Year two of EID data released.

[FenceBored]

Data from the Equine Injury Database continues to grow.




According to the analysis for the two-year period, the catastrophic injury rate per 1,000 starts on dirt was 2.14; on turf, 1.74; and on synthetic surfaces, 1.55.

... the prevalence of fatality in 2-year-olds continued to be significantly lower than older horses racing on dirt surfaces, but on synthetic or turf surfaces, there was no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of fatality between 2-year-olds and older horses.



-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/60358/stats-look-at-fatal-injuries-over-two-years

[Cardus]

If I hadn't opened this thread, I would have thought we were going to discuss the end of Ramadan.

[FenceBored]

If I hadn't opened this thread, I would have thought we were going to discuss the end of Ramadan.

Hmm, there's a topic we've never discussed: the effects of fasting on the handicapping process; and whether post fasting binge eating has a different effect than say binge drinking, unrelated to fasting. But, those would probably belong under General Handicapping Discussion.

No, we're opening the can of worms that is 'study shows synthetics safer.'

The point about 2yos having a lower incidence of injury than their elders on dirt, but not synthetics is interesting. I hope they expound on that in the days to come.

Also, the two articles I've seen don't mention it, but I seem to remember from the releases on the first year's data, that they were seeing a general difference between 'fully intact males' and everyone else, with them testosterone laden laddies having more injuries than females and geldings. I wonder if that still exists in the larger sample.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I know why the results came out like this. Sound horses race better on artificial surfaces so they eventually run on them, while horses with infirmities run better on dirt tracks. Of course the more you race unsound horses, the more likely you are to have a breakdown.

[Stillriledup]

Horsemen care about deaths, but they also care about injuries that take horses out of commission and force owners to pay bills for months to get that horse back to the races.

Any list on synthetic injuries that did NOT result in death?

I didn't think so.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Horsemen care about deaths, but they also care about injuries that take horses out of commission and force owners to pay bills for months to get that horse back to the races.

Any list on synthetic injuries that did NOT result in death?

I didn't think so.
Couldn't that be inferred by starts per horse. Compare starts per horse in California and Woodbine with starts per horse at Philly and Penn. Don't include any horse that ran on two types of surfaces within the year.

[gm10]

Synthetics safer than dirt? There's a shocker. Unless you follow American racing on a regular basis of course. Where is the dirt brigade? Andy??

Same subject on racingpost.com

http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/usa-analysis-shows-lower-fatality-rate-on-synthetics/799720/international/

[cj]

Synthetics safer than dirt? There's a shocker. Unless you follow American racing on a regular basis of course. Where is the dirt brigade? Andy??


Who says there are safer? The difference is minimal, and I think overall you have a much higher class of horses racing on synthetics that dirt when you consider ALL tracks in this country.

[BluegrassProf]

Synthetics safer than dirt? There's a shocker. Unless you follow American racing on a regular basis of course. Where is the dirt brigade? Andy??Whoosh! Like Ol' Faithful! :D

[JeremyJet]

Who says there are safer? The difference is minimal, and I think overall you have a much higher class of horses racing on synthetics that dirt when you consider ALL tracks in this country.

The scientists involved in this study obviously don't understand the difference between the horse population at Keeneland compared to Penn National.

Regards,

JeremyJet

[gm10]

Who says there are safer? The difference is minimal, and I think overall you have a much higher class of horses racing on synthetics that dirt when you consider ALL tracks in this country.

Minimal difference? Do you even know what statistically significant means?

I don't think that TP, PID, GG, AP are high quality tracks either. And I am not sure why these lower quality animals would be more prone to breaking down. I know it's accepted as conventional wisdom, but I have my doubts about that theory.

[Jasonm921]

The foundation of the track plays more into it than anything else. Some of these tracks have not repaired their foundations since they were first installed. This is a B/S argument. Its like saying a condo that was built two years ago requires less maintanance than a condo built 80 years ago. You could put anything you want on the top layer...its the underlying layers that are important to the integrity of the surface as far as true safety is concerned.

[Charlie D]

Thanks FB


Difference does not seem significant amongst surfaces in US, but compared to something like UK (below 1.0 i believe) it does seem significant.


If i were the people looking to reduce those numbers i would be looking very hard at the use of Drugs, the violators and pre-race inspections now.


If the problems Life at Ten was having can slip through net, then i'm sure a lot more worse cases do at a lower level.

[Charlie D]

Minimal difference? Do you even know what statistically significant means?

I don't think that TP, PID, GG, AP are high quality tracks either. And I am not sure why these lower quality animals would be more prone to breaking down. I know it's accepted as conventional wisdom, but I have my doubts about that theory.




There seems to be more Drug violations at the lower end, which suggests there may be more issues with soundness down at the lower quality level. A more "freindly racing surface" will help mask soundness issues and help reduce numbers.

[gm10]

The foundation of the track plays more into it than anything else. Some of these tracks have not repaired their foundations since they were first installed. This is a B/S argument. Its like saying a condo that was built two years ago requires less maintanance than a condo built 80 years ago. You could put anything you want on the top layer...its the underlying layers that are important to the integrity of the surface as far as true safety is concerned.

That is an interesting point of view. Can you expand on it?

[gm10]

There seems to be more Drug violations at the lower end, which suggests there may be more issues with soundness down at the lower quality level. A more "freindly racing surface" will help mask soundness issues and help reduce numbers.

There are more drug violations (=absolute number) at the lower end because there are simply more horses at the lower end. The breakdown rate is a proportional number.

[Charlie D]

I believe it's a corallary GM10, just like i think you can conclude synth numbers are lower due to a more freindly (less stessful on joints and muscles) race surface.

[cj]

Minimal difference? Do you even know what statistically significant means?

I don't think that TP, PID, GG, AP are high quality tracks either. And I am not sure why these lower quality animals would be more prone to breaking down. I know it's accepted as conventional wisdom, but I have my doubts about that theory.

Yes, I know what it means. What I am saying is that it isn't significant, because they didn't include at least one very important factor, and actually a few.

Sure, TP, PID, GG, and AP are not top tier tracks, they are mid level. However, they are light years ahead of many dirt tracks that are included in the study. Do you want a list?

It doesn't even touch on the fact the dirt tracks are much older. Lets see how the new Santa Anita surface does.

[Tom]

The study needs to be broken down to compare apples to apples.
Class of horses, age of track surface, drainage, etc. all contribute.

Compare Saratoga and Belmont to Santa Anita and Keeneland.

[Charlie D]

The study needs to be broken down to compare apples to apples.
Class of horses, age of track surface, drainage, etc. all contribute.

Compare Saratoga and Belmont to Santa Anita and Keeneland.



:ThmbUp: Tom

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The study needs to be broken down to compare apples to apples.
Class of horses, age of track surface, drainage, etc. all contribute.

Compare Saratoga and Belmont to Santa Anita and Keeneland.
Lets not forget comparing Presque Isle, Golden Gate, and Turfway to Philly, Penn and maybe Turf Paradise.

[cj]

Lets not forget comparing Presque Isle, Golden Gate, and Turfway to Philly, Penn and maybe Turf Paradise.

Even so, you would still be comparing tracks with decades old bases to tracks built in the last 5 years or so. Dirt is not the evil empire the spin doctors want us to believe it is.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Even so, you would still be comparing tracks with decades old bases to tracks built in the last 5 years or so. Dirt is not the evil empire the spin doctors want us to believe it is.
I guess we'll be able to compare Santa Anita to Santa Anita soon enough.

[Tom]

Santa Anita with or without chunks of asphalt in it? :rolleyes:

[gm10]

Yes, I know what it means. What I am saying is that it isn't significant, because they didn't include at least one very important factor, and actually a few.

Sure, TP, PID, GG, and AP are not top tier tracks, they are mid level. However, they are light years ahead of many dirt tracks that are included in the study. Do you want a list?

It doesn't even touch on the fact the dirt tracks are much older. Lets see how the new Santa Anita surface does.

The significance applies to the hypothesis ('Fatality rates are the same on both surfaces') they tested. You cannot deny that. As they suggest themselves, they will be able to do further analysis as they collect more data.

I don't have very high expectations for SA. I might be fine the first months but I expect the number of fatalities to go up after that.

[gm10]

The study needs to be broken down to compare apples to apples.
Class of horses, age of track surface, drainage, etc. all contribute.

Compare Saratoga and Belmont to Santa Anita and Keeneland.

It is only a matter of time before they have enough data for that. Until then, I accept the conclusion as it is: overall, they are safer. Maybe there'll be certain area's where they are not, but that is pure speculation at this point.

[cj]

I don't have very high expectations for SA. I might be fine the first months but I expect the number of fatalities to go up after that.

I'm shocked.

[Charlie D]

It is only a matter of time before they have enough data for that. Until then, I accept the conclusion as it is: overall, they are safer. Maybe there'll be certain area's where they are not, but that is pure speculation at this point.


The impact these "freindlier" surfaces have seems not as significant as the sales rep would have you believe and they also seem to cause other injuries from what i have read, so i'm not sure why anyone would want to switch from Dirt or Turf to synthetic except for climate conditions in a particular area.

[gm10]

I'm shocked.

Noted.

[gm10]

The impact these "freindlier" surfaces have seems not as significant as the sales rep would have you believe and they also seem to cause other injuries from what i have read, so i'm not sure why anyone would want to switch from Dirt or Turf to synthetic except for climate conditions in a particular area.

Oh I don't know, to save horses' lives perhaps? I'm not a horse but if I was, I reckon I'd prefer a hind leg injury over dying.

This is all very funny, all these nuances. What are the odds any of you would mention them if the study said that dirt was safer overall.

[Tom]

There is plenty of data now to make some observations.
Why wait?

[Charlie D]

Oh I don't know, to save horses' lives perhaps? I'm not a horse but if I was, I reckon I'd prefer a hind leg injury over dying.

This is all very funny, all these nuances. What are the odds any of you would mention them if the study said that dirt was safer overall.



Whats funny is you putting all the blame on Dirt surfaces and ignoring the fact humans will do almost anything for money, like running them when they probably should not ie: Life at Ten, Horatio Nelson.

[cj]

Oh I don't know, to save horses' lives perhaps? I'm not a horse but if I was, I reckon I'd prefer a hind leg injury over dying.

This is all very funny, all these nuances. What are the odds any of you would mention them if the study said that dirt was safer overall.

The only way to save lives is to stop racing. Arguing over half a horse per thousand starts when there is no way to know if it is only the surface just seems silly. There are way too many factors involved to know.

Oh, and if the study was reversed, it would clearly prove dirt is safer because of the other factors we mentioned, so certainly they would be mentioned.

[Tom]

Whats funny is you putting all the blame on Dirt surfaces and ignoring the fact humans will do almost anything for money, like running them when they probably should not ie: Life at Ten, Horatio Nelson.

....and not spending money on track maintenance when required.
Compare only dirt tracks that have been installed since 2006 then tell me the numbers.

[gm10]

The only way to save lives is to stop racing. Arguing over half a horse per thousand starts when there is no way to know if it is only the surface just seems silly. There are way too many factors involved to know.

Oh, and if the study was reversed, it would clearly prove dirt is safer because of the other factors we mentioned, so certainly they would be mentioned.

You are confusing grounds to justify further analysis with foregone conclusions. I'm shocked.

[BluegrassProf]

This is all very funny, all these nuances. What are the odds any of you would mention them if the study said that dirt was safer overall.The conversation would simply be reversed, and the nuances you'd likely cite would be - notably - just as valid. Important [read: reality-based] nuances and complexities in empirical research don't become less valid just because someone doesn't like them.

Of course, if the study did reflect the some contrary finding, odds are those realities would have, in fact, been taken into account - hence the result.

Reference Tom's "apples to apples" comment. Good food for thought.

[cj]

You are confusing grounds to justify further analysis with foregone conclusions. I'm shocked.

I'm not confusing anything. I know that horses break down at a higher rate at cheaper tracks. I also know that the overall class level of synthetic surface tracks is well above those of dirt tracks, on average.

I also know that horses break down at a higher rate on older tracks with older bases than at newer tracks with newer bases.

I also know that the synthetic tracks are a lot newer and have much newer bases than dirt tracks.

Please, tell me where I'm wrong.

[FenceBored]

It is only a matter of time before they have enough data for that. Until then, I accept the conclusion as it is: overall, they are safer. Maybe there'll be certain area's where they are not, but that is pure speculation at this point.

Scollay, during a meeting with the press after the presentation held at Keeneland in Lexington, noted racetracks participate in the EID on the premise individual track data won’t be made public. It’s up to each track to decide if it wants to release numbers.

Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/57656/data-fatalities-similar-across-all-surfaces#ixzz18JCJjBAl

Track to track comparisons might conceivably happen, though I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for it.

[OTM Al]

I'm not confusing anything. I know that horses break down at a higher rate at cheaper tracks. I also know that the overall class level of synthetic surface tracks is well above those of dirt tracks, on average.

I also know that horses break down at a higher rate on older tracks with older bases than at newer tracks with newer bases.

I also know that the synthetic tracks are a lot newer and have much newer bases than dirt tracks.

Please, tell me where I'm wrong.

You are dead on on all of these things. I couldn't find the whole report on the web, but through Paulick I found a two page appendix/addendum which had the graphs of the data cited. Nothing is controlled for except age and surface. The numbers and significance testing they cite is correct, but this study is way too basic and ignores other potentially infuential variables, many of which you cite. And it very well could be for exactly the reasons you cite, that the surface has nothing to do with it but the differences are being driven by other factors.

There are enough observations here to do a much better statistical analysis on this where one could have included variables such as age of track, purse of race and horse age along with dummy variables for track type and surface condition. Should do some sort of probit/logit style model which would estimate the probability of breakdown given all these factors and then test to see if the coefficients on the track type dummies are significantly different from zero or from each other.

[gm10]

The conversation would simply be reversed, and the nuances you'd likely cite would be - notably - just as valid. Important [read: reality-based] nuances and complexities in empirical research don't become less valid just because someone doesn't like them.

Of course, if the study did reflect the some contrary finding, odds are those realities would have, in fact, been taken into account - hence the result.

Reference Tom's "apples to apples" comment. Good food for thought.

Apples are good food, period.
Anyway, my question was who of the people defending dirt would be searching for the same nuances. Simple answer: none of them.

Of course they don't become less relevant because people don't like them. I hope you are not referring to me, because I love them. In this case, I have my doubts about people's motivations for finding them, but they should definitely be investigated regardless.

[gm10]

I'm not confusing anything. I know that horses break down at a higher rate at cheaper tracks. I also know that the overall class level of synthetic surface tracks is well above those of dirt tracks, on average.

I also know that horses break down at a higher rate on older tracks with older bases than at newer tracks with newer bases.

I also know that the synthetic tracks are a lot newer and have much newer bases than dirt tracks.

Please, tell me where I'm wrong.

Sounds to me like you know it all. Of course you have no data to back it up, but what does it matter if you already know anyway.

There is just no point in debating this (or indeed many other topics) with you. You show no academic curiosity, no desire to discover new knowledge, you just start from what you 'know', and defend that position until the end.

[gm10]

You are dead on on all of these things. I couldn't find the whole report on the web, but through Paulick I found a two page appendix/addendum which had the graphs of the data cited. Nothing is controlled for except age and surface. The numbers and significance testing they cite is correct, but this study is way too basic and ignores other potentially infuential variables, many of which you cite. And it very well could be for exactly the reasons you cite, that the surface has nothing to do with it but the differences are being driven by other factors.

There are enough observations here to do a much better statistical analysis on this where one could have included variables such as age of track, purse of race and horse age along with dummy variables for track type and surface condition. Should do some sort of probit/logit style model which would estimate the probability of breakdown given all these factors and then test to see if the coefficients on the track type dummies are significantly different from zero or from each other.


Presumably this will be the next step. It is an ongoing project.

[Charlie D]

Sounds to me like you know it all. Of course you have no data to back it up, but what does it matter if you already know anyway.

There is just no point in debating this (or indeed many other topics) with you. You show no academic curiosity, no desire to discover new knowledge, you just start from what you 'know', and defend that position until the end.



This statement could be applied to many. including yourself from what i have seen.

[gm10]

This statement could be applied to many. including yourself from what i have seen.

Charlie D, pardon the insult (which it is), but you are talking utter cr@p.

[Charlie D]

Charlie D, pardon the insult (which it is), but you are talking utter cr@p.


I may be, but thats the impression you give.

[cj]

Sounds to me like you know it all. Of course you have no data to back it up, but what does it matter if you already know anyway.

There is just no point in debating this (or indeed many other topics) with you. You show no academic curiosity, no desire to discover new knowledge, you just start from what you 'know', and defend that position until the end.

Why would you assume I have no data to back that up? You think I don't know how to design and query a database? I would bet I do better than the people doing the study, and at the very least as well.

[gm10]

Why would you assume I have no data to back that up? You think I don't know how to design and query a database? I would bet I do better than the people doing the study, and at the very least as well.

Well by all means, show us the results once you're ready.

[gm10]

I may be, but thats the impression you give.

Please illustrate.

[Charlie D]

Numerous times now this discussion has raged, but despite numerous comments by others you still seem adamant it's DIRT surfaces fault for these fatalities.


Hope that helps.

[gm10]

Numerous times now this discussion has raged, but despite numerous comments by others you still seem adamant it's DIRT surfaces fault for these fatalities.


Hope that helps.

No, it doesn't help, as it is not even my entire view on the matter, and it does not illustrate that I am not open to new knowledge. It's not even knowledge at this point.

[Bruddah]

The impact these "freindlier" surfaces have seems not as significant as the sales rep would have you believe and they also seem to cause other injuries from what i have read, so i'm not sure why anyone would want to switch from Dirt or Turf to synthetic except for climate conditions in a particular area.

Spot on old Chap! :ThmbUp:

[Charlie D]

No, it doesn't help, as it is not even my entire view on the matter, and it does not illustrate that I am not open to new knowledge. It's not even knowledge at this point.


Not your entire view eh!! you'd not think that reading your posts. You also seem unreceptive to other comments which suggest you have a blinkered attitude instead of an open mind.

[cj]

Well by all means, show us the results once you're ready.

First, that isn't an answer to my question.

I'll try another if you won't answer the first one. I would really like an honest answer to this. Why would I possibly share my hard work for nothing on a message board, the same work this "group" was probably foolishly paid well to "study"?

We've been down this road before. Believe what I say or don't, I don't care. I'm not posting to impress gm10.

[cj]

OK, just to keep gm on the run, I'll post the average North American purses by surface for all the thoroughbred races I have since 2004 through about a week ago:

AvgOfPurse Races Surface
$31,835.80 25025 Synth
$17,755.81 281190 Dirt
$36,806.63 33687 Turf

You think have purses that are significantly higher on the two "lower breakdown" surfaces might skew breakdown results, gm10?

How about using three vastly different sample sizes? That ok too?

[Seabiscuit@AR]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06161/697183-139.stm

This story from 2006 cites Penn at 1.8 breakdowns per 1000 and PHA at 1.7 in the context of an overall breakdown rate of between 1.6 and 2.2

So a low level track like Penn is not having more breakdowns than average according to this study

In any case you don't need the stats. For flat racing the only place where you notice horses breaking down during races is the USA. No need to bury your heads in the sand (or should that be dirt) on this one. The breakdown rate on dirt in the USA is higher than most other racing countries

I don't buy the argument about the bases of the dirt tracks being old vs synthetics having new bases. Dirt racing leads to more breakdowns end of story

[Charlie D]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06161/697183-139.stm

This story from 2006 cites Penn at 1.8 breakdowns per 1000 and PHA at 1.7 in the context of an overall breakdown rate of between 1.6 and 2.2

So a low level track like Penn is not having more breakdowns than average according to this study

In any case you don't need the stats. For flat racing the only place where you notice horses breaking down during races is the USA. No need to bury your heads in the sand (or should that be dirt) on this one. The breakdown rate on dirt in the USA is higher than most other racing countries

I don't buy the argument about the bases of the dirt tracks being old vs synthetics having new bases. Dirt racing leads to more breakdowns end of story

Interesting Data.

Compare 1.8 and 1.7 to 1.55


Seems all synthetic surfaces are not much safer than these two Dirt tracks


:ThmbUp: To salesmen of synthetics i say, they bought it hook, line and sinker

[BluegrassProf]

Dirt racing leads to more breakdowns end of storyEnd of story? END OF STORY??!

You should prolly make some calls and let everyone know.

[cj]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06161/697183-139.stm

This story from 2006 cites Penn at 1.8 breakdowns per 1000 and PHA at 1.7 in the context of an overall breakdown rate of between 1.6 and 2.2

So a low level track like Penn is not having more breakdowns than average according to this study

In any case you don't need the stats. For flat racing the only place where you notice horses breaking down during races is the USA. No need to bury your heads in the sand (or should that be dirt) on this one. The breakdown rate on dirt in the USA is higher than most other racing countries

I don't buy the argument about the bases of the dirt tracks being old vs synthetics having new bases. Dirt racing leads to more breakdowns end of story

You think horses don't break down overseas? Of course they do, seen it plenty.

[Tom]

I drank gin and tonic and got drunk.
I drank rye and tonic and got drunk.
I drank whiskey and tonic and got drunk.

I gotta lay off that damn tonic! End of story. :rolleyes::kiss:

[cj]

I ran the same query for the same timeframe as the "study":

AvgOfPurse Races Surface
$30,642.41 12441 Synth
$17,939.17 77686 Dirt
$37,050.14 10992 Turf

[FenceBored]

Apples are good food, period.
Anyway, my question was who of the people defending dirt would be searching for the same nuances. Simple answer: none of them.


And you'd be wrong, but what else is new.

[PaceAdvantage]

Synthetics safer than dirt? There's a shocker. Unless you follow American racing on a regular basis of course. Where is the dirt brigade? Andy??

Same subject on racingpost.com

http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/usa-analysis-shows-lower-fatality-rate-on-synthetics/799720/international/Hmmm...the study also appears to claim synthetics are safer than turf. I will expect all the turf courses in Europe, Asia and the Middle East to be ripped up and replaced with synthetics. I hope you lead the way over there...we're all counting on you gm10.

[PaceAdvantage]

The significance applies to the hypothesis ('Fatality rates are the same on both surfaces') they tested. You cannot deny that. As they suggest themselves, they will be able to do further analysis as they collect more data.

I don't have very high expectations for SA. I might be fine the first months but I expect the number of fatalities to go up after that.Surely you must understand these statistics are too biased to be meaningful in any way shape or form.

As others have rightfully pointed out:

1) These synthetic tracks are all relatively "new" with brand new foundations, thus making comparisons with dirt tracks that are much older meaningless. Wouldn't a statistically significant study limit comparisons to dirt tracks of similar age to these synthetic surfaces?

2) Synthetic tracks have mostly been installed at upper class institutions, with few exceptions. Higher quality horses running at these synthetic tracks overall will bias the breakdown statistics when compared with dirt tracks like Charles Town, Mountaineer, Penn National and all other cheap dirt tracks. Wouldn't a statistically significant study limit comparisons to dirt tracks of similar class?

[PaceAdvantage]

There is just no point in debating this (or indeed many other topics) with you. You show no academic curiosity, no desire to discover new knowledge, you just start from what you 'know', and defend that position until the end.He's showing tremendous academic curiosity by completely destroying the very conclusion the data is making based on STATISTICALLY UNSOUND methods of data comparison.

The study is trying to make the reader come to a certain conclusion (that synths are safer) based on completely misleading information that hasn't taken into account some of the BASICS when it comes to track safety.

You seem to be the one that wants to ignore academic curiosity and take this report at face value. We're the ones lifting the rug and noticing how filthy it is under there...

[gm10]

Not your entire view eh!! you'd not think that reading your posts. You also seem unreceptive to other comments which suggest you have a blinkered attitude instead of an open mind.

Not at all, old boy. Wrt breakdowns, I think that medication plays at least as large a role as the surface in the number of breakdowns. Wrt unreceptiveness ... Charles, you show me the evidence of the theories put forward here, and I'll accept those theories. Until then they are mere speculation, some of which are deserving of further analysis (as I already stated). If only accepting evidence that is collected according to academic standards makes me blinkered, than I much prefer to be blinkered Charles.

You should read Wisdow Of Crowds when you get the opportunity. A few conditions for the crowd to be 'wise' is that it consists of independent and diverse views. I don't think those conditions are satisfied here.

[gm10]

First, that isn't an answer to my question.

I'll try another if you won't answer the first one. I would really like an honest answer to this. Why would I possibly share my hard work for nothing on a message board, the same work this "group" was probably foolishly paid well to "study"?

We've been down this road before. Believe what I say or don't, I don't care. I'm not posting to impress gm10.

Don't worry, you are at low risk of that happening.

Why not share it? What edge do you get from not sharing such data?

[gm10]

OK, just to keep gm on the run, I'll post the average North American purses by surface for all the thoroughbred races I have since 2004 through about a week ago:

AvgOfPurse Races Surface
$31,835.80 25025 Synth
$17,755.81 281190 Dirt
$36,806.63 33687 Turf

You think have purses that are significantly higher on the two "lower breakdown" surfaces might skew breakdown results, gm10?

How about using three vastly different sample sizes? That ok too?

You are still speculating at this point. Maybe i will see evidence if I keep reading through these posts?

[gm10]

Interesting Data.

Compare 1.8 and 1.7 to 1.55


Seems all synthetic surfaces are not much safer than these two Dirt tracks


:ThmbUp: To salesmen of synthetics i say, they bought it hook, line and sinker

They are low level tracks. The low level tracks that are supposed to skew the dirt breakdown numbers upwards :bang:

[gm10]

Hmmm...the study also appears to claim synthetics are safer than turf. I will expect all the turf courses in Europe, Asia and the Middle East to be ripped up and replaced with synthetics. I hope you lead the way over there...we're all counting on you gm10.

Oh great. Another who doesn't understand what statistically significant means.

[Tom]

Your assumption is all the breakdowns were caused by the tracks.
Not likely.

[gm10]

Your assumption is all the breakdowns were caused by the tracks.
Not likely.

That is definitely not my assumption but many people assume that it is for some reason.

[OTM Al]

Presumably this will be the next step. It is an ongoing project.

Three quarters of a million observations. People doing real studies would kill for that level of data. For anyone that knows what they are doing, it would take all of about 10 minutes to program and run the type of model I described. The lack of that type of study is damning.

[cj]

Don't worry, you are at low risk of that happening.

Why not share it? What edge do you get from not sharing such data?

So again, you don't answer. You love to ask questions, but you sure don't like to answer them.

[cj]

They are low level tracks. The low level tracks that are supposed to skew the dirt breakdown numbers upwards :bang:

We have no idea if the same criteria were used in these studies.

[gm10]

Three quarters of a million observations. People doing real studies would kill for that level of data. For anyone that knows what they are doing, it would take all of about 10 minutes to program and run the type of model I described. The lack of that type of study is damning.

Horse racing meets academia. That is always going to be the slowest moving project ever.

[gm10]

We have no idea if the same criteria were used in these studies.

I didn't realize they were serious questions.

Yes, the sample sizes are fine.

The purses ... what are you trying to prove here? Surely you realize that there is one gigantic missing link? You told us that having an older track base leads or lower quality of racing leads to more breakdowns. I must be honest, I am impressed that you seem to have data like track base age, but you still haven't presented your evidence.

If you have all the data ... age of the track base, quality of racing, number of breakdowns, then it must be fairly straightforward to back up your earlier statements.

'I know that horses break down at a higher rate at cheaper tracks. I also know that the overall class level of synthetic surface tracks is well above those of dirt tracks, on average.

I also know that horses break down at a higher rate on older tracks with older bases than at newer tracks with newer bases.

I also know that the synthetic tracks are a lot newer and have much newer bases than dirt tracks.'


'Why would you assume I have no data to back that up? You think I don't know how to design and query a database? I would bet I do better than the people doing the study, and at the very least as well.'

[cj]

I didn't realize they were serious questions.

Yes, the sample sizes are fine.

The purses ... what are you trying to prove here? Surely you realize that there is one gigantic missing link? You told us that having an older track base leads or lower quality of racing leads to more breakdowns. I must be honest, I am impressed that you seem to have data like track base age, but you still haven't presented your evidence.

If you have all the data ... age of the track base, quality of racing, number of breakdowns, then it must be fairly straightforward to back up your earlier statements.

'I know that horses break down at a higher rate at cheaper tracks. I also know that the overall class level of synthetic surface tracks is well above those of dirt tracks, on average.

I also know that horses break down at a higher rate on older tracks with older bases than at newer tracks with newer bases.

I also know that the synthetic tracks are a lot newer and have much newer bases than dirt tracks.'


'Why would you assume I have no data to back that up? You think I don't know how to design and query a database? I would bet I do better than the people doing the study, and at the very least as well.'

Still no answers, but more questions. Nice.

No, I don't have track age in my database. It is obvious it could, and probably is, a factor though. The people doing the study didn't ask the right questions going in, so the data is always going to be flawed. They fooled those not smart enough to know better. Why am I not shocked you are one of them? (That is rhetorical, not that you ever answer anyway)

[Charlie D]

Not at all, old boy. Wrt breakdowns, I think that medication plays at least as large a role as the surface in the number of breakdowns. Wrt unreceptiveness ... Charles, you show me the evidence of the theories put forward here, and I'll accept those theories. Until then they are mere speculation, some of which are deserving of further analysis (as I already stated). If only accepting evidence that is collected according to academic standards makes me blinkered, than I much prefer to be blinkered Charles.

You should read Wisdow Of Crowds when you get the opportunity. A few conditions for the crowd to be 'wise' is that it consists of independent and diverse views. I don't think those conditions are satisfied here.


Ah i see. but you do not say any of the above here or in many posts similar to this.

Synthetics safer than dirt? There's a shocker. Unless you follow American racing on a regular basis of course. Where is the dirt brigade? Andy??


Oh and btw, why should people do the reasearch for you, it's out there, take off you blinkers and look around pal and do some reading of your own.

[gm10]

Still no answers, but more questions. Nice.

No, I don't have track age in my database. It is obvious it could, and probably is, a factor though. The people doing the study didn't ask the right questions going in, so the data is always going to be flawed. They fooled those not smart enough to know better. Why am I not shocked you are one of them? (That is rhetorical, not that you ever answer anyway)

In other words you have zero evidence so you are going to insult me instead?
That is slightly pathetic. Just admit that you are speculating, there is no reason to pretend you know more than others if you can't prove it.

[Charlie D]

They are low level tracks. The low level tracks that are supposed to skew the dirt breakdown numbers upwards :bang:



These are numbers that show the difference is minimal between some Dirt tracks and synthetic, Data like this has been posted before, but as usual the blinkered ignore it.

[cj]

In other words you have zero evidence so you are going to insult me instead?
That is slightly pathetic. Just admit that you are speculating, there is no reason to pretend you know more than others if you can't prove it.

The people doing the study could have included the information. They chose not to so you want me to do it instead? Sorry, but I don't have time to research installation dates of all dirt tracks. I KNOW they are much older without knowing the exact dates. There are many quotes that can be found about deteriorating track bases leading to breakdowns if you want to do the research. It is old news.

You want to pretend purse size and breakdowns aren't related. That I can prove. Surely you don't want to argue that point, do you? Do you want to argue that dirt racing is conducted, on average, at much lower purse levels than the other two surfaces in North America?

That doesn't even factor in that many dirt horses are racing for artificially inflated purses at racinos. You think cheap horses aren't drugged up and sent out with more risk to run for slots purses? That is limited on the other surfaces.

You can call it speculation if you want, I call it common sense. I don't know how anyone could take that "study" seriously when it ignored such basic factors.

[gm10]

Ah i see. but you do not say any of the above here or in many posts similar to this.




Oh and btw, why should people do the reasearch for you, it's out there, take off you blinkers and look around pal and do some reading of your own.

It's out there? Where? Name me one source which properly addresses the points made in this thread.

[Charlie D]

It's out there? Where? Name me one source which properly addresses the points made in this thread.


Google, as i think you once told me to do.

[gm10]

The people doing the study could have included the information. They chose not to so you want me to do it instead? Sorry, but I don't have time to research installation dates of all dirt tracks. I KNOW they are much older without knowing the exact dates. There are many quotes that can be found about deteriorating track bases leading to breakdowns if you want to do the research. It is old news.

You want to pretend purse size and breakdowns aren't related. That I can prove. Surely you don't want to argue that point, do you? Do you want to argue that dirt racing is conducted, on average, at much lower purse levels than the other two surfaces in North America?

That doesn't even factor in that many dirt horses are racing for artificially inflated purses at racinos. You think cheap horses aren't drugged up and sent out with more risk to run for slots purses? That is limited on the other surfaces.

You can call it speculation if you want, I call it common sense. I don't know how anyone could take that "study" seriously when it ignored such basic factors.

OK let's see the evidence of that! I have always wanted to know, I've been in both camps on that one.

[gm10]

Google, as i think you once told me to do.

Help me out here Charlie. If it's out there, show me where.

[Charlie D]

Help me out here Charlie. If it's out there, show me where.


I'm sure you can use google or some other search engine so no help is needed.

[gm10]

I'm sure you can use google or some other search engine so no help is needed.

Yep, but I can't find it.

[cj]

OK let's see the evidence of that! I have always wanted to know, I've been in both camps on that one.

I'm not here to prove things to you. You can do the work if you want to do so.

[Charlie D]

I'm not here to prove things to you. You can do the work if you want to do so.

Can't remember his exact words, but as Jonnie stated. If you want to know what's real, do research yourself.

[cj]

Yep, but I can't find it.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/trk_report.cgi?ccf

[Charlie D]

Yep, but I can't find it.


Opening your mind and putting in right keywords may help you there.

[gm10]

Can't remember his exact words, but as Jonnie stated. If you want to know what's real, do research yourself.

So what research have you done then? The same as CJ?
Listen, I have an open mind on this, and I actually think some interesting points have been made here, but your inability to back them up is not encouraging. If you and CJ are so certain, I feel that you should have a better answer than 'do your own research if you want evidence'.

[Charlie D]

So what research have you done then? The same as CJ?
Listen, I have an open mind on this, and I actually think some interesting points have been made here, but your inability to back them up is not encouraging. If you and CJ are so certain, I feel that you should have a better answer than 'do your own research if you want evidence'.


As i stated,you are unreceptive to comments by others and i think this may show that.

I've already told you to do what you told me to do. - What comes around goes around imho.

[gm10]

As i stated,you are unreceptive to comments by others and i think this may show that.

I've already told you to do what you told me to do. - What comes around goes around imho.

There is a reason why this study is being done.
Just admit it, you've got nothing. For all the big statements and strong opposition to the study's provisional conclusion, there has been ZERO evidence against it.

I will leave you with a quote regarding 'groupthink' from the book that I mentioned before. I think it sums it up well.

'Because information that might represent a challenge to the conventional wisdom is either excluded or rationalized as obviously mistaken, people come away from discussions with their beliefs reinforced, convinced more than ever that they're right. Deliberation in a groupthink setting has the disturbing effect not of opening people's minds but of closing them.'

[FenceBored]

There is a reason why this study is being done.
Just admit it, you've got nothing. For all the big statements and strong opposition to the study's provisional conclusion, there has been ZERO evidence against it.

I will leave you with a quote regarding 'groupthink' from the book that I mentioned before. I think it sums it up well.

'Because information that might represent a challenge to the conventional wisdom is either excluded or rationalized as obviously mistaken, people come away from discussions with their beliefs reinforced, convinced more than ever that they're right. Deliberation in a groupthink setting has the disturbing effect not of opening people's minds but of closing them.'

You only agree with that quote because it reinforces your beliefs.

[Charlie D]

What i've got gm10 is comment and information from industry insiders, something that i know you have chosen to be unreceptive to on many occasions when this topic is discussed.

[gm10]

You only agree with that quote because it reinforces your beliefs.

Ah yes, the singleton version of groupthink.

[FenceBored]

Ah yes, the singleton version of groupthink.

Is that related to the simpleton's version of 'perservering persecuted progressive twarted by evil entrenched elites?'

[gm10]

Is that related to the simpleton's version of 'perservering persecuted progressive twarted by evil entrenched elites?'

Not really. It was simple sarcasm.

[gm10]

What i've got gm10 is comment and information from industry insiders, something that i know you have chosen to be unreceptive to on many occasions when this topic is discussed.

You can keep repeating yourself and calling me unreceptive, but as long as you can't actually produce any of that information, it would appear that you are the one being unreceptive to the information presented in the study.

[Tom]

Mark Cramer wrote this in one of his newsletters:

But this whole debate may be a smokescreen for a more fundamental cause of breakdowns: the use of bute and especially of steroids, which allow lame or otherwise infirm horses to race without feeling the pain, resulting in life-ending or career-ending injuries, and also eventually decreasing the real value of American pedigrees.

Look, if you want your car to go well, what’s the most important: keeping your tires with the right amount of air or lobbying for new highways?

[cj]

You can keep repeating yourself and calling me unreceptive, but as long as you can't actually produce any of that information, it would appear that you are the one being unreceptive to the information presented in the study.

OK, how about this, then I'm done. I'm sure you'll just keep going asking for more.

Here are the amount of horses that broke down, per the charts, per 1000 starters, by purse level. 1 represents <=10000, 2 = 10001 to 20000, and so on.

P Starts BD Rate
1 1024169 865 0.84
2 942769 841 0.89
3 398547 354 0.89
4 148228 112 0.76
5 135051 93 0.69
6 62949 41 0.65
7 30040 13 0.43

[cj]

Mark Cramer wrote this in one of his newsletters:





Yep, and which horses are most likely to be drugged up to run with pain, 5k claimers or stakes horses?

[gm10]

OK, how about this, then I'm done. I'm sure you'll just keep going asking for more.

Here are the amount of horses that broke down, per the charts, per 1000 starters, by purse level. 1 represents <=10000, 2 = 10001 to 20000, and so on.

P Starts BD Rate
1 1024169 865 0.84
2 942769 841 0.89
3 398547 354 0.89
4 148228 112 0.76
5 135051 93 0.69
6 62949 41 0.65
7 30040 13 0.43


Interesting. Just a question if I may, why are your breakdown rates much lower than what the study found?

Might be interesting to do some ANOVA on this.

<edit>
Second question. Is this for all surfaces or just dirt?

[cj]

I mentioned I'm only using the charts, comments and paragraph beneath them. I assume the chart makers miss some obviously. It is extremely unlikely that they miss them in any kind of way that would skew the downward trend, i.e. they miss higher purse races and not lower level ones.

[gm10]

I mentioned I'm only using the charts, comments and paragraph beneath them. I assume the chart makers miss some obviously. It is extremely unlikely that they miss them in any kind of way that would skew the downward trend, i.e. they miss higher purse races and not lower level ones.

Fair enough.

Just to be sure we're not confounding the issue ... is this for dirt only?

[cj]

No, all surfaces. I have a lot of work today, so that is it for me. Doesn't this show pretty clearly purse level is a big factor? I've already shown purses on synthetics are much higher on average than dirt.

[gm10]

No, all surfaces.

Not trying to be difficult, but turf purses are usually higher and turf is supposed to be safer ...

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, all surfaces. I have a lot of work today, so that is it for me. Doesn't this show pretty clearly purse level is a big factor? I've already shown purses on synthetics are much higher on average than dirt.

I can't believe you're wasting so much time arguing this point. You're clearly right. And thanks for the comprehensive stats.

[cj]

I can't believe you're wasting so much time arguing this point. You're clearly right. And thanks for the comprehensive stats.

I'm stubborn, but I'm done now, really do have work to do. I'll leave on this...I could have just made up numbers. I didn't, but I could have. Why is it now more believable just because I posted numbers that I already said I had?

[gm10]

I'm stubborn, but I'm done now, really do have work to do. I'll leave on this...I could have just made up numbers. I didn't, but I could have. Why is it now more believable just because I posted numbers that I already said I had?

Surely you realize that they need to be for one surface to be meaningful. That is exactly your complaint, the higher purses for the synthetic skew the numbers. Why would they not skew the numbers if you are testing the hypothesis 'higher purses = lower breakdown rates'?

I'm writing some queries myself. Will get back to you when I'm finished.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm stubborn, but I'm done now, really do have work to do. I'll leave on this...I could have just made up numbers. I didn't, but I could have. Why is it now more believable just because I posted numbers that I already said I had?

I hadn't really followed this discussion at all. I only started reading when you posted some numbers from your database, which I found interesting. I'm assuming from the context of your last few posts that someone was arguing that breakdown rates aren't higher for lower level horses. That's just silly. So if that was the argument, I would have been with you all along.

[Tom]

OK, how about this, then I'm done.
[/CODE]

GREAT information!

[FenceBored]

Surely you realize that they need to be for one surface to be meaningful. That is exactly your complaint, the higher purses for the synthetic skew the numbers. Why would they not skew the numbers if you are testing the hypothesis 'higher purses = lower breakdown rates'?

I'm writing some queries myself. Will get back to you when I'm finished.

How many $4k claimers are written for the turf?

[gm10]

I'm stubborn, but I'm done now, really do have work to do. I'll leave on this...I could have just made up numbers. I didn't, but I could have. Why is it now more believable just because I posted numbers that I already said I had?

I hadn't really followed this discussion at all. I only started reading when you posted some numbers from your database, which I found interesting. I'm assuming from the context of your last few posts that someone was arguing that breakdown rates aren't higher for lower level horses. That's just silly. So if that was the argument, I would have been with you all along.

What would you say if I told you that these were the numbers for dirt (2006-2010)?


S Purse Bd Cnt rate
D 0 642 738548 0.87
D 1 567 596365 0.95
D 2 219 217615 1.01
D 3 58 77854 0.74
D 4 62 62253 1.00
D 5 24 28806 0.83
D 6 4 9281 0.43
D 7 28 28859 0.97

[gm10]

This is my query. As you see I'm only filtering on the comment 'BROKE DOWN', which is probably similar to CJ's approach.


select surface_type, DECODE(sign(purse-70000), 1, 7, trunc(purse/10000)) as purselevel,
sum
(
case when upper(pc.tm_comment) like '%BROKE DOWN%' THEN 1
ELSE 0
END
), count(*)
from us_performance p, us_performance_comment pc, us_race r
where p.race_code = pc.race_code
and p.horse_code = pc.horse_code
and p.race_code = r.race_code
--and p.position_past_post = 0
and scratched = 'N'
and r.race_Date between '1 jan 2006' and '15 dec 2010'
group by surface_type, DECODE(sign(purse-70000), 1, 7, trunc(purse/10000))
order by surface_type, purselevel

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]

What would you say if I told you that these were the numbers for dirt (2006-2010)?


S Purse Bd Cnt rate
D 0 642 738548 0.87
D 1 567 596365 0.95
D 2 219 217615 1.01
D 3 58 77854 0.74
D 4 62 62253 1.00
D 5 24 28806 0.83
D 6 4 9281 0.43
D 7 28 28859 0.97

CJ has a more comprehensive and accurate database.

[gm10]

[QUOTE=gm10]

CJ has a more comprehensive and accurate database.

I doubt that, but ask him to run the same query then. It's very easy.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]

I doubt that, but ask him to run the same query then. It's very easy.

I haven't followed this discussion closely, so sorry to ask you a question you've probably already answered, but are you of the belief that allowance-level horses are just as likely to breakdown as $5k claimers?

[gm10]

CJ I have to thank you. You are the one who finally made me write this query.

Also, I think it was Bruddah (could be wrong) who once pointed out that these cheap old-timers make it very clear that they won't run if something is wrong, which makes up for their intrinsically weaker muscles and bones. Turns out he could be right.

[gm10]

[QUOTE=gm10]

I haven't followed this discussion closely, so sorry to ask you a question you've probably already answered, but are you of the belief that allowance-level horses are just as likely to breakdown as $5k claimers?

I was undecided up till now. I used to think not, then someone explained to me why it could well be the opposite. Now I think the latter person was right.

[Saratoga_Mike]

CJ I have to thank you. You are the one who finally made me write this query.

Also, I think it was Bruddah (could be wrong) who once pointed out that these cheap horses make it very clear that they won't run if something is wrong, which makes up for their intrinsically weaker muscles and bones. Turns out he could be right.

Somewhat flawed logic. The cheap claiming ranks (let's say $10k claimers and below) are comprised of horses that have always lacked innate ability (consistent with the above statement) AND classy horses that have problems that are tapped every other race just to run.

[gm10]

Somewhat flawed logic. The cheap claiming ranks (let's say $10k claimers and below) are comprised of horses that have always lacked innate ability (consistent with the above statement) AND classy horses that have problems that are tapped every other race just to run.

Maybe what is perceived as a lack of ability really comes down to not wanting run beyond certain pain thresholds (in some cases), which seems like quite a natural reflex to me.

In any case, the numbers are what they are. A myth has been dispelled. I think Charlie D is putting up the balloons for this one.

[cj]

Shockingly, I think you have skewed the results to your beliefs. Lets try this one, no preconceived notions. I'm typing this as I query.

New York tracks (Aqu, Bel, Sar) average purse: 49656
So Cali tracks (Dmr, SA, Hol) average purse: 53340

These are very close. So, I'll now break both down by purse and breakdowns:

NYRA SoCal
P Start BD Avg P Start BD Avg
1 15979 15 0.94 1 8482 8 0.94
2 13921 17 1.22 2 7324 6 0.82
3 8072 7 0.87 3 1962 4 2.04
4 37544 29 0.77 4 3465 2 0.58
5 17621 12 0.68 5 5961 3 0.50
A 93317 80 0.86 A 27194 23 0.85


Both seem to trend down with class, as predicted. Both are also virtually identical, but I'll concede dirt has a higher rate to make you happy.

[gm10]

Shockingly, I think you have skewed the results to your beliefs. Lets try this one, no preconceived notions. I'm typing this as I query.

New York tracks (Aqu, Bel, Sar) average purse: 49656
So Cali tracks (Dmr, SA, Hol) average purse: 53340

These are very close. So, I'll now break both down by purse and breakdowns:

NYRA SoCal
P Start BD Avg P Start BD Avg
1 15979 15 0.94 1 8482 8 0.94
2 13921 17 1.22 2 7324 6 0.82
3 8072 7 0.87 3 1962 4 2.04
4 37544 29 0.77 4 3465 2 0.58
5 17621 12 0.68 5 5961 3 0.50
A 93317 80 0.86 A 27194 23 0.85


Both seem to trend down with class, as predicted. Both are also virtually identical, but I'll concede dirt has a higher rate to make you happy.

You are still not being clear about surfaces, periods, etc. Which queries produced these results?

[cj]

You are still not being clear about surfaces, periods, etc. Which queries produced these results?

NYRA = Dirt, SoCal = Rubber, nothing else. Jan 1, 2004 through last week.

[gm10]

NYRA = Dirt, SoCal = Rubber, nothing else. Jan 1, 2004 through last week.

OK.

I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, but with cheap animals, I think of the likes you see at Mountaineer Park or Turf Paradise. When you are talking NYRA and SoCal, you are already excluding the very bad animals.

As a consequence, the sample sizes are pretty low now, which makes comparisons less reliable. Depending on the hypothesis you are testing you might find one that suggests that there is a trend, but I suspect that you might have to get a little creative in order to succeed.

I don't think there is much in it, for dirt at least. There is too little data for the poly imo.

For completeness' sake, these are my results for all dirt/poly/turf starters since 2004. I don't see a clear trend, apart from the one that dirt is less safe for nearly every comparison you wish to make.



S P BD # Avg
D 0 983 1112605 0.884
D 1 864 853969 1.012
D 2 353 323308 1.092
D 3 101 113934 0.886
D 4 85 99153 0.857
D 5 92 98977 0.930

P 0 28 42896 0.653
P 1 57 68842 0.828
P 2 21 44207 0.475
P 3 12 21875 0.549
P 4 6 13595 0.441
P 5 21 38539 0.545

T 0 20 26876 0.744
T 1 83 101652 0.817
T 2 72 80572 0.894
T 3 36 38272 0.941
T 4 34 47654 0.713
T 5 46 66404 0.693

[cj]

OK.

I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, but with cheap animals, I think of the likes you see at Mountaineer Park or Turf Paradise. When you are talking NYRA and SoCal, you are already excluding the very bad animals.

As a consequence, the sample sizes are pretty low now, which makes comparisons less reliable. Depending on the hypothesis you are testing you might find one that suggests that there is a trend, but I suspect that you might have to get a little creative in order to succeed.

I don't think there is much in it, for dirt at least. There is too little data for the poly imo.

For completeness' sake, these are my results for all dirt/poly/turf starters since 2004. I don't see a clear trend, apart from the one that dirt is less safe for nearly every comparison you wish to make.



S P BD # Avg
D 0 983 1112605 0.884
D 1 864 853969 1.012
D 2 353 323308 1.092
D 3 101 113934 0.886
D 4 85 99153 0.857
D 5 92 98977 0.930

P 0 28 42896 0.653
P 1 57 68842 0.828
P 2 21 44207 0.475
P 3 12 21875 0.549
P 4 6 13595 0.441
P 5 21 38539 0.545

T 0 20 26876 0.744
T 1 83 101652 0.817
T 2 72 80572 0.894
T 3 36 38272 0.941
T 4 34 47654 0.713
T 5 46 66404 0.693

Of course you see that, because you are ignoring the class factor. It looks pretty clear cut to me. Since I have every race run on rubber in SoCal, how good do you think the original study is? Consider they are using only two years worth of data.

[gm10]

Of course you see that, because you are ignoring the class factor. It looks pretty clear cut to me. Since I have every race run on rubber in SoCal, how good do you think the original study is? Consider they are using only two years worth of data.

No it is you who is ignoring the class factor by focusing on NYRA and SoCal. The majority of horses could never compete at those circuits.

Do yourself a favor and add Finger Lakes to your data set. Doesn't look quite the same does it? The cheapest races are the safest now that you've actually included the bad animals.

S P BD C Avg
D 0 13 48436 0.268
D 1 18 38514 0.467
D 2 20 21149 0.946
D 3 6 7947 0.755
D 4 30 38759 0.774
D 5 12 17551 0.684


I agree with your final argument however. Two years is definitely not enough (actually the people behind the study have been saying all along that they need more data before they do further analysis).

[cj]

No it is you who is ignoring the class factor by focusing on NYRA and SoCal. The majority of horses could never compete at those circuits.

Do yourself a favor and add Finger Lakes to your data set. Doesn't look quite the same does it? The cheapest races are the safest now that you've actually included the bad animals.

S P BD C Avg
D 0 13 48436 0.268
D 1 18 38514 0.467
D 2 20 21149 0.946
D 3 6 7947 0.755
D 4 30 38759 0.774
D 5 12 17551 0.684


I agree with your final argument however. Two years is definitely not enough (actually the people behind the study have been saying all along that they need more data before they do further analysis).

I was comparing apples to apples. What does Finger Lakes have to do with it? What I posted showed that synthetics and dirt are very similar when using the same types of horses. There is no synthetic track to compare to Finger Lakes, not even PID is that bad.

However, even in your query above, there is a trend towards lesser breakdowns outside the lowest class. Why is that?

[PaceAdvantage]

Listen, I have an open mind on this, and I actually think some interesting points have been made here, but your inability to back them up is not encouraging.Really? You could have fooled me. I don't recall making any snide remarks to you, but that's all you've had for me here. Your replies drip of contempt, but all I'm trying to do is point out the basic flaws in the research that apparently are NOT addressed.

[gm10]

I was comparing apples to apples. What does Finger Lakes have to do with it? What I posted showed that synthetics and dirt are very similar when using the same types of horses. There is no synthetic track to compare to Finger Lakes, not even PID is that bad.

However, even in your query above, there is a trend towards lesser breakdowns outside the lowest class. Why is that?

The majority of horses simply cannot compete at NYRA tracks, agreed? All those horses have just as much right to survive their race as the faster horses, agreed? So why not include them?

I honestly see no trend as the one you mention. I see a peak at purse level 2, and fairly flat percentages beyond that. I also see that bad horses seem to do alright when it comes to breaking down. That is clearly in contradiction to the general trend that you are convinced of.

[cj]

The majority of horses simply cannot compete at NYRA tracks, agreed? All those horses have just as much right to survive their race as the faster horses, agreed? So why not include them?

I honestly see no trend as the one you mention. I see a peak at purse level 2, and fairly flat percentages beyond that. I also see that bad horses seem to do alright when it comes to breaking down. That is clearly in contradiction to the general trend that you are convinced of.

No, I don't agree. The NYRA claimers are bad, and so are New York breds. All are covered in the sample.

[gm10]

No, I don't agree. The NYRA claimers are bad, and so are New York breds. All are covered in the sample.

Come on now. There is a big difference between the average NYRA claimer and the average claimer in the USA. The majority of horses simply can't compete at NYRA tracks. Do you disagree with that?

Even then. How do you explain the breakdown pattern in the entire state of NY? Not that it matters much, I just wanted to illustrate the risk of narrowing your data set like you did. Throw in one bottom level track and the conclusion is reversed.

[PaceAdvantage]

Doesn't reply #124 show in a crystal clear fashion that when comparing dirt to synthetics between two top class operations (NYRA and SoCal...can't get any higher class of horses in the USA), the results are quite similar in terms of breakdown rate?

How can that be gm10? I suppose if we are to believe the statistics contained within reply #124, then we can conclude that the class of the racing operation has a lot more to do with breakdown rates than the actual surface being dirt or synthetic.

[cj]

Come on now. There is a big difference between the average NYRA claimer and the average claimer in the USA. The majority of horses simply can't compete at NYRA tracks. Do you disagree with that?

Even then. How do you explain the breakdown pattern in the entire state of NY? Not that it matters much, I just wanted to illustrate the risk of narrowing your data set like you did. Throw in one bottom level track and the conclusion is reversed.

This is why I didn't want to play this game. You spin everything the way you want it to read, and if you don't like it you change the topic.

[gm10]

This is why I didn't want to play this game. You spin everything the way you want it to read, and if you don't like it you change the topic.

Don't try to avoid the real issue now. The missing link in your argument against the study is 'cheap = more likely to break down'. That is the context of the discussion.

If you take a broad view (see post 127), the conclusion is simply that there is no relationship between purse and level of breakdowns. You may have been tempted to believe the opposite by by looking at higher level tracks only (NYRA), but a simple addition of FL to your short list of tracks has made it clear that the narrow data set conclusions aren't reliable.

I was also wondering earlier if you had any comments on the much lower level of breakdowns on poly than on dirt, but we can save that for another time.

[PaceAdvantage]

Don't try to avoid the real issue now. The missing link in your argument against the study is 'cheap = more likely to break down'. That is the context of the discussion.

If you take a broad view (see post 127), the conclusion is simply that there is no relationship between purse and level of breakdowns. You may have been tempted to believe the opposite by by looking at higher level tracks only (NYRA), but a simple addition of FL to your short list of tracks has made it clear that the narrow data set conclusions aren't reliable.

I was also wondering earlier if you had any comments on the much lower level of breakdowns on poly than on dirt, but we can save that for another time.Why not address the stats that clearly show no difference in breakdown rate between two high class operations (NYRA & SoCal), despite the use of dirt in one operation versus the use of AWS in the other?

Comparing equal class tracks shows no discernable difference in the rate of breakdown despite two radically different main track surfaces.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?

[cj]

Don't try to avoid the real issue now. The missing link in your argument against the study is 'cheap = more likely to break down'. That is the context of the discussion.

If you take a broad view (see post 127), the conclusion is simply that there is no relationship between purse and level of breakdowns. You may have been tempted to believe the opposite by by looking at higher level tracks only (NYRA), but a simple addition of FL to your short list of tracks has made it clear that the narrow data set conclusions aren't reliable.

I was also wondering earlier if you had any comments on the much lower level of breakdowns on poly than on dirt, but we can save that for another time.

I don't see it that way, but that is fine. Compare apples to apples and you see what I see, more breakdowns at lower levels, and similar breakdowns despite surface. I'm not sure how mixing in FL with NYRA accomplishes anything.

[gm10]

I don't see it that way, but that is fine. Compare apples to apples and you see what I see, more breakdowns at lower levels, and similar breakdowns despite surface. I'm not sure how mixing in FL with NYRA accomplishes anything.

Frankly, because it shows that your data set is no good. The majority of horse aren't eligible for running at NYRA/SoCal level. Your sample needs to be representative of the entire population.

[PaceAdvantage]

Frankly, because it shows that your data set is no good. The majority of horse aren't eligible for running at NYRA/SoCal level. Your sample needs to be representative of the entire population.Not for that particular example. That particular example clearly shows what others have been trying to tell you is wrong with the original study. Continue to ignore common sense if you wish.

Being representative of the entire population is exactly what's wrong with the original study. The "entire population" is skewed towards high class horses racing on synthetic surfaces, and lower class horses racing on dirt surfaces.

When looked at on equal footing, as CJ's example shows, there is minimal difference between the two surfaces when it comes to breakdown rate.

[gm10]

Not for that particular example. That particular example clearly shows what others have been trying to tell you is wrong with the original study. Continue to ignore common sense if you wish.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the study is not about NYRA horses, but intends to look at the entire horse population, from top to bottom. Hence NYRA/SoCal is not a representative sample.

The need for representative samples is explained on page 1 of any decent Statistics 101 book.

The risks of not respecting this basic requirement have been amply illustrated by now.

[PaceAdvantage]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the study is not about NYRA horses, but intends to look at the entire horse population, from top to bottom. Hence NYRA/SoCal is not a representative sample.

The need for representative samples is explained on page 1 of any decent Statistics 101 book.

The risks of not respecting this basic requirement have been amply illustrated by now.We're talking about the FLAWS contained within the study. He's not attempting in post #124 to duplicate the study or present a new and improved study.

His only attempt is to illustrate a major flaw, which his stats clearly indicate are present.

If only the USA had enough LOWER CLASS tracks running SYNTHETIC SURFACES, the original study might actually be useful.

This is not a tough nut to crack.

[gm10]

We're talking about the FLAWS contained within the study. He's not attempting in post #124 to duplicate the study or present a new and improved study.

His only attempt is to illustrate a major flaw, which his stats clearly indicate are present.

If only the USA had enough LOWER CLASS tracks running SYNTHETIC SURFACES, the original study might actually be useful.

This is not a tough nut to crack.

Then why doesn't it apply to the entire country? Why are the real cheap horses in NY so much better off? Do you not think that a simple extension of that class/breakdown relationship would result in more breakdowns at FL?

If you feel free to keep ignoring these obvious questions, try to fight it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Then why doesn't it apply to the entire country? Why are the real cheap horses in NY so much better off? Do you not think that a simple extension of that class/breakdown relationship would result in more breakdowns at FL? If you feel free to keep ignoring these obvious questions, try to fight it.

Maybe the medication rules related to tapping a horse are more stringent in NY (must be done earlier) than in other states, preventing questionable horses from making it to the track in the first place? Would that explain it?

[cj]

If only the USA had enough LOWER CLASS tracks running SYNTHETIC SURFACES, the original study might actually be useful.


And there you have it, in a nutshell.

[Tom]

Why not throw in GG tot he synth side?
Adding FL only adds a more cheaper horses to the dirt side, which is what you really want to do.....bias the results.

[gm10]

Why not throw in GG tot he synth side?
Adding FL only adds a more cheaper horses to the dirt side, which is what you really want to do.....bias the results.

Au contraire. There a lot of cheap, weak horses. Not including them paints a false picture, as was clearly shown yesterday.

Why not throw in all cheap synthetic tracks? See post 127.

[gm10]

And there you have it, in a nutshell.

Speculation. As long as you can't prove that cheaper horses are more likely to break down, that is mere speculation (and false speculation, it seems). There are at least two people here that know this, and you are one of them.

[gm10]

Let's find a sensible solution to this.

CJ argues that the study is unreliable because there are no really bad synthetic tracks. Fair enough, that is worth investigating, but he is making the same mistake in his efforts by only looking at tracks that are among the best in the country. That is not where 90% of the races take place, and hence we can't extrapolate those conclusions (assuming there are any).

So I suggest that for each synthetic track, we try to find an equivalent on the dirt. This way we can hopefully settle on a set of tracks that are of comparable quality, and do the breakdown analysis on both groups.

I'll take a stab at it just to get things going, please add your suggestions if you have any and hopefully we'll come to a set of tracks that we can agree on.

Del Mar (average purse 47K) - Saratoga (average purse 72K)
Santa Anita (40K) - Belmont Park (49K)
Hollywood Park (34K) - Aqueduct (33K)
Golden Gate (14K) - Tampa Bay (14K)
Keeneland (51K) - Churchill Downs (71K)
Turfway Park (13K) - Finger Lakes (12K)
Arlington Park (23K) - Hawthorne (16K)
Presque Isle Downs (23K) - Penn National (19K)
Woodbine (50K) - Fairgrounds (30K)

How is that for everyone? Please suggest actual replacements.

[andymays]

I hate to get into this thread because the fact that when Santa Anita went to dirt (about 90% sand (two kinds) and 10% clay it signaled the end of synthetic surfaces at serious race tracks.

It's kind of funny that the articles are coming out right now trying to revive this crap. Didn't Nicholson just go to Equibase from Keenland? Keenland is the mothership for this junk. They own a piece of Polytrack along with Martin Collins International.

This is about money and ideology. There shouldn't be any grade 1 or grade 2 races run on synthetic surfaces and there never should have been until after they were tested for a few years. This sh*t has caused nothing but problems when it comes to the road to the Triple Crown or HOY. Good riddance.

This is a post from a person who goes by Claimboxx who follows California racing as close as anyone;


A few things to consider and remember...

1) Horses are given a more thorough pre race exam than ever before...This, more than synthetics, has lessened the breakdown rate.

2) There are fewer fatalities, but more career ending injuries, i.e. soft tissue, broken legs behind than there were on dirt

3) There are fewer "reported" hospital visits because most vets now have their own portable X ray machines which they do right there in the stall...


bottom line... stats are generally skewed and this is no different...

talk to trainers, riders, vets... the consensus is synthetics have done more harm than good...

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

YouTube - Interview With Trainer Bruce Headley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPtDlEuMkQQ&feature=related


YouTube - Interview With Hall of Fame Jockey Eddie Delahoussaye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42gApUe5Xfo&feature=player_embedded


YouTube - Interview With Ted Malloy; 3rd Day of Training

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFqXJ8_Ox2A&feature=related


It absolutely friggin kills me that after fighting for this for well over two years I have to not play because the the effin raise in takeout. I could cuss for about an hour over this with the worst of words. Never the less I will alter my play for a while and see what happens.

I have no idea how these threads still end up with a ton of posts. The same people keep bringing up the same arguments for synthetics that don't hold up. Trainers at Santa Anita and everwhere else wanted the Pro Ride crap gone for a reason. Most gamblers want it gone for a reason.

[Bobzilla]

Let's find a sensible solution to this.

CJ argues that the study is unreliable because there are no really bad synthetic tracks. Fair enough, that is worth investigating, but he is making the same mistake in his efforts by only looking at tracks that are among the best in the country. That is not where 90% of the races take place, and hence we can't extrapolate those conclusions (assuming there are any).

So I suggest that for each synthetic track, we try to find an equivalent on the dirt. This way we can hopefully settle on a set of tracks that are of comparable quality, and do the breakdown analysis on both groups.

I'll take a stab at it just to get things going, please add your suggestions if you have any and hopefully we'll come to a set of tracks that we can agree on.

Del Mar (average purse 47K) - Saratoga (average purse 72K)
Santa Anita (40K) - Belmont Park (49K)
Hollywood Park (34K) - Aqueduct (33K)
Golden Gate (14K) - Tampa Bay (14K)
Keeneland (51K) - Churchill Downs (71K)
Turfway Park (13K) - Finger Lakes (12K)
Arlington Park (23K) - Hawthorne (16K)
Presque Isle Downs (23K) - Penn National (19K)
Woodbine (50K) - Fairgrounds (30K)

How is that for everyone? Please suggest actual replacements.

gm10, are there really any synthetic tracks that would be the equivalent to those dirt tracks where horses tend to find themselves towards the end of their careers? In many cases these horses are there for the sole purpose of squeezing any last bit of utility from them before they arrive at their final destination, often after a long career with many starts and unconscionable drug abuse as they bounce from one trainer to another. Being expected to perform over inconsistent surfaces laid over a base that hasn't been replaced or fortified for decades would only serve to expose the infirmaries/exploitations associated with a long racing career. The approach of limiting the data to only the better tracks would seem to me to be the only way to do this as the populations would be at comparable stages in their respective career cycles. This may not include 90% of N.A. races but without a synthetic surface laid over a base that is in shambles I can't think of another way to do it.

[gm10]

gm10, are there really any synthetic tracks that would be the equivalent to those dirt tracks where horses tend to find themselves towards the end of their careers? In many cases these horses are there for the sole purpose of squeezing any last bit of utility from them before they arrive at their final destination, often after a long career with many starts and unconscionable drug abuse as they bounce from one trainer to another. Being expected to perform over inconsistent surfaces laid over a base that hasn't been replaced or fortified for decades would only serve to expose the infirmaries/exploitations associated with a long racing career. The approach of limiting the data to only the better tracks would seem to me to be the only way to do this as the populations would be at comparable stages in their respective career cycles. This may not include 90% of N.A. races but without a synthetic surface laid over a base that is in shambles I can't think of another way to do it.

No there aren't, which is why I'm suggesting this approach. Feel free to map synthetic to equivalent dirt tracks.

Also, what if we restricted the data to 2-3-4 yo's? That would eliminate those older horses that you mention.

[Tom]

Au contraire. There a lot of cheap, weak horses. Not including them paints a false picture, as was clearly shown yesterday.

Why not throw in all cheap synthetic tracks? See post 127.

Excluding them might give you a true picture. If you have unsound horses, they are liable to break down no matter what surface. If you take samples of sound horses, you are likely to look only at breakdowns that are surface related, which all breakdowns clearly are not.

[Tom]

I wouldn't use Pen.
The inflated purses mask the very cheap crap they run over an old track.
What about Delaware, or Philly instead?

[gm10]

Dirt tracks - Philly instead of Penn. Only 2-3-4 year olds.

S P BD C Rate
D 0 39 51985 0.750
D 1 100 105491 0.948
D 2 66 60140 1.097
D 3 15 15009 0.999
D 4 38 49599 0.766
D 5 19 23945 0.793


Dirt tracks - Delaware instead of Penn. Only 2-3-4 year olds.

S P BD C Rate
D 0 23 43430 0.530
D 1 73 99173 0.736
D 2 34 43203 0.787
D 3 11 15718 0.700
D 4 37 50046 0.739
D 5 21 24437 0.859


Synthetic tracks. Only 2-3-4 year olds.

S P BD C Rate
P 0 17 26235 0.648
P 1 40 46676 0.857
P 2 20 35984 0.556
P 3 10 18041 0.554
P 4 5 11192 0.447
P 5 20 32226 0.621

Synthetic tracks when they were still dirt (quite shocking this). Only 2-3-4 year olds. <edit> data since 2002 instead of 2004


0 20 16798 1.191
1 68 41184 1.651
2 59 41663 1.416
3 20 19082 1.048
4 12 13216 0.908
5 36 30418 1.184


These are the numbers that I got from my DB. I filtered on the presence of the words "BROKE DOWN" in the chart comment.

Note that the breakdown rate does seem to tend to decrease very slightly with class for the ex-dirt tracks. That is definitely interesting. It doesn't apply for any of the other sets, however.

[Charlie D]

Interesting


On your synthetic track data P4 has only 5 BD, where those either side have 10 and 20


How do you explain this GM10?? could it be because there are more runs, resulting in a higher chance of breakdown, just like there are with Dirt V Synth

[gm10]

Interesting


On your synthetic track data P4 has only 5 BD, where those either side have 10 and 20


How do you explain this GM10?? could it be because there are more runs, resulting in a higher chance of breakdown, just like there are with Dirt V Synth

I don't understand what you are asking/implying, team mate.

How do you mean, 'resulting in a higher chance of breakdown'?

[Charlie D]

BTW GM!0

There is a similar trend with the Dirt data i believe too.


Ok lets try this. Same car.


I drive my car 50K miles
My son drives his 200k miles


Which car do you think will suffer from more accidents and breakdowns??

[gm10]

BTW GM!0

There is a similar trend with the Dirt data i believe too.


Ok lets try this. Same car.


I drive my car 50K miles
My son drives his 200k miles


Which car do you think will suffer from more accidents and breakdowns??

Good point. Maybe we should come up with a more relative number, like a breakdown rate?

[cj]

Let's find a sensible solution to this.

CJ argues that the study is unreliable because there are no really bad synthetic tracks. Fair enough, that is worth investigating, but he is making the same mistake in his efforts by only looking at tracks that are among the best in the country. That is not where 90% of the races take place, and hence we can't extrapolate those conclusions (assuming there are any).

So I suggest that for each synthetic track, we try to find an equivalent on the dirt. This way we can hopefully settle on a set of tracks that are of comparable quality, and do the breakdown analysis on both groups.

I'll take a stab at it just to get things going, please add your suggestions if you have any and hopefully we'll come to a set of tracks that we can agree on.

Del Mar (average purse 47K) - Saratoga (average purse 72K)
Santa Anita (40K) - Belmont Park (49K)
Hollywood Park (34K) - Aqueduct (33K)
Golden Gate (14K) - Tampa Bay (14K)
Keeneland (51K) - Churchill Downs (71K)
Turfway Park (13K) - Finger Lakes (12K)
Arlington Park (23K) - Hawthorne (16K)
Presque Isle Downs (23K) - Penn National (19K)
Woodbine (50K) - Fairgrounds (30K)

How is that for everyone? Please suggest actual replacements.

I suggest using Canterbury and Fort Erie, how does that work for you?

The more I look at this, the more I'm seeing it is some tracks that are bad, not dirt as a whole.

[Charlie D]

Common sense says more games of Rugby i play more i'm going to get hurt. Multiply this by number of players and the injury rate will reflect it.


Compare an apple to an apple and not apple to orange, cut out outliers in the Data.

[gm10]

Common sense says more games of Rugby i play more i'm going to get hurt. Multiply this by number of players and the injury rate will reflect it.


Compare an apple to an apple and not apple to orange, cut out outliers in the Data.

Great suggestion. Maybe the last column in my tables can be of use to you.

[gm10]

I suggest using Canterbury and Fort Erie, how does that work for you?

The more I look at this, the more I'm seeing it is some tracks that are bad, not dirt as a whole.

Canterbury/Fort Erie instead of?

[Charlie D]

Great suggestion. Maybe the last column in my tables can be of use to you.



Yes they are because when i compare similar size datasets the difference seems minimal.

[cj]

Canterbury/Fort Erie instead of?

Well, those two are the closest tracks to Turfway in terms of purse value. I am breaking purse value down by surface since including turf skews the results.

Just to be up front, I know they have very few. Anyone can cherry pick tracks, that is my point. Some of your "comparisons" aren't even that close in terms of purse value.

[gm10]

Yes they are because when i compare similar size datasets the difference seems minimal.

You are using a strange jargon but I think I know what you mean. Funnily enough you seem to have noticed before CJ did. He's asking for FE/CBY to be added while the conclusion he wants is right in front of him.

Yes they are minimal. The evidence that poly is safer is not entirely overwhelming on the basis of this simple study. The only thing you can say is that they are safer than the dirt that they were replacing, but that may (or may not) have different reasons that the actual nature of dirt.

[Charlie D]

You are using a strange jargon but I think I know what you mean. Funnily enough you seem to have noticed before CJ did. He's asking for FE/CBY to be added while the conclusion he wants is right in front of him.

Yes they are minimal. The evidence that poly is safer is not entirely overwhelming on the basis of this simple study. The only thing you can say is that they are safer than the dirt that they were replacing, but that may (or may not) have different reasons that the actual nature of dirt.


:ThmbUp:

[cj]

You are using a strange jargon but I think I know what you mean. Funnily enough you seem to have noticed before CJ did. He's asking for FE/CBY to be added while the conclusion he wants is right in front of him.

Yes they are minimal. The evidence that poly is safer is not entirely overwhelming on the basis of this simple study. The only thing you can say is that they are safer than the dirt that they were replacing, but that may (or may not) have different reasons that the actual nature of dirt.

Of course it isn't, and that is what many have said all along. Obviously those tracks that were replaced are safer, they are brand new and the old ones were in bad shape. Only the most hardcore synthetic supporter would deny that is a factor.

By the way, Pinnacle is a very new dirt track. How does it compare to a Presque Isle Downs?

[cj]

I'll save you the trouble...

PID 1.19 per 1000
Pnl 0.85 per 1000

[Charlie D]

CJ

I might be wrong, but i believe GM10 is beginning to SEE.

[gm10]

Of course it isn't, and that is what many have said all along. Obviously those tracks that were replaced are safer, they are brand new and the old ones were in bad shape. Only the most hardcore synthetic supporter would deny that is a factor.

By the way, Pinnacle is a very new dirt track. How does it compare to a Presque Isle Downs?

Don't give me the 'I told you all along' line.

Your first argument (there are more lower class dirt races, and lower class = more breakdowns), it is safe to say that one has been wiped off the table. There is simply no evidence for that.

The second one (older track base) hasn't been tested, but it sounds plausible. It has not been proven however. Other factors could play a major role too, such as climatic factors.

Anyway, my conclusion would be that

a) the synthetic tracks are safer than the dirt ones they replaced. The age of the track base is one possible explanation, but it has not been tested.

b) synthetic only seems marginally safer than dirt tracks of comparable class.

c) there is no relationship between class and breakdown rate. This arguments does not explain the results of the study.

Not entirely what I expected, and some things remain untested and unexplained, but that will be it for me, for now.

[gm10]

CJ

I might be wrong, but i believe GM10 is beginning to SEE.

At least I'm seeing with my own eyes Charlie.

[PaceAdvantage]

Feel free to map synthetic to equivalent dirt tracks. Didn't cj do just that with his NYRA-->SoCal data in post #124? For some reason, this did not meet to your specifications...

[Charlie D]

At least I'm seeing with my own eyes Charlie.


Aye, keep them and your mind open mate :)

[Tom]

Break it down by trainer/owner and see what happens.
Do that with Pen.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Here are the flaws I see when attempting to compare tracks:

1) Medications rules vary by state. Stricter rules may reduce breakdown rates, as I mentioned in a prior post. I have no evidence for this claim, but it seems worth considering.

2) It seems like CJ and GM10 are relying on the chart callers' descriptions to determine when a breakdown has occured. I'm not faulting either of them, but I suspect that approach is flawed. I suspect many horses that are listed as "pulled up/vanned off" were in reality euthanized. As a result, some tracks probably under report the term "breakdown" in their charts.

3) Slot subsidies skew purses, but I think someone already mentioned this and you've addressed it.

[cj]

Here are the flaws I see when attempting to compare tracks:

2) It seems like CJ and GM10 are relying on the chart callers' descriptions to determine when a breakdown has occured. I'm not faulting either of them, but I suspect that approach is flawed. I suspect many horses that are listed as "pulled up/vanned off" were in reality euthanized. As a result, some tracks probably under report the term "breakdown" in their charts.



There is no doubt about this. I suspect "broke down" is only used when it is known for sure. "Vanned off" is probably safe to use as injured, but pulled up can be for tons of reasons.

[Tom]

And how many manage to finish the race and never make it back to the track again?

[andymays]

Doesn't anyone realize that the italicized points by Claimboxx in post #151 make a huge difference and a great point when it comes to the numbers?

[cj]

Doesn't anyone realize that the italicized points by Claimboxx in post #151 make a huge difference and a great point when it comes to the numbers?

Sure, they could be, but that would need to be really studied as well. Perceptions are not always reality. One thing I think that can be agreed upon is the initially posted study is way too simplistic to draw any real conclusions. Whoever is paying for it is wasting money.

[andymays]

Sure, they could be, but that would need to be really studied as well. Perceptions are not always reality. One thing I think that can be agreed upon is the initially posted study is way too simplistic to draw any real conclusions. Whoever is paying for it is wasting money.

This particular campaign supporting synthetics is coordinated and the timing is no coincidence.