Thoro-Graph President Answers Critics of "Dirt Racing" in the United States

[andymays]

Jerry Brown, president of Thoro-Graph, which provides performance figures for horseplayers and horsemen, took exception to a recent column in England’s Sporting Life by former jockey Richard Dunwoody entitled “Burying Their Heads in the Dirt” in which Dunwoody said the American Thoroughbred has been in decline in part because of the reliance on dirt racing in the U.S. Among other things, Dunwoody said Santa Anita Park in California is taking big step backwards in removing its synthetic surface and returning to conventional dirt.

Jerry Brown makes seven points in his answer to the Sporting Life Column.

Hit the link for the article.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/thoro-graph-president-were-not-burying-our-heads-in-the-dirt/

[Learned Hand35]

Nothing better in which to refute stupidity than logic, reason, and fact.

Well done, Mr. Brown.

[JustRalph]

4– I have to address the nonsense about performance figures being ineffective for races on synthetic. I not only make the Thoro-Graph figures, I use them, and over the last five years I have won each of the major real-money handicapping contests at all three California tracks, which are contested only once a year at each track. Two of those wins came when the races were contested on synthetics.

Sounds like a pretty good advertisement for his numbers :lol:

Good for him......... :ThmbUp:

[Charlie D]

I hope Mr Brown has sent his comments to the Sporting Life and R Dunwoody.

[Tom]

I hope Andy dosen't see this thread!:eek:

[ronsmac]

I disagree with Brown about the figures. The majority of players and services will say the figures have declined in the last decade or so .

[gm10]

It's funny to hear a British guy accuse someone else of being insular, and the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two sides.

I agree about Santa Anita though. I don't get that at all. There was nothing wrong with the surface, it was safe, pretty reliable for such a new product, and the best synthetics horses did just fine on the dirt. To me it looks like nobody really has a clue about how they could solve problem but at the same time they can't appear as if they aren't try to fix it.

[Indulto]

From the article:… What the powers-that-be still don’t get is that drugs are a drag on handle. Aside from the huge amounts of purse money being taken out of the game by those using illegal drugs, there are people effectively insider trading, taking money out of the parimutuel pools based on knowledge of who is being drugged. That means that those actually handicapping are, in effect, facing a bigger takeout, and additionally, bettors who think they are getting screwed become demoralized, lose interest, and bet less or not at all. It’s tough enough to stay afloat betting this game even when everyone is playing on a level field. …If it weren't for the drug meisters, all sheets players would be winners. ;)

How come the horsemen aren't more up in arms about those in their midst who take more than their share of purse money using illegal drugs? How can horseplayers do anything about the drug problem if the horsemen won't or is this finally the issue that will move whales to boycott?

[illinoisbred]

From the article:If it weren't for the drug meisters, all sheets players would be winners. ;)

How come the horsemen aren't more up in arms about those in their midst who take more than their share of purse money using illegal drugs? How can horseplayers do anything about the drug problem if the horsemen won't or is this finally the issue that will move whales to boycott?
Great question. I've often wondered why most trainers don't complain.

[Bruddah]

I have never been a fan or detractor of Mr Brown's. However, after reading his truthful and factual article, I am going to need to rethink my position. His article has moved me (albeit reluctantly) toward the fan side of my barometer.

Spot on comments by Mr Brown. :ThmbUp:

[illinoisbred]

I have never been a fan or detractor of Mr Brown's. However, after reading his truthful and factual article, I am going to need to rethink my position. His article has moved me (albeit reluctantly) toward the fan side of my barometer.

Spot on comments by Mr Brown. :ThmbUp:
Jerry Brown has been way out in front for some time when it comes to the integrity of the sport.

[nearco]

:ThmbUp:
Looks like California is on the right track now that he's in charge. :ThmbUp:

[Native Texan III]

The Sporting Life opinion article actually said about speed figures:

"Speed figures are much better on dirt than synthetics. Bettors have been spoon-fed these figures for years and have been slow to adjust to working out the form on tracks that use synthetics. You also don't get such bias with synthetic surfaces as you'd find with some dirt tracks"

Has not Andy Beyer had to fudge his figures on synthetics? Are there not 10's of posts on this forum puzzled as to why dirt speed figures don't work out or about how you have to adjust your whole approach on synthetics?

From the outside it does look insular to have a problem with breakdowns then come up with half a dozen different solutions and not once to discuss with the bettors who fund the game. To install tracks without a long study as to the best practices, to learn form other countries and to learn how to actually build a proper track design. Then to admit we still do not know which type of track reduces injuries (the original problem) but to go back to where we were at StA several years and $1000's ago. What is Plan B if the injuries rates come right back at StA with dirt?

[Tom]

This is racing, you should be happy there was a Plan A. :rolleyes::D

[Tread]

From the article:If it weren't for the drug meisters, all sheets players would be winners. ;)

How come the horsemen aren't more up in arms about those in their midst who take more than their share of purse money using illegal drugs? How can horseplayers do anything about the drug problem if the horsemen won't or is this finally the issue that will move whales to boycott?

So you don't agree with Jerry's points about all information being made public? Why not do that and answer all of these questions for good, instead of continuing speculation and guessing about why people do or don't care or don't say anything? Because nothing is said means it is not a problem?

[Indulto]

So you don't agree with Jerry's points about all information being made public? Why not do that and answer all of these questions for good, instead of continuing speculation and guessing about why people do or don't care or don't say anything? Because nothing is said means it is not a problem?I agree with everything written in the passage I quoted. I also appreciate the irony it contains

Are you a "sheets" user? Try reading both the Thorograph and Ragozin message boards and maybe you will too. I don't understand your second sentence. Specifically, what is the "that" you think I should do? Do you have the definitive answers to those same questions?

[Valuist]

It's funny to hear a British guy accuse someone else of being insular, and the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two sides.

I agree about Santa Anita though. I don't get that at all. There was nothing wrong with the surface, it was safe, pretty reliable for such a new product, and the best synthetics horses did just fine on the dirt. To me it looks like nobody really has a clue about how they could solve problem but at the same time they can't appear as if they aren't try to fix it.

So the best synthetic horses did just fine on dirt.....but what about dirt horses on synthetic? Like Brown says, people don't want to bet when they feel the outcomes are random. Southern California tracks have ZERO need for all-weather surfaces. It clearly was an agenda by the CHRB. Turfway is the only track in the U.S. that needs all-weather, due to the extreme conditions they race in (or are SUPPOSED to race in) over the winter.

[gm10]

So the best synthetic horses did just fine on dirt.....but what about dirt horses on synthetic? Like Brown says, people don't want to bet when they feel the outcomes are random. Southern California tracks have ZERO need for all-weather surfaces. It clearly was an agenda by the CHRB. Turfway is the only track in the U.S. that needs all-weather, due to the extreme conditions they race in (or are SUPPOSED to race in) over the winter.

Surely this is an advantage to the owners of synthetics horses?? They can win purses on any surface, whereas the dirt horses can't handle anything but dirt.

You know what would be funny? If horses from NorCal started coming to Santa A to win races, instead of the other way around.

[Tom]

You know what would be funny? If horses from NorCal started coming to Santa A to win races, instead of the other way around.


Class might be a factor in that one.

Synths are finished here. No one is putting it in anymore.

[Tread]

I agree with everything written in the passage I quoted. I also appreciate the irony it contains

Are you a "sheets" user? Try reading both the Thorograph and Ragozin message boards and maybe you will too. I don't understand your second sentence. Specifically, what is the "that" you think I should do? Do you have the definitive answers to those same questions?

The "that" is full disclosure of what horses were tested, what they were tested for, what the methods were, and what the results were. Your post seemed to be suggesting that because other owners aren't more public about questioning this stuff, or more to the point demanding it, that there might be nothing wrong going on. Perhaps I misread it.

Yes, I read Jerry's board and completely agree with his statements. The only question there is no definitive answer to, is why the things he suggests are not done. If there is nothing to hide, there is no reason to not make the information public.

[Valuist]

Surely this is an advantage to the owners of synthetics horses?? They can win purses on any surface, whereas the dirt horses can't handle anything but dirt.

You know what would be funny? If horses from NorCal started coming to Santa A to win races, instead of the other way around.

SOME synthetic horses handle the transition to dirt. How have the California based horses done in the KY Derby since the advent of synthetics? Not good. Yeah Pioneer of the Nile was 2nd but beaten by a big margin and was never a threat to win.

The biggest problem I have with those tracks is the random nature of the results.

[gm10]

SOME synthetic horses handle the transition to dirt. How have the California based horses done in the KY Derby since the advent of synthetics? Not good. Yeah Pioneer of the Nile was 2nd but beaten by a big margin and was never a threat to win.

The biggest problem I have with those tracks is the random nature of the results.

I don't find it random tbh, neither does the public who still picks >30% winners on the synthetics. One thing that is true is that traditional tools like BSF and pace numbers are less useful because the dynamics of the race are less uniform than what you get on dirt. Being forced to think outside of the box can be helpful long-term though!!

Btw there were also Lucky winning the Preakness and Blind Luck winning the Oaks.

[Indulto]

The "that" is full disclosure of what horses were tested, what they were tested for, what the methods were, and what the results were. Your post seemed to be suggesting that because other owners aren't more public about questioning this stuff, or more to the point demanding it, that there might be nothing wrong going on. Perhaps I misread it.

Yes, I read Jerry's board and completely agree with his statements. The only question there is no definitive answer to, is why the things he suggests are not done. If there is nothing to hide, there is no reason to not make the information public.I agree there SEEMS to be a lot of wrong going on, and that if JB's suggestions were implemented, it might PROVE there is. However, I suspect that the creation of a commisioner's office with jurisdiction over all tracks would be necessary BEFORE those suggestions would ever be implemented at any subset of them.

[cj]

Btw there were also Lucky winning the Preakness and Blind Luck winning the Oaks.

How are they synthetic horses? Both massively underachieved on rubber when compared to the dirt accomplishments.

[gm10]

How are they synthetic horses? Both massively underachieved on rubber when compared to the dirt accomplishments.

Because they were the best of their division on synthetic?

As for the 'massively underachieved':

Lucky: three G1 wins on synthetic, two G1 on dirt
Blind Luck: three G1 wins on synthetic, two G1 on dirt

Of course, you will now come up with another definition of 'accomplishments'.

[cj]

Because they were the best of their division on synthetic?

As for the 'massively underachieved':

Lucky: three G1 wins on synthetic, two G1 on dirt
Blind Luck: three G1 wins on synthetic, two G1 on dirt

Of course, you will now come up with another definition of 'accomplishments'.

Both were beaten at very short odds on synthetics in races they never would have lost on dirt to those horses. Sure, they lost as favorites on dirt, but at least the horses were pretty good.

I just find it funny that you deem any horse that raced once or worked out once on synthetics a rubber horse. Does this mean those that workout on dirt but raced on synthetics are dirt horses?

[Valuist]

I don't find it random tbh, neither does the public who still picks >30% winners on the synthetics. One thing that is true is that traditional tools like BSF and pace numbers are less useful because the dynamics of the race are less uniform than what you get on dirt. Being forced to think outside of the box can be helpful long-term though!!

Btw there were also Lucky winning the Preakness and Blind Luck winning the Oaks.

Actually on synthetic, pace becomes irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of races are run the same way; stay covered up until the quarter pole, THEN go all out.

I saw someone in the U.K. say they didn't understand why synthetics have not been popular in the U.S. The reason is this: here they were supposed to be an alternative to dirt. In the U.K. there is no dirt racing so its really an alternative to grass. Since they have no dirt racing, they aren't missing anything. Its basically racing on brown grass. We enjoy TRUE grass racing but to us, synthetics are just a bastardized version of grass and in no way similar to dirt.

[andicap]

The number one problem with Dunwoody's argument is that horse racing is going down the drain in Great Britain as well -- and they don't have any dirt tracks.

I know -- I used to live there. By every indication the sport is in decline.

[PaceAdvantage]

The number one problem with Dunwoody's argument is that horse racing is going down the drain in Great Britain as well -- and they don't have any dirt tracks.

I know -- I used to live there. By every indication the sport is in decline.Excellent point from a first hand observer... :ThmbUp:

[slewis]

Actually on synthetic, pace becomes irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of races are run the same way; stay covered up until the quarter pole, THEN go all out.

I saw someone in the U.K. say they didn't understand why synthetics have not been popular in the U.S. The reason is this: here they were supposed to be an alternative to dirt. In the U.K. there is no dirt racing so its really an alternative to grass. Since they have no dirt racing, they aren't missing anything. Its basically racing on brown grass. We enjoy TRUE grass racing but to us, synthetics are just a bastardized version of grass and in no way similar to dirt.


That's a very good point.:ThmbUp:

[gm10]

Excellent point from a first hand observer... :ThmbUp:

They've got a major problem with the funding mechanism, the Levy is completely outdated and needs to be replaced.

The sport isn't 'going down', that is nonsense. On the contrary, it's very popular, it draws more audiences than any other sport except football. That's from a first hand observer as well :ThmbUp:

[gm10]

Actually on synthetic, pace becomes irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of races are run the same way; stay covered up until the quarter pole, THEN go all out.



That is really not how it is. Yes it happens a bit more often than on dirt, but a lot of races are still won by a horse who is on or near the pace. This year more than ever.

[gm10]

Both were beaten at very short odds on synthetics in races they never would have lost on dirt to those horses. Sure, they lost as favorites on dirt, but at least the horses were pretty good.

I just find it funny that you deem any horse that raced once or worked out once on synthetics a rubber horse. Does this mean those that workout on dirt but raced on synthetics are dirt horses?

Nice try to change the subject.

Your original post remains unexplained however, how they 'massively underachieved' on synthetic surfaces.