Michael Dempsey: Synthetic Vs. Dirt Debate Lingers On Like a Bad Stewards Inquiry

[andymays]

http://www.turfnsport.com/dirt-versus-synthetic.php

Excerpt:

On the same day this information about the report was released by the Paulick Report, the Thoroughbred Times has an article by Frank Angst that is titled, "No significant difference in fatality risk based on surface."

According to the Thoroughbred Times article, "The big reveal of the first results culled from the Jockey Club Equine Injury Database indicated that there is no statistically significant difference in the risk of fatality based on surface issues."

Huh? I guess Ray and Frank are not Facebook buddies.

Excerpt:

What most of us can agree on is horseplayers do not like wagering on fake tracks, and the industry rushed to put the surfaces in without doing due diligence on what the downside was.

The tracks have been harder to maintain than advertised, still can produce a pronounced bias, and have led to different types of injuries among horses according to many trainers and veterinarians.

[andymays]

In my opinion many of the fatalities, especially the spike from 2004 to 2007 here on the west coast, were the end result of milk shaking, steroid abuse, and other performance enhancing drugs. Since testing has improved I think we've seen a decrease in racing fatalities. When we get national standards and stick too them things will improve even more.

In my opinion with all things being equal there in not much difference between a well maintained dirt surface with a new base and a well maintained synthetic surface with a new base as far fatalities go. That begs the question: Why pay for a synthetic surface?

[rwwupl]

http://www.turfnsport.com/dirt-versus-synthetic.php

Excerpt:

On the same day this information about the report was released by the Paulick Report, the Thoroughbred Times has an article by Frank Angst that is titled, "No significant difference in fatality risk based on surface."

According to the Thoroughbred Times article, "The big reveal of the first results culled from the Jockey Club Equine Injury Database indicated that there is no statistically significant difference in the risk of fatality based on surface issues."

Huh? I guess Ray and Frank are not Facebook buddies.

Excerpt:

What most of us can agree on is horseplayers do not like wagering on fake tracks, and the industry rushed to put the surfaces in without doing due diligence on what the downside was.

The tracks have been harder to maintain than advertised, still can produce a pronounced bias, and have led to different types of injuries among horses according to many trainers and veterinarians.


A lot of good points in this article...Lets stop the politics and fix the real problems...I hope the CHRB is listening.

Some other good points to consider were made...

Excerpt:

Get the illegal drugs out of the game and the injury totals will decrease, no matter what surface the horses are running over.

Trainers and veterinarians need to be held accountable when they do get caught.

Trainer Doug O'Neill is beginning a 15 day suspension and a $1,000 fine for a carbon dioxide overage in Illinois in April.

Stephen's Got Hope tested in excess of the permitted level of total carbon dioxide following a 7th place finish in the Illinois Derby.

The penalties and suspensions these trainers get are a joke, and with appeals, justice often is not served for years, if at all.

Before we spend more money on studies to determine what surfaces are safest, let's drive the cheaters out of the game.

That will be a good first step to seeing fewer horses break down on the track.

[andymays]

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/29/1327872/study-safety-of-synthetic-vs-dirt.html

Excerpt:

"Most people cannot afford to wait the time they need to, and sometimes we rush," Howard said. "They need you to fill a race, and you hate to say no. There are a lot of little things that are pushing us a bit."

While there was no major statistical evidence to suggest weight carried or race distance has an influence on the instances of fatalities, it was found that juvenile horses are 30 percent less likely to suffer fatal injuries than runners 3 or older.

The Equine Injury Database has 86 tracks participating, representing 86 percent of the flat racing days in North America. As part of the tracks' agreement to participate, however, the data from individual tracks is not made public.


Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/29/1327872/study-safety-of-synthetic-vs-dirt.html#ixzz0sM1t3m9n

[Brogan]

In my opinion many of the fatalities, especially the spike from 2004 to 2007 here on the west coast, were the end result of milk shaking, steroid abuse, and other performance enhancing drugs.

Andy, I'm curious why you feel milk shaking causes injuries.

[andymays]

Andy, I'm curious why you feel milk shaking causes injuries.

If you have an opinion to the contrary then let me hear it.

I am not so dug in that I am not willing to change my mind if you can tell me why I should.

Does the performance enhancement that follows milk shaking cause horses to do more than they are safely capable of doing?

or

Are there no adverse physical effects to milk shaking?

or

Does milk shaking just cheat people who bet on a given race by producing an extraordinary performance?

[Deepsix]

It has been my understanding that the 'adverse effect' concerning milkshakes is that a trainer can/could manipulate a horse's performance by 'shaking prior to one race and NOT shaking for others..... this method might allow trainers (connections) to time their bets by anticipating the horse's best performance in conjunction with milkshakes. We, the huddled masses, would naturally not know when a 'shake was being administered. Thus the 'performance advantage'.

[andymays]

It has been my understanding that the 'adverse effect' concerning milkshakes is that a trainer can/could manipulate a horse's performance by 'shaking prior to one race and NOT shaking for others..... this method might allow trainers (connections) to time their bets by anticipating the horse's best performance in conjunction with milkshakes. We, the huddled masses, would naturally not know when a 'shake was being administered. Thus the 'performance advantage'.

No adverse physical effects from the milk shaking itself or by running beyond a horses natural (without the milk shake) capabilities?

[Deepsix]

I'll tailor my comments to what I've just mentioned. That's good enough for me. Don't allow milkshakes.

[Brogan]

If you have an opinion to the contrary then let me hear it.

I am not so dug in that I am not willing to change my mind if you can tell me why I should.

Does the performance enhancement that follows milk shaking cause horses to do more than they are safely capable of doing?

or

Are there no adverse physical effects to milk shaking?

or

Does milk shaking just cheat people who bet on a given race by producing an extraordinary performance?
I have never once heard that milk shaking caused an injury. My question is why do you feel it does.

It is my understanding that the concept behind milk shaking is to introduce an alkalizing agent (baking soda) into the horse resulting in a counteraction to the build up of lactic acid in the muscles thereby negating muscle fatigue. If that works, the horse should be able to run longer at peak capacity. Its a tiring horse (IMHO) that is more prone to injury.

Does milk shaking have any adverse effect upon the horse? I don't know. I certainly am not comfortable with the idea of introducing quantities of baking soda into a horse's digestive system on a long term basis. Sounds like you'd be asking for digestive system trouble...and in a horse, that's a major problem.

Does milk shaking cheat people betting? Absolutely...but that wasn't my question. I'm still just asking why you think that milk shaking leads to injuries.

[andymays]

I have never once heard that milk shaking caused an injury. My question is why do you feel it does.

It is my understanding that the concept behind milk shaking is to introduce an alkalizing agent (baking soda) into the horse resulting in a counteraction to the build up of lactic acid in the muscles thereby negating muscle fatigue. If that works, the horse should be able to run longer at peak capacity. Its a tiring horse (IMHO) that is more prone to injury.

Does milk shaking have any adverse effect upon the horse? I don't know. I certainly am not comfortable with the idea of introducing quantities of baking soda into a horse's digestive system on a long term basis. Sounds like you'd be asking for digestive system trouble...and in a horse, that's a major problem.

Does milk shaking cheat people betting? Absolutely...but that wasn't my question. I'm still just asking why you think that milk shaking leads to injuries.


Brogan, your asking me the question to hit me over the head with my answer so lets get that out of the way.

If milk shaking was healthy for a horse I would think they would be given them on a regular basis right?

If you believe that running that much faster after a milkshake doesn't put extraordinary stress on tendons, muscles, and joints then tell me why you believe that.

If you're not sure then I guess we can leave it that its illegal for a reason and neither of of know all of the reasons why it's illegal.

[Brogan]

Brogan, your asking me the question to hit me over the head with my answer so lets get that out of the way.

If milk shaking was healthy for a horse I would think they would be given them on a regular basis right?

If you believe that running that much faster after a milkshake doesn't put extraordinary stress on tendons, muscles, and joints then tell me why you believe that.

If you're not sure then I guess we can leave it that its illegal for a reason and neither of of know all of the reasons why it's illegal.


No, I'm not sure that milk shaking works, nor am I sure what the long term effects are. Neither are you.

I never said it makes them run faster, I said it's supposed to make them run longer...maybe we're arguing the same thing here, but I want to be clear...its not supposed to increase speed (MPH) but decrease fatigue. I still maintain that a fatigued horse is more prone to injury.

I never once disputed that its illegal. It is, the rule should be enforced, and violators should be punished.

You're fighting a battle that's not there...screw this, let's go get a beer.

[andymays]

No, I'm not sure that milk shaking works, nor am I sure what the long term effects are. Neither are you.

I never said it makes them run faster, I said it's supposed to make them run longer...maybe we're arguing the same thing here, but I want to be clear...its not supposed to increase speed (MPH) but decrease fatigue. I still maintain that a fatigued horse is more prone to injury.

I never once disputed that its illegal. It is, the rule should be enforced, and violators should be punished.

You're fighting a battle that's not there...screw this, let's go get a beer.

I'll walk to the fridge and crack a budweiser in your honor. :ThmbUp:

Yes, they do decrease fatigue but if you keep going without getting tired I would think the horses body would have some type of negative effect at some point. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe someone on the board that knows more can set the record straight.