Can Stronach be convinced to try a third synthetic surface at Santa Anita?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Easy solution: Northern California tracks, AWS; Southern California tracks, dirt. Then let the owners and trainers decide what they want to run and train their horses over. Want to try the other surface? Ship.

Finally, a voice of reason!

[Kimsus]

Originally Posted by andymays

Finally, a voice of reason!

You seem to be the most vocal anti-synth poster here andymays, I am curious do you dispute that synthetic tracks have not reduced catastrophic injuries on the track and or do you dispute the statistical proof that they have?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Kimsus

You seem to be the most vocal anti-synth poster here andymays, I am curious do you dispute that synthetic tracks have not reduced catastrophic injuries on the track and or do you dispute the statistical proof that they have?

I don't know how many times I have to write the same thing but here it goes again:

It is misleading and reckless for Rick Arthur to compare the last three (worst fatality wise) years of dirt surfaces with decades old bases to new synthetic surfaces with new bases. I don't understand why people don't get that but for some reason they don't.

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

This is an email I've sent to the CHRB at least five times and have never received an answer:

This is at least the fifth request for information sent to the CHRB regarding Rick Arthur and his misleading statistics on injuries and breakdowns so I’ll ask once again:

It seems that every time the subject of synthetic surfaces comes up we see Dr Rick Arthurs name and personally compiled statistics on racing fatalities used in article after article. I would like to make a few points and then call on the CHRB to ask Rick Arthur if he has had any past or present financial ties to Keenland, Polytrack, Martin Collins International or any synthetic surfaces manufacturer or their subsidiaries or their agents. In short is there a personal financial reason for Dr Arthur to mislead the public? He is misleading the public for a reason. I want to know why.

The CHRB has a duty to protect the public and disseminate accurate information to the public. It is my contention that the statistics compiled by Rick Arthur are misleading and reckless and here’s why:

1. Comparing the last three years of a dirt surface with a decade’s old base to a new synthetic surface with and a new base is misleading and reckless yet Rick Arthur does it all the time. Why doesn’t he use the statistics from 2002 to 2004? If we use the 2002-2004 statistics when the dirt surfaces had bases that were a little newer we could say that the dirt surfaces were safer right?

2. Most people that follow Southern California racing know that since 2008 and leading up to the Breeders Cup vet inspections in the morning and afternoon were stepped up drastically and we had many more scratches during the day and at the gate. Is that right or wrong? Does anyone think that may have played a role?

It would be real easy to ask Dr Arthur the question!

If Rick Arthur cannot prove that he is an unbiased voice then he should recuse himself from further comments on synthetic surfaces and their “virtues”.

Please look out for the public and help return California Racing to a place of national prominence instead of ridicule.

Thanks,

Andy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an article with a email from Trainer Darrell Vienna from Horseraceinsider:

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog...ssue-rages-on/

[Charlie D]

Why doesn’t he use the statistics from 2002 to 2004? If we use the 2002-2004 statistics when the dirt surfaces had bases that were a little newer we could say that the dirt surfaces were safer right?

Where are these Andy???

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Where are these Andy???

HORSE RACING DEATHS
Following are thoroughbred fatalities in California over the past 10 years. A change in the way the CHRB calculated each racing year resulted in some horse deaths in the second half of 2007 appearing twice in the totals. Synthetic tracks were mandated at major tracks in California starting in 2007.
July 2008-June 2009: 320
July 2007-June 2008: 325
Nov. 2006-Nov. 2007: 301
Nov. 2005-Nov. 2006: 317
Nov. 2004-Nov. 2005: 320
Nov. 2003-Nov. 2004: 243
Nov. 2002-Nov. 2003: 229
Nov. 2001-Nov. 2002: 257
Nov. 2000-Nov. 2001: 236
Nov. 1999-Nov. 2000: 259

Rick Arthur adds Los Alamitos in sometimes when it benefits his argument and then he takes Los Alamitos out when it doesn't benefit his argument.

[Charlie D]

Yep, saw them Andy, i should have stated i was refering to these type of stats

Synthetic surfaces produced a mortality rate of 1.95 per 1,000 (109 out of 56,031 starters) from 2007-09, while the rate over the same tracks when they raced on dirt (2004-06) was 3.09 (181/58,659), according to Arthur. For comparison, the racing fatality rate on turf for the entire period was 2.44 (89/36,486).

Could one of database lads knock stats together like those above for the period using Andys post and thier number of starters data???

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Yep, saw them Andy, i should have stated i was refering to these type of stats



Could one of database lads knock stats together like those above for the period using Andys post and thier number of runners data???

The other problem Charlie is that accurate statistic on injuries and breakdowns were not kept until the middle of 2008. Rick Arthur even admitted as much a couple of years ago.

Most interested parties who follow racing closely will tell you that in 2007 and the first part of 2008 horses that were injured on the track or in the morning and were later euthanized were not counted as racing fatalities.

Synthetic surfaces are the biggest fraud ever in the history of Horse Racing in the United States and much of the propaganda comes from Keenland/Polytrack/Martin Collins International. To a man when they are asked about past or present financial ties they refuse to answer. What does that tell you?

[DJofSD]

While the numbers by themselves are good to have, they need to be normalized. You can use different values to perform the normalization such as the number of starters in California for each year, or, the number of licensed/registered t'breds in California. I think if the were normalized the impact of the fake dirt would be even more clear.

For example, if in 1999 CA had 5,000 starters and in 2009 there were 4,000 starters we'd have 0.0518 deaths/starter v. 0.0800, or, a 54 per cent increased per starter.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

While the numbers by themselves are good to have, they need to be normalized. You can use different values to perform the normalization such as the number of starters in California for each year, or, the number of licensed/registered t'breds in California. I think if the were normalized the impact of the fake dirt would be even more clear.

For example, if in 1999 CA had 5,000 starters and in 2009 there were 4,000 starters we'd have 0.0518 deaths/starter v. 0.0800, or, a 54% per cent increased per starter.

The only way to compare apples to apples is if Santa Anita goes back to dirt. After 3 years with a new base and a new surface the comparison will be valid.

You are right about starters. Also remember that vet inspections in the morning and on the way to the gate were stepped way up in 2008. That makes a big difference.

[Kimsus]

Originally Posted by andymays

I don't know how many times I have to write the same thing but here it goes again:

It is misleading and reckless for Rick Arthur to compare the last three (worst fatality wise) years of dirt surfaces with decades old bases to new synthetic surfaces with new bases. I don't understand why people don't get that but for some reason they don't.

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

This is an email I've sent to the CHRB at least five times and have never received an answer:

This is at least the fifth request for information sent to the CHRB regarding Rick Arthur and his misleading statistics on injuries and breakdowns so I’ll ask once again:

It seems that every time the subject of synthetic surfaces comes up we see Dr Rick Arthurs name and personally compiled statistics on racing fatalities used in article after article. I would like to make a few points and then call on the CHRB to ask Rick Arthur if he has had any past or present financial ties to Keenland, Polytrack, Martin Collins International or any synthetic surfaces manufacturer or their subsidiaries or their agents. In short is there a personal financial reason for Dr Arthur to mislead the public? He is misleading the public for a reason. I want to know why.

The CHRB has a duty to protect the public and disseminate accurate information to the public. It is my contention that the statistics compiled by Rick Arthur are misleading and reckless and here’s why:

1. Comparing the last three years of a dirt surface with a decade’s old base to a new synthetic surface with and a new base is misleading and reckless yet Rick Arthur does it all the time. Why doesn’t he use the statistics from 2002 to 2004? If we use the 2002-2004 statistics when the dirt surfaces had bases that were a little newer we could say that the dirt surfaces were safer right?

2. Most people that follow Southern California racing know that since 2008 and leading up to the Breeders Cup vet inspections in the morning and afternoon were stepped up drastically and we had many more scratches during the day and at the gate. Is that right or wrong? Does anyone think that may have played a role?

It would be real easy to ask Dr Arthur the question!

If Rick Arthur cannot prove that he is an unbiased voice then he should recuse himself from further comments on synthetic surfaces and their “virtues”.

Please look out for the public and help return California Racing to a place of national prominence instead of ridicule.

Thanks,

Andy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an article with a email from Trainer Darrell Vienna from Horseraceinsider:

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog...ssue-rages-on/

I read your letter and your argument seems to be based on using selective numbers namely the 2002-2004 seasons. Why use these yrs? Isn't this a manipulation of stats also?

Furthermore, I don't really buy the vet argument, that's a hard pile to swallow for anyone...I don't know how anyone can take this seriously unless someone is counting vet examinations or how even a quantitive number can be agreed to. But given even if this was true, saying that vet examinations would significantly reduce catastrophic injuries is abit of a stretch for most.

[andymays]

[QUOTE=Kimsus]I read your letter and your argument seems to be based on using selective numbers namely the 2002-2004 seasons. Why use these yrs? Isn't this a manipulation of stats also?

That's the whole point Kimsus. Why does Rick Arthur use the years he uses?


Furthermore, I don't really buy get the vet argument, that's a hard pile to swallow for anyone...I don't know how you can someone take this seriously unless someone is counting vet examintaions or how even a quantitive number can be agreed to. But given even if this was true, saying that vet examinations would significantly reduce catastrophic injuries is abit of a stretch for most.

Why wouldn't you think the stepped up vet inspections and late scrathes at the gate wouldn't cause less breakdowns and injuries?[/QUOTE]

[Charlie D]

I know it's crude, but if someone can use the data in Andys post against numbers of starters we can get a rough idea.


You can argue toss of use after i think

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

I know it's crude, but if someone can use the data in Andys post against numbers of starters we can get a rough idea.


You can argue toss of use after i think

Charlie, Rick Arthur is a synthetic advocate who has not denied receiving compensation in some form from any synthetic surface manufacturer, their subsidiaries, or agents. When someone like him is solely responsible for compiling statistics and presenting them what do you think the outcome will be?

Does this email from Darrell Vienna mean anything to anyone?

“Andy:

“Thanks for your comments. Horsemen have been unable to reconcile their experiences on the synthetic surfaces with Dr. Arthur's conclusions. As you know Dr. Arthur has refused to provide the raw data underlying his conclusionary reports. As evidence of Dr. Arthur's incompetence or misfeasance, I direct your attention to his summary found on page 36 of the CHRB Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008

In Table I, Fatalities by Track & Surface, Dr. Arthur adds fatality figures from Los Alamitos (including Quarter Horse Racing) to establish his conclusion that synthetics are safer than dirt. Please note that 50 of the 77 fatalities reported on dirt are from Los Alamitos. Absent the inclusion of the Los Alamitos fatalities, the report would show 27 fatalities on dirt vs. 43 fatalities on synthetics.

“Without the Los Alamitos fatalities, Dr. Arthur's conclusion regarding the fatality rate per 1,000 starts would be reversed and rightfully show that synthetic surfaces are significantly more harmful than dirt surfaces. He has promulgated more recent studies which continue to fly in the face of the experience of most California Horsemen.

“Quite simply, Dr. Arthur must submit his data for peer review and validation before it can be accepted. His continual refusal to allow interested parties access to the underlying data (redacted with regard to names of horses, trainers, etc.) is indefensible.

“Best wishes,

Darrell Vienna”

[Charlie D]

Andy

If possible, I just want to see data you produced presented in the same way as in the post i copied from another thread

You can argue use, data validation after if you want.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Andy

If possible, I just want to see data you produved presented in the same way as in the post i copied from another thread

You can argue use, data validation after if you want.

OK!