Polytrack has ruined the Derby

[Whirlaway]

Admittedly, school is still out on the poly surface, but across the board, the majority of the facilities are pleased with the surfaces. After reading your references, I think they point that dirt/sand constituted tracks are more dangerous than turf and, even if you think it is a stretch, this newer alternative surface.

NO doubt Shammy, we're still in the testing stage w/this polytrack thing and like you said, the school is still out. With respect to the study, my understanding is that turf is safer than both dirt and poly track. Maybe we should consider switching to turf, it's safer and unifies American racing w/European racing.

As alluded to by Ascot Stud, most tracks have a bias, some more than others. However, I doubt the polytracks will ever have a speed bias. NO doubt and inevitably, the polytrack will come to both Churchill Downs and Belmont Park ... makes me sad just thinking about it. Some call it progress, and maybe so. I'm just glad I went to both and knew both before they changed the game.

[Sysonby]

I wouldn't be too concerned yet Whirlaway. No new track has signed up for synthetic for a while. There is still the question of how expensive this stuff is and how well (or not) it ages. I think tracks like NYRA and CD are in a wait and see mode now.

[reese]

While the debate re polytrack goes on..and on..and on..it appears BETTORS have "spoken":

Sunday, April 20th 2008, 7:10 PM

Business continues to do well lately at Aqueduct, with on-track handle up 3% the last two months and total handle up approximately 10% during the same time period.

The news is quite different at Keeneland, which reported a 17% drop in handle compared to last year halfway through its current spring meeting.

Could the answer be so obvious - that horseplayers are tired of Polytrack and want the return of dirt tracks?


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... races.html[url][/url]

[Shammy Davis]

I wish I could say that it was six of one and a half a dozen of the other, when discussing this issue, but I know that it is not. In another thread, concerning this subject that Louis posted with a link, 80% of SA trainers want to retain the poly surface. For bettors this may be an issue, but for horsemen across the world, this is a no-brainer. Any surface that is consistent, manageable, and reduces injury and fatal breakdowns, thus providing safety to riders, is a plus. Dirt tracks, from facility to facility, are historically not and never will be. From what I've learned, there are multiple combinations of synthetic and synthetic/natural products and amendments available to the horse industry in total. The bettors will adjust. Horses will adjust also. As a retired farrier, equine dentist, and farmer, I often quoted years back, "No hoof, no horse." That's not so simple anymore either. Now its the teeth, suffering from excess manufactured/processed feed and lack of quality grazing. It is horses standing in 10X10 stalls for 22 hours a day on some racetracks that look like they are managed by slum lords. Personally, I believe the horse comes first. Whittingham, Stevens, Lukas, et al, and all the great trainers will tell you the same. The bettors will have to adjust to reading the form when it comes to poly and, of course, the tracks will survive, because the bettors are going to come back. We need to insure that the BARBARO and RUFFIAN incidents are minimized and if not eliminated. Both Woody Stevens and Charlie Whittingham acknowledge frequently that when you look after the horse, the horse takes care of you. The shame of this industry in some respects is that the bettor and race fan never sees scenes of horse care on the backstretch, the farm, and, when injury occurs, the extraordinary efforts or decisions that are made when it comes to the care of these beautiful animals. My perspective is that synthetic surfaces will prevail. The racing world will adjust. The tracks will be safer for horse and rider. The cost of doing business in the long will be decreased. And lastly, the $2 win bet and beyond, will continue to be a losing proposition for 80% of bettors who seek, and in Bill Murray's book is identified as, the "Right Horse." Apparently for Todd Pletcher, BEHINDTHEBAR may not be the right horse. That's ashame, but Todd is a great trainer and if this colt keeps running, I would not be surprised to see him on the dirt. I would not be surprised to see him at CD on the 1st SAT in May. I wouldn't bet on him though, but I a poor "stakes" player anyway. Don't take my advice on this one, my record is dismal.

[bdw0617]

I wish I could say that it was six of one and a half a dozen of the other, when discussing this issue, but I know that it is not. In another thread, concerning this subject that Louis posted with a link, 80% of SA trainers want to retain the poly surface.


For bettors this may be an issue, but for horsemen across the world, this is a no-brainer. Any surface that is consistent, manageable, and reduces injury and fatal breakdowns, thus providing safety to riders, is a plus. Dirt tracks, from facility to facility, are historically not and never will be.


From what I've learned, there are multiple combinations of synthetic and synthetic/natural products and amendments available to the horse industry in total. The bettors will adjust. Horses will adjust also. As a retired farrier, equine dentist, and farmer, I often quoted years back, "No hoof, no horse." That's not so simple anymore either. Now its the teeth, suffering from excess manufactured/processed feed and lack of quality grazing. It is horses standing in 10X10 stalls for 22 hours a day on some racetracks that look like they are managed by slum lords.


Personally, I believe the horse comes first. Whittingham, Stevens, Lukas, et al, and all the great trainers will tell you the same. The bettors will have to adjust to reading the form when it comes to poly and, of course, the tracks will survive, because the bettors are going to come back. We need to insure that the BARBARO and RUFFIAN incidents are minimized and if not eliminated.



Both Woody Stevens and Charlie Whittingham acknowledge frequently that when you look after the horse, the horse takes care of you. The shame of this industry in some respects is that the bettor and race fan never sees scenes of horse care on the backstretch, the farm, and, when injury occurs, the extraordinary efforts or decisions that are made when it comes to the care of these beautiful animals. My perspective is that synthetic surfaces will prevail. The racing world will adjust. The tracks will be safer for horse and rider.


The cost of doing business in the long will be decreased. And lastly, the $2 win bet and beyond, will continue to be a losing proposition for 80% of bettors who seek, and in Bill Murray's book is identified as, the "Right Horse." Apparently for Todd Pletcher, BEHINDTHEBAR may not be the right horse.


That's ashame, but Todd is a great trainer and if this colt keeps running, I would not be surprised to see him on the dirt. I would not be surprised to see him at CD on the 1st SAT in May. I wouldn't bet on him though, but I a poor "stakes" player anyway. Don't take my advice on this one, my record is dismal.

[Mickey the Marcher]

Admittedly, school is still out on the poly surface, but across the board, the majority of the facilities are pleased with the surfaces. After reading your references, I think they point that dirt/sand constituted tracks are more dangerous than turf and, even if you think it is a stretch, this newer alternative surface.

NO doubt Shammy, we're still in the testing stage w/this polytrack thing and like you said, the school is still out. With respect to the study, my understanding is that turf is safer than both dirt and poly track. Maybe we should consider switching to turf, it's safer and unifies American racing w/European racing.

Going to all-turf racing is impractial in the US racing context. Not unless someone invents a grass that be run on 8-10 races a day, 5 days a week. Either that or build three times as many tracks.

[Ill-bred]

As I watch the replay of Blue Grass Stakes, I see 75% of the field struggling with the track, unable to give an account of their true ability. They don't show their speed or show any kind of a move. Heck, if your horse handles the Poly well enough to run around the track evenly, you can probably hit the board in most races at Keeneland.

To me, that is not good racing. Nor is it not a good way to decide who is allowed in the gate in America's most important race.

When the conditions of a race are changed, (i.e. off the turf) the graded stakes committee re-evaluates the grade. I believe this should have been done to all the Polytrack preps. Perhaps less tracks would have jumped on the synthetic bandwagon so prematurely.

Yes the old Keeneland track was bad, but if your defense of the Polytrack is to say, "Well, the old track was bad too," that is not saying much.

[bdw0617]

okay... Yes that was a pretty bad ran race (the coolmore-lexington). But I thought the bluegrass was a pretty WELL ran race.

at some point, some credence has to be given to the actual horses themselves and not the track. maybe the horses in the coolmore-lexington weren't that good... Atoned struggled on dirt, riley Tucker raced probably more poly than any other horse in the field in his life andhasn't won much of anything, his best performance was getting beat by wicked style in arlington last year, and as much as I like Tomcito, he did finish what.. 15ish lengths behind big brown on dirt?

I mean what did you really expect for a race?

[Shammy Davis]

Mickey the Marcher posted:

Going to all-turf racing is impractial in the US racing context. Not unless someone invents a grass that be run on 8-10 races a day, 5 days a week. Either that or build three times as many tracks.

This really dates me, but there was a former PGA Golfer from New Orleans, his name escapes me, who played his best golf in the 50's and 60's and later had a fling on the Senior Tour in the 80's who developed a synthetic grass surface much like you suggest. It was called MOD-SOD. It was used at numerous courses across the country for practice putting surfaces and range tee surfaces. It was really durable, but unlikely to fill the need for a resilient racetrack.

Well that was my stupid memory for the day.

Oh, I remember his name. Fred Haas.

[reese]

I wish I could say that it was six of one and a half a dozen of the other, when discussing this issue, but I know that it is not. In another thread, concerning this subject that Louis posted with a link, 80% of SA trainers want to retain the poly surface.


For bettors this may be an issue, but for horsemen across the world, this is a no-brainer. Any surface that is consistent, manageable, and reduces injury and fatal breakdowns, thus providing safety to riders, is a plus. Dirt tracks, from facility to facility, are historically not and never will be.


From what I've learned, there are multiple combinations of synthetic and synthetic/natural products and amendments available to the horse industry in total. The bettors will adjust. Horses will adjust also. As a retired farrier, equine dentist, and farmer, I often quoted years back, "No hoof, no horse." That's not so simple anymore either. Now its the teeth, suffering from excess manufactured/processed feed and lack of quality grazing. It is horses standing in 10X10 stalls for 22 hours a day on some racetracks that look like they are managed by slum lords.


Personally, I believe the horse comes first. Whittingham, Stevens, Lukas, et al, and all the great trainers will tell you the same. The bettors will have to adjust to reading the form when it comes to poly and, of course, the tracks will survive, because the bettors are going to come back. We need to insure that the BARBARO and RUFFIAN incidents are minimized and if not eliminated.



Both Woody Stevens and Charlie Whittingham acknowledge frequently that when you look after the horse, the horse takes care of you. The shame of this industry in some respects is that the bettor and race fan never sees scenes of horse care on the backstretch, the farm, and, when injury occurs, the extraordinary efforts or decisions that are made when it comes to the care of these beautiful animals. My perspective is that synthetic surfaces will prevail. The racing world will adjust. The tracks will be safer for horse and rider.


The cost of doing business in the long will be decreased. And lastly, the $2 win bet and beyond, will continue to be a losing proposition for 80% of bettors who seek, and in Bill Murray's book is identified as, the "Right Horse." Apparently for Todd Pletcher, BEHINDTHEBAR may not be the right horse.


That's ashame, but Todd is a great trainer and if this colt keeps running, I would not be surprised to see him on the dirt. I would not be surprised to see him at CD on the 1st SAT in May. I wouldn't bet on him though, but I a poor "stakes" player anyway. Don't take my advice on this one, my record is dismal.

Recent news states that " the incidence of injuries on polytrack and dirt is THE SAME". You are using erronous information as your premise as the reason why polytrack is better than dirt.


"At the March summit, Dr. Mary Scollay, the track veterinarian at Calder Race Course and Gulfstream Park, reported on the initial results of information compiled from injury and fatality reports from regulatory veterinarians at 42 racetracks. During the reporting period, there were 244 fatalities from 123,890 starters on dirt, for a ratio of 1.96 per 1,000 starts. For the tracks with synthetic surfaces, the ratio of 58 fatalities from 29,744 starts was 1.95 per 1,000 starts".

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/ ... p?id=44533



The best racing surface is a well maintained DIRT surface . Tracks were sold a "bill of goods" and bought the line low injuries and NO MAINTENANCE. That has proven to be patentedly false. Polytrack requires as much maintenance as dirt. Polytrack is "good" for those third tier tracks that have "potholed" dirt tracks.

Your using SA/CA trainers as the yardstick to evaluate polytrack is also another erronous and specious conclusion. Sure, SA/CA trainers that "tell the truth about polytrack" will find themselves without stall space and all the other amenities they currently enjoy.

Seriously, how could an intelligent person believe that bs about CA trainers and polytrack when SA had virtually NO RACING this spring.
That is just spin becasue several racing entities are FINANCIALLY INVESTED in selling polytrack/cushiontrack or whatever.

The acid test is when Churchill Downs "converts to this stuff....NEVER![url][/url]

[pistol]

, I doubt the polytracks will ever have a speed bias..

Watch Keeneland on a warm day......

As for those thinking poly has ruined the Derby, it seems that it is just some who don't want to adjust to change. As others pointed out, There were always Sinister Ministers, Keats, Millenium Winds, Sweetnorthernsaints, Bellamy Roads.....

[Ill-bred]

, I doubt the polytracks will ever have a speed bias..

Watch Keeneland on a warm day......

As for those thinking poly has ruined the Derby, it seems that it is just some who don't want to adjust to change. As others pointed out, There were always Sinister Ministers, Keats, Millenium Winds, Sweetnorthernsaints, Bellamy Roads.....

It's not a matter of adjusting to change. It's a question of whether it is a positive change or not. I don't think any of us can say for sure right now.

What is the connection with Sweetnorthernsaint and Bellamy Road?

[Shammy Davis]

In reply to Reese, here is the first paragraph of that article you provided the link to:

The number of catastrophic injuries on dirt tracks has gone up while the corresponding number on synthetic surfaces has gone down, according to a revision of a report first given at the March 17 Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit.

It looks to me like you attempted to use facts from the initial report to support your claims, not the revised report article you linked us to. I must be missing something here. Although no dirt tracks have considered switching neither have the tracks using synthetic surfaces decided to switch back. The revised figures as released by the JC and reported in this article showed 2.02 fatalities per 1000 starts on dirt while 1.47 per 1000 starts occurred on synthetic surfaces. Looks like some improvement to me.

Dr. Sollay also said in an interview w/BH that the fatality rates which were revised after review (see above) are just a snapshot in time from a less-than-statistically-significant number of tracks, and cannot be considered scientifically conclusive at this point. Sounds to me like the expert is not ready to stand behind her initial study either.

Reese suggested:

The best racing surface is a well maintained DIRT surface .

I am curious by what horseracing industry standards do you support this statement? Any poor dirt farmer will tell you that soil management is the most expensive, unmanageable, time consuming, part of their work. Landscapers across NA will tell you the same. Golf course superintendents never stop working at dealing with soil problems and lastly, it is one good track superintendent that can keep both his dirt and turf tracks in good condition through a 100 day meet. If you are interested in how much time people spend on the subject of "dirt" call your local Agricultural Extension Agent. You'll probably catch him and his wife at their washing machine washing the dirt out of his work clothes because "in dirt" is where the majority of those fine agents spend their time.

It is apparent you really have no grasp of the management problems, cost, and time involved to maintain a well conditioned safe track for these horses to run over. Further, you misrepresented the article.

[reese]

I misrepresented that article as much as you misrepresented the "alleged" safety of polytrack.

Ask SA how much maintenance Cushion track required....so MUCH MAINTENANCE that SA cancelled racing day after day. At Del Mar last summer, the maintenance staff could not keep the track from being wet in the am to rock hard and baked in the afternoon sun. That track required constant maintenance all day,night,morning.

Dirt in clothing has absolutely NOTHING to do with a dirt racing track. Obvioiusly, YOU haven't investigated the cost of polytrack...10 MILLION and up for INSTALLATION ONLY. THAT is alot of dirt track maintenance expense

[Shammy Davis]

Reese suggested:

I misrepresented that article as much as you misrepresented the "alleged" safety of polytrack.

It is apparent that you can't read. Furthermore, you're from NY and I don't know what first hand knowledge you have about what was going on at Santa Anita. Apparently, the trainers are supportive of the surface that is currently installed. To be honest with you I haven't paid too much attention to SA, but I am familiar with synthetic surfaces and, although I agree that school is still out on the subject, it is my opinion that synthetic and combinations of natural and synthetic surfaces are the future in track and arena design. If you had read "all" my posts thoroughly, which apparently you didn't or couldn't, I provided some resources and information that I am familiar with and have studied that directly relate to training and racing horses over various surfaces. You need to do some homework and research on your own before you go spouting off. If you think I misrepresented the facts, I don't care. The proof is there for everyone to see that you did misrepresent the article to support your claims. Shame. Shame.