Another Synthetic Thread

[andymays]

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...cetrack+stalls

Excerpt:

And California reports that its four major thoroughbred tracks saw fatality rates drop to 1.95 horses per 1,000 starts after synthetic surfaces were required to be installed by the end of 2007, compared with a rate of 3.09 on dirt.

(see email excerpt from CHRB official below)

Excerpt:

University of Maine engineering professor Mick Peterson, who specializes in racing surfaces and consults with tracks, including Churchill, said the synthetic track materials do seem to break down in North America faster than originally thought.

Excerpt:

“I think there’s a place for them in bad weather but not for southern California,” three-time Derby winning trainer Bob Baffert said of synthetic tracks. “We don’t get that kind of bad weather.”

But Baffert noted the safety of dirt surfaces could be improved with better maintenance. California’s dirt tracks “were in such poor condition,” he said. “They hadn’t been redone since Seabiscuit.”

And, he said, synthetics cause different types of horse injuries, like soft-tissue damage. “I don’t need a study,” he said. “I have my own study going on every day because this is what I do for a living.”

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

This is an email excerpt from a high ranking CHRB official in 2008.

"Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc."

[Roy C]

Yawn. Rather then sit here and post 200 messages a day about this, why don't you just not watch or bet those type of tracks? We get it, you don't like them.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Roy C

Yawn. Rather then sit here and post 200 messages a day about this, why don't you just not watch or bet those type of tracks? We get it, you don't like them.

Right, and rather than jump in a thread you don't like why don't you get in one you do?

The topic is the topic. Is there something in the article you disagree with?

[Grits]

LOLOLOL Great come back!

AndyM, don't care what you write about! Been concerned--you've been gone for weeks.

[Igeteven]

Originally Posted by andymays

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...cetrack+stalls

Excerpt:

And California reports that its four major thoroughbred tracks saw fatality rates drop to 1.95 horses per 1,000 starts after synthetic surfaces were required to be installed by the end of 2007, compared with a rate of 3.09 on dirt.

(see email excerpt from CHRB official below)

Excerpt:

University of Maine engineering professor Mick Peterson, who specializes in racing surfaces and consults with tracks, including Churchill, said the synthetic track materials do seem to break down in North America faster than originally thought.

Excerpt:

“I think there’s a place for them in bad weather but not for southern California,” three-time Derby winning trainer Bob Baffert said of synthetic tracks. “We don’t get that kind of bad weather.”

But Baffert noted the safety of dirt surfaces could be improved with better maintenance. California’s dirt tracks “were in such poor condition,” he said. “They hadn’t been redone since Seabiscuit.”

And, he said, synthetics cause different types of horse injuries, like soft-tissue damage. “I don’t need a study,” he said. “I have my own study going on every day because this is what I do for a living.”

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

This is an email excerpt from a high ranking CHRB official in 2008.

"Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc."

Andy

As we all know, they put them in to manipulate the surface and create carryovers. In addition, they got some what of a kick back from the manufacture,

As of know, it's in the hands of Stronach, what is he going to do? That's the big question. At Hollywood Park, they have been putting dirt on top of the plastic track, I call it poly dirt now, but Stonach will be calling the shots now, with HP closing, he will control horse racing in California. At a meeting at Santa Anita, the president doesn't even know what he is going to do.

I only play curtain type of bets, but to play race after race on the plastic tracks, nobody can win, unless you wheel , wheel, and wheel.

I have gone to Kentucky racing , it's better all way around, except where they have plastic tracks.

This is the way it is and nothing can be done about it.

I am sorry to write this, but it's true.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Igeteven

Andy

As we all know, they put them in to manipulate the surface and create carryovers. In addition, they got some what of a kick back from the manufacture,
...

Can you clarify the "we" in this statement? If it is referring to you and Andy and a select few, that's okay. I'd just hate to be considered part of the collective "we" that subscribes to this lunacy. Thanks.

[Igeteven]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Can you clarify the "we" in this statement? If it is referring to you and Andy and a select few, that's okay. I'd just hate to be considered part of the collective "we" that subscribes to this lunacy. Thanks.

I give up, we are all the select few, I am sick of hearing about these type of surface. We have internet , we can go where we want

Now I give you some real good advise, take my advise and do what you please.

[hazzardm]

Originally Posted by Igeteven

As we all know, they put them in to manipulate the surface and create carryovers. In addition, they got some what of a kick back from the manufacture,

Brown eyes

[Igeteven]

Originally Posted by hazzardm

Brown eyes

[andymays]

Does the email excerpt from the CHRB official in 2008 bother anyone?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can they compare injuries and fatalities when they didn't keep accurate records?

[Igeteven]

Originally Posted by andymays

Does the email excerpt from the CHRB official in 2008 bother anyone?


Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc.

How can they compare injuries and fatalities when they didn't keep accurate records?

Andy, you are right on the nail

The Tracks, the CHRB, only care about money, the surface was NEVER interned to put in for the safety of the horses or the jockey,s

Believe me on this, all of the jockey's that ride on it will come down with lung problems later in life. Unfortunately, it will take a few wrongful death law suits for the tracks to change. It will come later down the road. This Country always has been a dollar short and hour late on matters such as this.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Igeteven

...We have internet , we can go where we want...

Bingo Bango Lester... That's the approach that works best... I am a fully fledged member of this "we"...

[Igeteven]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Bingo Bango Lester... That's the approach that works best... I am a fully fledged member of this "we"...

The handle and economics will prevail

[Kimsus]

Originally Posted by andymays

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...cetrack+stalls

Excerpt:

And California reports that its four major thoroughbred tracks saw fatality rates drop to 1.95 horses per 1,000 starts after synthetic surfaces were required to be installed by the end of 2007, compared with a rate of 3.09 on dirt.

(see email excerpt from CHRB official below)

Excerpt:

University of Maine engineering professor Mick Peterson, who specializes in racing surfaces and consults with tracks, including Churchill, said the synthetic track materials do seem to break down in North America faster than originally thought.

Excerpt:

“I think there’s a place for them in bad weather but not for southern California,” three-time Derby winning trainer Bob Baffert said of synthetic tracks. “We don’t get that kind of bad weather.”

But Baffert noted the safety of dirt surfaces could be improved with better maintenance. California’s dirt tracks “were in such poor condition,” he said. “They hadn’t been redone since Seabiscuit.”

And, he said, synthetics cause different types of horse injuries, like soft-tissue damage. “I don’t need a study,” he said. “I have my own study going on every day because this is what I do for a living.”

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

This is an email excerpt from a high ranking CHRB official in 2008.

"Historically, it appears that the fatality numbers contained in the CHRB annual report did not properly or accurately report exactly where the death occurred. What they apparently did was account for when the fatality occurred, and if a fatality occurred say in January, it would be attributed to the operating track at that time. I think the assumption was that since racing was occurring at a particular time the operating track is most likely where the fatality happened. No one again apparently focused on this until we had different type of tracks and the increasing gross number of fatalities became a hot issue. You will also see that the numbers didn’t also differentiate between Turf, Dirt, and in some cases illness, sudden death, etc."

Why not post all the exerpts to this, instead of picking and choosing exerpts from a report to slant or dominate one position over another. Wouldn't this improve your position towards the anti-synth debate rather than making this thread seemingly another anti - synth rant.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by andymays

Excerpt:

And California reports that its four major thoroughbred tracks saw fatality rates drop to 1.95 horses per 1,000 starts after synthetic surfaces were required to be installed by the end of 2007, compared with a rate of 3.09 on dirt.

"

If that stat is true, that seems like a good reason to keep the stuff.

Personally, I have no trouble winning on poly surfaces.
In fact I enjoy that a horse doesn't necessarily have to be up close to or among the pacesetters to win.
To believe that poly was put in to increase carryovers just doesn't hold water.
Come to think of it, poly's not supposed to hold water either.