NYRA meeting

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

A quick glance (and unless I'm reading it wrong) shows that Saratoga is the most dangerous track in NY...what will the Detective do about them apples? Then again, the NY Times data gathering is rather suspect.

It's also interesting to note how dangerous Hollywood Park is (with its artificial track) compared with the rest of California...you would think Del Mar and Hollywood would be much lower.

Also surprising to see how "safe" much smaller DIRT tracks (where presumably much cheaper horses run) like Suffolk Downs and Finger Lakes appear to be when consulting this NY Times chart...

I'm the last one to put stock in anything the NYT publishes, however, I find it curious that our good detective has ignored the fact that, according to the NYT at least, Aqueduct is relatively safe. Maybe he can use his theory to explain why Saratoga seems to be the unsafe track, according to this article at least...

[Robert Goren]

If indeed SAR is the most dangerous track NYRA runs, then there something wrong with surface because it runs the best quality and presumably the soundest horses of any of the NYRA tracks. I say again, if track has a high morality rate, there are only two possible causes, Either they are racing unsound horses or there is something wrong with the surface. Just because a track is small doesn't mean it has a bad surface or if track is a big name doesn't mean that it has a good racing surface. Some of you seem to want imply morality rates are random. I don't believe that is the case. Sure good sound horses break down once in a while, but they do it lesser numbers than unsound horses. When you have good sound horses running, the track should have very low morality rates. When that track doesn't, there has to be a reason. The people in charge of track maintenance generally know what is happening but are not allowed to talk about it. They can't always correct it during the meet. It is up to track management to make sure it is fixed during the time when track isn't running.
It obvious to even most casual bettor that the AQU inner has problem because of its ever changing bias. The weather effects track bias, but not generally to the extent that it does the AQU inner. It is a money making opportunity for me, that does not mean I am cold hearted about the effects on the horses. The "NYRA can do wrong crowd" would rather have more break downs than necessary than admit that there is problem.

[Al Gobbi]

The problem I have is if a synthetic surface is installed at AQU, what is to stop the state or board from putting one in at BEL or SAR?

[duncan04]

Originally Posted by Al Gobbi

The problem I have is if a synthetic surface is installed at AQU, what is to stop the state or board from putting one in at BEL or SAR?

If they only put it in to replace the inner track surface then I doubt it will replace any main track surface

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Of course there will be some tracks with better mortality rates than others. That's why I said "most every" and not "all."

Is there someplace I can check to see that NYRA has an unusual mortality rate?

Im losing you here, what does the mortality rate of 'every other track' have to do with NYRA and why would NYRA care about mortality rates at other places? It seems that they are more concerned with making their own place safer, im not sure what their concern about safety has to do with other places.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm the last one to put stock in anything the NYT publishes, however, I find it curious that our good detective has ignored the fact that, according to the NYT at least, Aqueduct is relatively safe. Maybe he can use his theory to explain why Saratoga seems to be the unsafe track, according to this article at least...

This thread was about fatalities, but the linked article was about injuries. Can it be the ratio of fatalities to injuries is not the same at each track, and therefore some tracks might have a high injury rate, but low fatality rate?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

This thread was about fatalities, but the linked article was about injuries. Can it be the ratio of fatalities to injuries is not the same at each track, and therefore some tracks might have a high injury rate, but low fatality rate?

Or just maybe that in some places the horses running are a heck of a lot more valuable than other places so they are vanned off instead of just being sprayed down and allowed to rest a bit before they are walked off....

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

This thread was about fatalities, but the linked article was about injuries. Can it be the ratio of fatalities to injuries is not the same at each track, and therefore some tracks might have a high injury rate, but low fatality rate?

I posted the underlying link and agree that the data was about "incidents" - the reporters were trying to analyze serious problems, not just fatalities. One obvious issue is that "vanned off" at the low end tracks near me pretty much always means "euthanized on track"; could well be different at Saratoga, e.g. Still - there were some interesting data points; the Tapeta track at Presque Isle has a remarkably good record, e.g. Data struck me as directionally correct but I wouldn't put a lot of emphasis on small differences in the incident rate.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

It obvious to even most casual bettor that the AQU inner has problem because of its ever changing bias.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

The "NYRA can do wrong crowd" would rather have more break downs than necessary than admit that there is problem.

Not gonna work Bobby. I know you're just typing that for effect...to get a rise...you can't possibly believe such nonsense. Please stop trolling. I'm running out of patience with you.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Im losing you here, what does the mortality rate of 'every other track' have to do with NYRA and why would NYRA care about mortality rates at other places? It seems that they are more concerned with making their own place safer, im not sure what their concern about safety has to do with other places.

Follow along. Bobby claims AQU is less safe than other tracks. That's why I bring up other tracks. I'd like to know just how exactly more unsafe it is (if it is, which I doubt).

Anecdotal evidence isn't very accurate...ever...

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

This thread was about fatalities, but the linked article was about injuries. Can it be the ratio of fatalities to injuries is not the same at each track, and therefore some tracks might have a high injury rate, but low fatality rate?

Actually when I started the thread that was not what I wanted. I wanted the thread to be about the positive changes that NYRA is making. I was really up beat they were doing somethings especially the movement toward privatization. To me that was the big news although some people seemed to think it was old news. I hope it actually happens.
I want NY racing to return to the time when it was not only had the best tracks in country, but nobody was even close. It was that way when I started following this sport. It been a while since there has been a wide gap between NY racing and some other places. I want the best horses racing at AQU rather than at GP or SA. If weather was really the issue as to where the best horses run, they all be at Delmar all year long. You can't beat the weather there. I think having great racing in NY is good for racing like the Yankees being good every year is good for MLB. I think the best racing should be where there are the most bettors near by. Even this age of the internet, geography still matters.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Follow along. Bobby claims AQU is less safe than other tracks. That's why I bring up other tracks. I'd like to know just how exactly more unsafe it is (if it is, which I doubt).

Anecdotal evidence isn't very accurate...ever...

What you are saying is that NYRA is wasting its time and money because the inner at AQU is already as safe as anyplace else? The NYRA board and I think otherwise. There are worse tracks than the AQU inner, but there are also safer ones. That is why NYRA is looking at making it safer. If there was no problems what so ever, they would not be looking at it. Their actions speak louder than any chart or anecdotal evidence. I applaud NYRA for looking into the safety of the inner rather just pretending there isn't a problem.

[Gallop58]

Hijacking your thread a bit here, but it's interesting that all this discussion on the NYRA 3 year plan is on the injury stuff Section II, while I would have thought section III f) would get more airtime here....

III. Optimize the racing experience for NYRA customers
a. Improve maintenance and cleanliness of Aqueduct immediately and develop a plan to address relevant concerns at Belmont and Saratoga so that the plan is agreed on prior to their openings in 2013.

b. Employ new technologies and other creative methods to communicate with NYRA customers; cultivate and engage new and existing customers/audiences for all NYRA products.

c. Review list of potential capital improvements and prioritize based on need,affordability and return on investment. For example, prioritize the physical environment needs such as heating at Aqueduct, dormitory improvements at all tracks, improvements for Saratoga 150, “Long Shots” facility, public address systems, televisions and other areas.

d. Make improvements in security to protect racing integrity, wagering security, NYRA visitors and employees.

e. Review concessions, the NYRA website, and the TV operations and strategy.

f. Review options for reducing takeout and expanding wagering menu.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Follow along. Bobby claims AQU is less safe than other tracks. That's why I bring up other tracks. I'd like to know just how exactly more unsafe it is (if it is, which I doubt).

Anecdotal evidence isn't very accurate...ever...

It seems like a post about NYRA own house cleaning and fixing what they think they need to fix, i didnt see anything there that talked about other tracks.