakes on Pro-Ride) handled the surface just fine, and Curlin (4th in the same race a year earlier) handled the surface just fine, but here you are saying that nobody can say anything about 3rd place finishers in graded stakes on synthetic.


When I say, half-randomly, I mean randomly with the addition of a few tracks where I know that there will be a certain number of synthetic invaders (Hastings, Santa Rosa, Turf Paradise). It was about getting enough data, no cherry picking involved at all. Feel free to come up with your own list, I will gladly run the same query.

I'll pass. Given our prior exchanges, I don't trust you to report the results accurately, if they don't come out "right" in your view.

[gm10]

I think it's funny that you argue that Summer Bird (4th in a graded stakes on Pro-Ride) handled the surface just fine, and Curlin (4th in the same race a year earlier) handled the surface just fine, but here you are saying that nobody can say anything about 3rd place finishers in graded stakes on synthetic.

There really is no point in trying to have a constructive discussion with you. You back up your beliefs with anecdotes and remain blind to any alternative theories. It's like you don't want to improve your own knowledge.



I'll pass. Given our prior exchanges, I don't trust you to report the results accurately, if they don't come out "right" in your view.

No sweat. If anyone else wants to test it on a set of dirt tracks please let me know.

[FenceBored]

There really is no point in trying to have a constructive discussion with you. You back up your beliefs with anecdotes and remain blind to any alternative theories. It's like you don't want to improve your own knowledge.

:faint: Un-frickin-real. I back up my argument with your previous statements, and your janus head spins around.

Isn't one of the great hallmarks of synthetics for you the closeness of the finishes? Wouldn't that indicate that the third place finisher is more likely to be close up to the winner (i.e. not 10-12 lengths beat)? Wouldn't that further indicate that said third place finisher is handling the surface well enough for our purposes here? No, that can't be it. :D

[gm10]

:faint: Un-frickin-real. I back up my argument with your previous statements, and your janus head spins around.

Isn't one of the great hallmarks of synthetics for you the closeness of the finishes? Wouldn't that indicate that the third place finisher is more likely to be close up to the winner (i.e. not 10-12 lengths beat)? Wouldn't that further indicate that said third place finisher is handling the surface well enough for our purposes here? No, that can't be it. :D

Come on now, what does a third place really prove? In some races, you don't even need to beat half the field to be third. The Mother Goose springs to mind.

Surely we judge the horses by the number of wins, and not the number of in-the-money finishes. Why suddenly use a second standard? We can perhaps find a compromise, though, such as in the first two and beaten less than a length.

[Fingal]

Spain??? Do they even have race tracks there?

These guys are completely clueless. More like mental midgets.:bang:
_______
David-LV

Where does Churchill get their dirt track ? What about Belmont ? Or whomever else that has real dirt ?

Frank, put aside the ego, stop trying to say " I used dirt from some foreign country." Did you ever even bother to ask anybody from another facility ?

Why do I already know the answer...............:rolleyes:

[nearco]

Where does Churchill get their dirt track ? What about Belmont ? Or whomever else that has real dirt ?

Frank, put aside the ego, stop trying to say " I used dirt from some foreign country." Did you ever even bother to ask anybody from another facility ?

Why do I already know the answer...............:rolleyes:

I know most of you guys are geniuses, and that a self made billionaire like Frank wouldn't be able to compete with you guys, but don't you think.... even for just one teeny tiny second, that the fact that Frank owns other race tracks, most of which have DIRT, that he knows a thing or two about what dirt looks like and where he could procure some?

[andymays]

I know most of you guys are geniuses, and that a self made billionaire like Frank wouldn't be able to compete with you guys, but don't you think.... even for just one teeny tiny second, that the fact that Frank owns other race tracks, most of which have DIRT, that he knows a thing or two about what dirt looks like and where he could procure some?


Last year racing officials at Santa Anita said they didn't know where to find any. Not kidding. I guess that's why they're going to Spain and Argentina.

:confused:

[joanied]

Last year racing officials at Santa Anita said they didn't know where to find any. Not kidding. I guess that's why they're going to Spain and Argentina.

:confused:

unbelievable:faint:

[Fager Fan]

unbelievable:faint:


Perhaps the two of you think getting 16,000 tons of sand/material is as easy as going out to the beach with your little bucket and shovel?

[andymays]

Perhaps the two of you think getting 16,000 tons of sand/material is as easy as going out to the beach with your little bucket and shovel?


I've looked into it a little and talked to quite a few people about it. Going to another country is what they did with the synthetic stuff. That was supposed to be the best too.

All people have to do is listen to Bruce Headley to figure this out. He's spoken about it many times.


http://www.horsemenstrack.com/tc.html

[Fager Fan]

I've looked into it a little and talked to quite a few people about it. Going to another country is what they did with the synthetic stuff. That was supposed to be the best too.

All people have to do is listen to Bruce Headley to figure this out. He's spoken about it many times.


http://www.horsemenstrack.com/tc.html

I have no clue what the above has to do with my response to you.

[andymays]

I have no clue what the above has to do with my response to you.


I don't think you responded to me. You responded to joanied responding to me. ;)

[Cardus]

I know most of you guys are geniuses, and that a self made billionaire like Frank wouldn't be able to compete with you guys, but don't you think.... even for just one teeny tiny second, that the fact that Frank owns other race tracks, most of which have DIRT, that he knows a thing or two about what dirt looks like and where he could procure some?

Well, hold on there.

Frank is from Austria, and I saw "The Sound of Music" and it looked like Austria was all mountains. No dirt.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...When I say, half-randomly, I mean randomly while making sure that that there will be a certain number of synthetic invaders (Churchill, Philadelphia, Hastings, Santa Rosa, Turf Paradise). It was about getting enough data, no cherry picking involved at all. Feel free to come up with your own list, I will gladly run the same query.

I'm just reading this thread without wanting to get involved - but when I looked at the list of tracks that you used, I could understand selecting those as facilities that probably host a higher number of synthetic shippers than others. But at the same time, several also have the appearance of being facilities that would naturally be a "class drop" from a nearby synthetic facility.

Perhaps my intuition is faulty, but at first glance, I not only saw a conclusion of success from poly to dirt, but from major leagues to bush leagues. If I'm way off base here due to a likely braincramp, by all means point it out, but when I see synthetic to (Philadelphia, Turf Paradise, Santa Rosa, Hastings, Hawthorne) - I envision a lot of horses coming off of a major circuit (except PID) and not only switching to dirt, but dropping to bottom level conditioned claimers.

I'm just not sure that the data represents entirely the effects of switching surfaces when class levels are ignored.

[Cardus]

I don't think you responded to me. You responded to joanied responding to me. ;)

By the associative property, has he responded to you?

[Valuist]

I've learned this from this thread: I should've went into the automotive parts business because an idiot who knows apparently failed BOTH Geography and Geology can make a fortune in that business.

[gm10]

I'm just reading this thread without wanting to get involved - but when I looked at the list of tracks that you used, I could understand selecting those as facilities that probably host a higher number of synthetic shippers than others. But at the same time, several also have the appearance of being facilities that would naturally be a "class drop" from a nearby synthetic facility.

Perhaps my intuition is faulty, but at first glance, I not only saw a conclusion of success from poly to dirt, but from major leagues to bush leagues. If I'm way off base here due to a likely braincramp, by all means point it out, but when I see synthetic to (Philadelphia, Turf Paradise, Santa Rosa, Hastings, Hawthorne) - I envision a lot of horses coming off of a major circuit (except PID) and not only switching to dirt, but dropping to bottom level conditioned claimers.

I'm just not sure that the data represents entirely the effects of switching surfaces when class levels are ignored.

I was wondering when someone would pick on that! It was in the back of my mind I must admit.

Most synthetic tracks are towards the top end of the market and if you look for neighbouring tracks on dirt, the chances are that it will be a lower level track. But feel free to suggest an alternative list of dirt tracks, and I will report back.

(I'm not sure that GG to SR is a step down, neither is PID to anywhere else)

[joanied]

Perhaps the two of you think getting 16,000 tons of sand/material is as easy as going out to the beach with your little bucket and shovel?

Perhaps you could see your way clear to allow me and andymays, and anyone else for that matter, to give our opinions.
Who even said it was easy to haul 16,000lbs of dirt from anywhere...neither of us did!!