G1 Pacific Classic

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

Another thing I'd like to see is the number of breakdowns on dirt that occur on off tracks as compared to fast tracks. Turf racing rarely ever gets run in adverse conditions. Entirely possible that not racing in adverse conditions makes the turf rate look better while hurting the dirt rate. Tough to blame dirt tracks for being the default "crappy conditions" surface.

If that's true, that would actually be a huge argument for synthetics, which, of course, are "all weather" surfaces.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

Here is probably my favorite picture from Saturday. Hard trying horse that is as honest as they come, even if not quite a G1 type. Beautiful animal.

He keeps on knocking on the door, and, of course, has a great trainer. Would totally not surprise me if he moved up and sprung a surprise.

[zawaaa]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Please read “Racing Surfaces” which was co-authored and researched in 2014 by the following:

Michael “Mick” Peterson, Ph.D., University of Maine, United States
Lars Roepstocesrff, DVM, PhD, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Swedish
Jeffrey

twenty-eight pages of ideas, theories and poorly considered overviews

damn you, cratos

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by pandy

You must made the case for synthetic. That's a huge difference. You're talking about saving the lives of 141 horses. You get upset when a trainer drops his horse in class and you wouldn't want to save 141 horses?

You don't know that you'd save any horses at all because the stats weren't comparing apples to apples. The dirt stats include all the bottom level racing, where the horses recieve less care and concern. You have to compare similar tracks with similar stock with the same pre-race exams and drug enforcement and similar quality track maintenance.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

I personally don't think there is that big of a difference in the safety rate to warrant spending millions and millions of dollars putting in new surfaces everywhere that has natural dirt. You want to quicken the demise of horse racing, go ahead and try that and see how long these tracks stay in business.

I can tell you that probably 50% of owners, most at the top level, would hang up their tack and find a new hobby. They hated it because it wasn't fair to all the dirt runners they collectively spent hundreds of millions buying and training. And they're directly affected by the deaths and injuries more so than any of us.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

. You have to compare similar tracks with similar stock with the same pre-race exams and drug enforcement and similar quality track maintenance.

How bout Penn National and PID. same state. same quality stock. HUGE difference in Breakdown rates.

Only difference is racing surface.

Allan

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

How bout Penn National and PID. same state. same quality stock. HUGE difference in Breakdown rates.

Only difference is racing surface.

Allan

I'm not sure that's the only difference considering the reputations of the two tracks. One's known as the last stop before the meat trucks pick them up.

I don't find the stats for the two tracks. What are they?

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

If that's true, that would actually be a huge argument for synthetics, which, of course, are "all weather" surfaces.

Only if you think it worth throwing the baby out with the bath water over a few rainy days.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Please read “Racing Surfaces” which was co-authored and researched in 2014 by the following:

Michael “Mick” Peterson, Ph.D., University of Maine, United States
Lars Roepstocesrff, DVM, PhD, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Swedish
Jeffrey J. Thomason, PhD, University of Guelph, Canada
Christie Mahaffey, MPhil, University of Maine, United States
C. Wayne McIlwraith, BVSc, PhD, Colorado State University, United States

Also, from Am Assoc Equine Pract 55:183-186, 2009:

"When comparing racing surfaces worldwide, flat races run on turf have the lowest FMSI rates (0.38-0.57/1000
starts), followed by synthetic (aka “all-weather”) surfaces (0.72-1.47/1000 starts), and then dirt surfaces
(1.7-2.03/1000 starts).1,3,4,9,15-18 Though the actual numbers do vary, almost all studies have found this
relationship of injury rate and surface type to be consistent. However, closer inspection of the results from
different studies shows that while the FMSI rate of turf courses worldwide is fairly consistent, those of synthetic
and dirt surfaces have more variation. It appears that synthetic surfaces have a very low FMSI rate for the first
few years after their construction, with the FMSI rate decreasing by as much as 65% for the first meet after the
change from dirt to a synthetic surface. However, as time goes on the FMSI rates on synthetic surfaces
appears to increase, although they still remain below those of dirt surfaces. Recent data from the Jockey Club
shows that overall, tracks that have changed from a dirt surface to a synthetic one have decreased the FMSI
rate by 28%.17 This attrition has been suggested to be due to breakdown of the oils and waxes that are used
to coat the synthetic surfaces, causing them to be less effective at draining water from the surface of the track
down to the deeper layers of the surface. Additionally, breakdown of these substances also appears to make the
synthetic surfaces more sensitive to changes in temperature. The FMSI rate of dirt surfaces also varies from
track to track, which is proposed to be due to track maintenance issues such as providing adequate drainage and
maintaining a consistent surface. And while it appears that synthetic surfaces are safer than dirt, it should be
noted that when synthetic surfaces have replaced turf courses the FMSI rates have increased, again suggesting
that overall turf courses appear to be the safest surface type."

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by zawaaa

twenty-eight pages of ideas, theories and poorly considered overviews

damn you, cratos

Thanks for your response and it is disheartening to me that your reading of the “Racing Surfaces” white paper did not titivate your intellect about racetrack surfaces.

Explicitly and implicitly the physics of the racehorse motion on the different racetrack surfaces is explained in the paper and it’s that understanding which is needed to make a succinct pro or con argument about the merits of the different racing surfaces.

Just for the record, the following should be noted:

From the Internet: “A White Paper is an authoritative report or guide that informs readers concisely about a complex issue and presents the issuing body's philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision.”

The published “Racing Surfaces” white paper did the aforementioned with clarity.

[Tom]

"Titivate?"

[cj]

Originally Posted by Tom

"Titivate?"

That is actually a word but in this case pretty sure it is just a typo.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Thanks for your response and it is disheartening to me that your reading of the “Racing Surfaces” white paper did not titivate("spruce," "smarten," and "spiff") up your intellect about racetrack surfaces.

For once, Cratos used a word in it's proper context......

[cj]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

For once, Cratos used a word in it's proper context......

That is a big stretch, it is more about appearance. Titillate would be a better choice.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

That is a big stretch, it is more about appearance. Titillate would be a better choice.

No, because "titillate" infers: stimulate or excite which is totally different from "titivate" which is to make smart.

However isn't this off topic in this thread, but this is the hypocrisy that exists here.