DEL MAR continues to thrive

[carlonr]

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/se...sful-meeting-/

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by carlonr

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/se...sful-meeting-/

Yep. Best track in the country, in many ways.

They aren't getting the Breeders' Cup, however (Santa Anita basically has a lock on that right now), and it would be a bad idea for them to get rid of the Polytrack. The previous dirt tracks were absolutely deadly for horses, and if they ripped out the Poly, they'd probably have to just reinstall it after a couple of years if the breakdown rate returned to what it was when they raced on dirt.

[pandy]

I agree. The Del Mar dirt track was brutal on horses.

[carlonr]

Once the turf course is widened (work has already started) to accommodate 14 horses by next season, the avg field size and handle will get even larger.

[thespaah]

Why could they not just install a dirt track that wasn't like asphalt?
Make it a deeper track with a better cushion?
Not a fan of artificial tracks.
And yes, the old Del Mar dirt surface was a rock hard....well it WAS asphalt.
I wonder why no one ever tried to correct it before deciding to install Poly.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by pandy

I agree. The Del Mar dirt track was brutal on horses.

So, you're saying that the horses who broke down on the dirt were all 100% sound and the dirt was the only reason they broke down?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

So, you're saying that the horses who broke down on the dirt were all 100% sound and the dirt was the only reason they broke down?

I'm not sure what your point is. That if the dirt was only 99.99 percent of the reason they broke down it didn't need to be replaced with Poly.

Horses are alive today because that switch was made. Isn't that enough?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Why could they not just install a dirt track that wasn't like asphalt?
Make it a deeper track with a better cushion?
Not a fan of artificial tracks.
And yes, the old Del Mar dirt surface was a rock hard....well it WAS asphalt.
I wonder why no one ever tried to correct it before deciding to install Poly.

They were trying stuff every year, actually. It wasn't reducing breakdowns.

Then they went to Poly, and breakdowns are way down.

You don't have to be a fan of artificial tracks. But Del Mar is an example of a successful one.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I'm not sure what your point is. That if the dirt was only 99.99 percent of the reason they broke down it didn't need to be replaced with Poly.

Horses are alive today because that switch was made. Isn't that enough?

Here's my point.

A large percentage of the horses who break down, do so because they're racing when they shouldnt be. The majority of breakdowns are not caused by surfaces. What we also don't know is how the pre race "Scrutiny" changed once Poly was installed...who's to say they werent more vigilant to make sure that no "dangerous" horses were entered?

When you go thru the trouble and expense to change surfaces, you're also going to be more vigilant at which horses get into the gates.

There are a lot of stats we don't hear about, like the horses who get injured on poly but don't actually die....we also don't know how many horses who race on poly, ship to dirt and get injured specifically because of the switch in surfaces, there's no way to know why a horse breaks down, there are many factors involved but people only seem to care about 1) IF a horse breaks down and dies and 2) what was the surface. There's a lot more to it than blaming the surface, many of these breakdowns are from horses who have pre-existing conditions.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

A large percentage of the horses who break down, do so because they're racing when they shouldnt be.

Is this conventional wisdom, or are you just making shit up again? For what it's worth, a trainer recently told me that it was his observation that more breakdowns occur with fit-and-ready runners that are going full out, and that the ouchy ones instinctively protect themselves by travelling more carefully.

[pandy]

Whether you like racing on Poly or not, in my opinion, overall it does appear to be a safer surface than dirt, especially at Del Mar. I think the industry stats prove this. But, that being said, dirt isn't the problem, that I'll admit. The problem is most likely a combination of inbreeding and breeding for speed and drugs. However, a well maintained artificial track appears to produce less bad breakdowns than dirt tracks, which makes sense for several reasons.

I recently interviewed Chuck Coon, one of the nation's top track surface guys. We spoke in length about maintaining cushion on a track. Rain and snow are the toughest things to control because both wipe away the cushion, either through drainage or by scraping the track, and then it has to be replaced (and it can be loose when replaced and take several days to get it right again).

With a synthetic track, the water goes directly through and there is less loss of cushion during inclement weather. Cushion does have to be added from time to time, but not to the degree of what has to be done on dirt tracks, especially after inclement weather.

At Del Mar and the now defunct Hollywood Park, the track maintenance crew eventually got real good at maintaining the surface and these surfaces have proven to be significantly safer than the dirt tracks they replaced.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

So, you're saying that the horses who broke down on the dirt were all 100% sound and the dirt was the only reason they broke down?

Always a good question to open an important discussion.
I think that is a legitimate topic.
One will read threads on places like PA. They will read stories in the print media.
The one common thread regarding breakdowns is that the injuries are invariably blamed on track conditions. Or the track itself.
Never do we see in depth research on the overall heath of a horse at the time of the breakdown. No one ever goes "let's perform a necropsy to see what caused this animal's catastrophic injury"...
Yes these procedures cost money. Yet so does the rebuilding of a race track surface.
From a financial standpoint, perhaps doing a random study on race horse injuries that result in euthanasia is not practical.
One thing is for sure. The finger pointing has to stop.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I'm not sure what your point is. That if the dirt was only 99.99 percent of the reason they broke down it didn't need to be replaced with Poly.

Horses are alive today because that switch was made. Isn't that enough?

Who did the research and how did they come to the conclusion that the track was 99.99% at fault?
See this is why this debate should be had.
No one wants to examine the horses to see if they were suffering health issues which led to their demise.
Loo, I am not implying there are not issues with racing surfaces. There are. My point is I want BOTH sides of the story to be examined.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I'm not sure what your point is. That if the dirt was only 99.99 percent of the reason they broke down it didn't need to be replaced with Poly.

Horses are alive today because that switch was made. Isn't that enough?

That is an opinion.
No research was ever done to come up with hard evidence to support your claim

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

They were trying stuff every year, actually. It wasn't reducing breakdowns.

Then they went to Poly, and breakdowns are way down.

You don't have to be a fan of artificial tracks. But Del Mar is an example of a successful one.

What "stuff"?
See this is the kind of thing that gives message boards a bad name.
Someone posts a statement presented in the form of a conclusion when it is either that person's opinion or it is conjecture.
Unless you were there working on the crew at Del Mar and have first hand knowledge, or you have news items that confirm Del mar management was "trying stuff", then you really don't know. All you are doing is making your case in support of artificial racing surfaces.
My point is real dirt can be just as good if not a batter racing surface than artificial if the track management has good maintenance policies in place. It's very simple.