What IF

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by pandy

If Arabian horses rarely break down, it would be fine with me to bet and handicap them instead of thoroughbreds.

Until Arapahoe Park decided to discontinue allowing Arabians and paints to show their stuff, a little research made those races very hittable. Now I have to go to one of the CA Fairs, Delaware, or Texas. Arabians tend to be formful. They also seem to be uninterested in doing a lot of passing in the stretch. I know people who bet hundreds into an Arabian race and would rather bet Arabians than thoroughbreds.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

And one attempt (safer synthetic surfaces) that was actually working and reducing racing fatalities was abandoned for 2 reasons.

1) The poorly laid down track at Santa Anita was flooding after heavy rains because the idiots that installed the drainage system didn't know what they were doing.
The other California tracks that installed the new surface properly did not have this problem and fatalities decreased.

….

I agree. Keenland had a wonderful synthetic surface and the handle actually went down when they went back to dirt.

But the synthetic surface experiment was doomed from the start for one reason: Churchill Downs wanted no part in it. The Kentucky derby is still the race that everyone wants to win.

[Redboard]

Thoroughbreds used to rarely break down . Steve Haskin has written that he never saw a breakdown until Ruffian, but we can’t really categorially say that there are more breakdowns in the 21st century, then there were “back in the day,” because these things were just swept under the rug and records were not kept, because, I guess, bad publicity and fear of litigation. So we went from “once in a blue moon” to “part of the sport.” You don’t need to be an marketing genius to figure out that it’s the number one issue that’s preventing horse racing from getting back into the mainstream and becoming popular again.

After the breakdown of Eight Belles in 2008, they created the Jockey Club Equine Injury Database, to study the issue and try to come up with a solution. Unfortunately not all tracks decided to participate (including the track that the OP works for) but it has helped and through their suggestions, the industry is claiming that their suggestions have reduced the catastrophic breakdown rate by 23% since 2009.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

I'd bet anything breeders had a lot more to do with the return to dirt than anything bettors said or did.

I have no doubt that breeders did have a significant role in getting the tracks to revert back to dirt and yes, tracks often ignore bettors vocal complaints but they are very concerned with handle or what they, correctly or not, think affects that handle. A lot of disgruntled bettors were taking their action elsewhere or were threatening to and the tracks knew or were afraid of that. I don't have the exact figures for declining handle but the tracks had to be concerned with that.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I have no doubt that breeders did have a significant role in getting the tracks to revert back to dirt and yes, tracks often ignore bettors vocal complaints but they are very concerned with handle or what they, correctly or not, think affects that handle. A lot of disgruntled bettors were taking their action elsewhere or were threatening to and the tracks knew or were afraid of that. I don't have the exact figures for declining handle but the tracks had to be concerned with that.

Agreed.

And one can't ignore the financial meltdown which was playing out at the same time tracks were installing synth.

And botched installs at Santa Anita and Del Mar, two high-profile tracks.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Hmmmm...are you citing the only instance sine the beginning of time when bettors actually had some sort of impact on racing management decisions? That can not be...that never happens.

In any event, me thinks you exaggerate a bunch...still more than a few tracks out there running with fake dirt. How did those players adapt?

Tracks may not listen to peoples vocal complaints but they are very sensitive to loss of handle and what they fear, rightly or wrongly, affects that. I have already discussed with cj in an earlier reply.

I am not exaggerating the significant reversal of tracks in their decision to switch surfaces. Initially many tracks concerned with high fatalities and/or days lost due to the weather switched over to the safer all-weather surface. The CHRB even mandated that all major California tracks make this change. Then, in a dramatic reversal, tracks not only stopped changing over, but many, including many Cal. tracks reverted back to dirt. that is no exageration,

I also must point out that your use of the pejorative term "fake dirt" when referring to these surfaces indicates a bias in this issue and weakens the objectivity of your argument.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Tracks may not listen to peoples vocal complaints but they are very sensitive to loss of handle and what they fear, rightly or wrongly, affects that. I have already discussed with cj in an earlier reply.

I am not exaggerating the significant reversal of tracks in their decision to switch surfaces. Initially many tracks concerned with high fatalities and/or days lost due to the weather switched over to the safer all-weather surface. The CHRB even mandated that all major California tracks make this change. Then, in a dramatic reversal, tracks not only stopped changing over, but many, including many Cal. tracks reverted back to dirt. that is no exageration,

I also must point out that your use of the pejorative term "fake dirt" when referring to these surfaces indicates a bias in this issue and weakens the objectivity of your argument.

I don't claim to be objective.

Just curious why there are any such tracks in existence today? There are quite a few...even some places one would consider A-list tracks, like Woodbine and Arlington.

So your reasoning seems, to me at least, to be a little less than objective as well.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I don't claim to be objective.

Just curious why there are any such tracks in existence today? There are quite a few...even some places one would consider A-list tracks, like Woodbine and Arlington.

So your reasoning seems, to me at least, to be a little less than objective as well.

I never said there are no tracks with synthetic surfaces left. What I did say that was that there was a dramatic reversal in the trend towards switching to the surface (none) vs returning to dirt. That's not subjective but objective fact.

[pandy]

Santa Anita's fiasco definitely hurt the synthetic track movement. They really screwed it up. Hollywood Park's synthetic track seemed safer than it's dirt track and the racing was good.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I never said there are no tracks with synthetic surfaces left. What I did say that was that there was a dramatic reversal in the trend towards switching to the surface (none) vs returning to dirt. That's not subjective but objective fact.

But you claim the biggest reason being "unfeeling" handicappers who would rather see horses DIE, then be forced to handicap for a new surface.

How come this hasn't happened at the places that still have synthetic surfaces? Different set of handicappers? Not bloody likely, given the pervasiveness of simulcasting the last number of decades.

So how come some tracks didn't get hit with this "cold-hearted handicapper backlash?"

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

But you claim the biggest reason being "unfeeling" handicappers who would rather see horses DIE, then be forced to handicap for a new surface.

How come this hasn't happened at the places that still have synthetic surfaces? Different set of handicappers? Not bloody likely, given the pervasiveness of simulcasting the last number of decades.

So how come some tracks didn't get hit with this "cold-hearted handicapper backlash?"

Tracks still get a piece of the handle even they're bet by simulcast so they are effected by bettors. In any case, people bet for several reasons . It's not like all tracks were hit by the anti synthetic backlash equally and that thy all reacted to it equally and completely. What matters is the general trend. Why do you make my statements about what many are doing into all are doing.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am only wondering how you come to place a substantial amount of blame on handicappers for tracks abandoning synth surfaces.

Your reasons aren't adding up for me. I would think this would be a universal thing (at least in the USA). Not just some tracks abandoning due to handle drops or just plain capper whine.

Any push back from horsemen at any of these synth abandoners?

I refuse to believe handicappers could ever force a change at any racetrack anywhere for whatever reason...

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by pandy

Santa Anita's fiasco definitely hurt the synthetic track movement. They really screwed it up. Hollywood Park's synthetic track seemed safer than it's dirt track and the racing was good.

Right, the numbers show the same effect at other tracks that installed the safer surface. The main problem where there was a problem was at Santa Anita where it was not installed properly. With their defective drainage system it wouldn't have mattered if the surface was dirt, synthetic or moon dust. That failure was just an excuse to go back to dirt.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I am only wondering how you come to place a substantial amount of blame on handicappers for tracks abandoning synth surfaces.

Your reasons aren't adding up for me. I would think this would be a universal thing (at least in the USA). Not just some tracks abandoning due to handle drops or just plain capper whine.

Any push back from horsemen at any of these synth abandoners?

I refuse to believe handicappers could ever force a change at any racetrack anywhere for whatever reason...

So you think tracks don't care about handle and what they think are affecting it?

You mean that you don't see a major trend unless every single track in the country switched back to dirt? That's an impossible standard.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Right, the numbers show the same effect at other tracks that installed the safer surface. The main problem where there was a problem was at Santa Anita where it was not installed properly. With their defective drainage system it wouldn't have mattered if the surface was dirt, synthetic or moon dust. That failure was just an excuse to go back to dirt.

I certainly feel that had Santa Anita been compelled to do so by the state, they could have figured out the drainage issues.

Remember the same ownership operates GGF. No problems there.