Said Mike Harlow, Oak Tree\'s Director of Racing, \"I think (running) time is relative, whether it\'s slow or fast, as long as the horses are staying sound, that\'s the important thing.\"
I am all for the safety of the horses and do not have a problem betting Poly or Synthetic once the vast majority of horses in the race have PP form to go by. But I think as a fan these racing Racing Secretary\'s or Track Presidents are making a big mistake if they feel slowing the sport down drastically to slightly increase safety (and this what the data shows) is visually appealing to the fan they are wrong.
Start slowing down the cars at Daytona to minimize wrecks and fans will not like it. Take 20+ yards off Tigers drives to minimize how many get hit by his slices and fans will not like it. Slow NFL players down to reduce ACL\'s and fans will not like it. Fastballs only travel 80 mph while hitters use noodles to bat with. People view sporting events for speed. This is not figure skating but we can turn it into Equestrain if they want. Or better yet help out Harness Racing like they have never before.
These guys are playing with fire and as Matt Hegarty pointed out the other day in column have only now just organized a study group to analyze what they are doing.
Having said that looking eagerly forward to Oak Tree (hope its a lot like the Hollywood surface) and Ky Cup Day. If I want to dig up some dirt there is always Belmont.
There\'s a lot to this debate. When \'higher ups\' at tracks keep up with the mantra \'we\'re all about safety\' they put themselves in a teflon don position. How can you argue with someone who is looking out for animals?
I think the problem is that this stuff is a \'bandaid\' for a larger, deeper problem. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat. I think that there are many things that racing commissions can do besides changing surfaces that have been basically neglected.
Who\'s to say that instead of spending millions on synthetic surfaces, they spend those same millions on prerace security (i.e 24 or 48 hour detention barns for every horse in every race every day)? Who can quantify which saves more lives? If the sport got rid of the cheats and we had horses who were NOT running on powerful painkillers, maybe we\'d see what a lame horse looks like in the post parade instead of a flawed horse warming up on snake venom who\'s destined to break down in midsetretch.
What the Joe Harper\'s of the world are saying is this. \"the safety of the horses comes first\" but what they MEAN is, \"we don\'t want horses breaking down in front of our young fans who might not come back if they see tragedy right before their eyes\"
If the head honcho\'s of racetracks around this great country are REALLY concerned about creating the safest environment for horses, they need to start by putting a program in place to rid the game of drug cheats. Also, they need a rule on how many times a horse can race per month. There was a horse at Del Mar trained by Mike Marlow that broke down after having like 4 races in a month (not sure the exact numbers, but it was a lot of races in a short span).
There is a lot of contradiction and hypocritical behavior when on the one hand you say, \"im all for safety of the animals thats why we spent millions on a softer racing surface\' but then go permit trainers to enter flawed, cheap claimers more than 3 times per month in order to fill fields to create carryovers.
You can\'t have it both ways. If you are going to shout from the mountaintops about safety, i don\'t want to see a 9 year old horse with large front bandages racing 3 times in a 10 day span just so you can create larger fields to create carryovers.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I think as a fan these racing Racing
> Secretary\'s or Track Presidents are making a big
> mistake if they feel slowing the sport down
> drastically to slightly increase safety (and this
> what the data shows) is visually appealing to the
> fan they are wrong.
>
> Start slowing down the cars at Daytona to minimize
> wrecks and fans will not like it.
Two points:
1. Synthetic surfaces may or may not end up resulting in fewer catastrophic breakdowns in the long run, but it was very important to create the *perception* that racing was \"doing something\" about breakdowns. Because...
2. ...the betting public is without a doubt every bit as turned off by breakdowns as they are by slower races...possibly, even more so. One need look no further than the severe downturn in handle at Arlington Park during their \"Summer of Death\" meet in 2006.
Great points Rick B.
However after recently watching the Del Mar Debutante I got pretty turned off myself. First time starters in a Grade One. Say what???
There have been several greats ones who have won the race such as Serena\'s Song and while there may have been another Serena\'s Song in the race you sure couldn\'t tell by watching.
Even one of the TVG announcers said to the the other, \"You could put your jogging suit on and run home faster than half of these will\". Quote.
imallin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There\'s a lot to this debate. When \'higher ups\' at
> tracks keep up with the mantra \'we\'re all about
> safety\' they put themselves in a teflon don
> position. How can you argue with someone who is
> looking out for animals?
bodercollie said one time here not too long ago that he was cynical about the game in terms of staying ahead of it. This issue is the one that lights me up au maximum. Safety! Who is kidding who? WMD level BS. Unbelievable, Karl Rove level.
Unpatriotic and anti poly? How about pro turf? How about poly training or training LESS? How about the government(s) find another patsy, BUT ESPECIALLY how about not building horses whose muscles are so far ahead of their skeletal system, or breeding to horses that can\'t breathe without help, etc. How about not expecting SIN to finance the Bible Beaters license to kill?
OK,
I know I am near the line here. Ya gotta love America; anyone can own a horse in the US, at least in syndication, so here we are, all in this to-gather? Which actually could have been a talking point for Chuck had he chosen it. Can anyone imagine a BETTING walk out. What if everyone got REAL about the breed, and didn\'t show up for the BELMONT. see what i mean? so here we are. this ain\'t the 60\'s.
I can hear it, No, I don\'t want the one that just 10\'d under tack, I will take the skinny one that has never been under tack! It\'s still a muscle bound world!
So what made you change your board name?
I think you are dramatically overestimating whether people give a damn, in general, about the final time of a horse race.
First, do you actually believe the average fan could perceive the difference between 6f in 110 or 111 3/5? No way.
Second, what does speed have to do with making a race appealing? Go pull out a tape of the 1995 BC Turf and tell me that isn\'t as exciting as a race could be... then check the final time for the 12f. It\'s the relative speed of the race that matters, not the absolute speed.
Third, if I remember correctly, folks pretty much enjoyed Nicklaus, Trevino and Watson without supermanufactured, jacked up clubs; couldn\'t get enough of McEnroe, Borg, and Connors with smallish wooden rackets; and seemed to be excited over Richard Petty\'s \"slow\" racing.
Horse racing is about wagering and winning and I couldn\'t give a damn if the 2007 Pacific Classic went in 2:15 when I have a ticket on the 23-1 winner.
man, I was just thinking the same thing, whew!
Perfect Drift,
The average fan doesn\'t pay the bill.
I do
And yes I can tell the difference \"visually\" between 1:08 and 1:11.
Gimme 1:08 for Grade One runners. Because thats what the Great Ones used to do.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perfect Drift,
>
> The average fan doesn\'t pay the bill.
>
> I do
>
> And yes I can tell the difference \"visually\"
> between 1:08 and 1:11.
>
> Gimme 1:08 for Grade One runners. Because thats
> what the Great Ones used to do.
But what if great ones run a 1:11 on a different surface?
You really shouldn\'t care so much about final times because half the time they\'re the result of the surface anyway.
I think peformance standards matter in our perceptions.
When people were watching the best human milers in the world struggle to beat a 4 minute mile decades ago, they would still get excited because they were the best milers and 4 minutes was an established obstacle.
If we were watching the best milers now and they were struggling with 4 minutes because of the track condition, I think it would take some of the edge off the performance because we are trained to expect faster times. New track records, world records etc....always add to the excitement of a great performance.
The same is true of every sport, but in different ways.
Personally, I can cope with the slower times even though it\'s not quite the same for me either. What I don\'t like seeing is high level horses stagger home through the last quarter mile and the winner being the horse that died the least. You can visually see the difference between horses that are dead tired and horses that may be decelerating a bit, but are still game, extending themselves, and fighting hard.
fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think performance standards matter in our
> perceptions.
I know this is true of me to a very advanced degree.
I am not a breeder, so I don\'t have that concern or perspective - one that I would think should be very concerned about lines that the \"world\" will buy. I am not a trainer, so I don\'t have the concerns about clients, legs, cost of labor etc.,and I don\'t own horses and never have except for small pieces of cheap horses, just for fun a long time ago. I am a horseplayer, and the hook in me for decades has always been at least in significant degree, the match between my nervous system, and my sense of aesthetics, and the pop culture line of a \"need for speed\".
On the other hand, I enjoyed living in Europe for a couple of years, during Nijinsky\'s day, and saw Mill Reef break his maiden one day at Saint Cloud, for Raymond Guest if memory serves, and that\'s a crap shoot. The tempo, the pastoral elegance, the acres of green, etc., as well as the \"cafe\" style of living was awesome and another dimension to me. I lived in Lausanne and Paris for about a year each during my twenties.
When I was in Europe I insisted after enough wine, or even enough kirsch in enough fondue, on imitating Marshall Cassidy\'s calls. Upon return to the states, I bought a Harley and rode it 100,000 miles while normal people were working. So, I understand both fast and slow, Rock and Roll, Jazz, and Classical music.
Theatrical, Manila, but Groovy, Safely Kept, Ghostzapper, Graustark, Devil\'s Bag, and the one that ran 1/5th slower in his Champagne and did not break down, Seattle Slew. I loved them all. Grace, Speed. Both Beautiful.
The Bluegrass and the Pacific Classic were not appealing to my sense of No. American sport, or my inherited cultural bias. If I owned a claiming horse, I would want one like Spooky Mulder, and if I bred horses I would be trying to get one like Ghostzapper, or War Emblem, and I would think I am not alone on that, just as I would admit that seems somehow out of sync with the rest of the world, so I will have to adjust.
I would probably have a renewed sense of \"style\", had I bet Dominican, OR Student Council. But as Bob Seger said, Rock and Roll will never forget, and Poly track ain\'t like rock and roll. When Ghostzapper moved on the turn in the Tom Fool, I tried to describe it to friends that don\'t play, and of course couldn\'t although I thought it was somehow like \"Primetime\" in his Prime; when you got $8.00 to see him LEAD on a track that had water in it, I was thrilled, and the MET confirmed to my parochial mind; this is a cool horse that will get money in the shed.
Polytrack is a let down. How\'s that for science? Or business, or the breed? It\'s just not cool. Speed was cool, and speed that was rateable and reusable, that carried, was AWESOME. Seattle Slew was very cool.
DRF reports two catastrophic breakdowns during training at 2 separate
California tracks.
Drill Down (stakes placed 2YO) fractured cannon bone at Santa Anita.
Latin Rythm (winner El Cajon Stakes) serious sesamoid injury at Hollywood.
Both animals euthanized.
If you think you can handicap on artificial surfaces as well as you can on dirt, then I suggest you\'re not a very good handicapper to begin with.
If you think it doesn\'t matter whether a horse goes in 1:10 or 1:11 3/5, you\'re either a novice or you\'re in the wrong game.
It takes a long, long time to get good at this game. It appears that artificial surfaces will tend to level the playing field. If you think you\'re good at this, why would you want that?
It remains to be seen whether or not it\'s beneficial to the horses, so why the headlong rush?
The only defense the horseplayer has in this game where the deck is stacked against us, is to not bet. I don\'t bet artificial surfaces. If it proves to be the wave of the future,then I\'ll have to either accept it or get out. For the time being, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Del Mar et al can go to hell.
Bally Ache Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you think you can handicap on artificial
> surfaces as well as you can on dirt, then I
> suggest you\'re not a very good handicapper to
> begin with.
>
> If you think it doesn\'t matter whether a horse
> goes in 1:10 or 1:11 3/5, you\'re either a novice
> or you\'re in the wrong game.
>
> It takes a long, long time to get good at this
> game. It appears that artificial surfaces will
> tend to level the playing field. If you think
> you\'re good at this, why would you want that?
>
> It remains to be seen whether or not it\'s
> beneficial to the horses, so why the headlong
> rush?
>
> The only defense the horseplayer has in this game
> where the deck is stacked against us, is to not
> bet. I don\'t bet artificial surfaces. If it
> proves to be the wave of the future,then I\'ll have
> to either accept it or get out. For the time
> being, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Del Mar et al can
> go to hell.
I don\'t want to to sing the blues in public, but I very much identify with this message or rather its author\'s point de vue. I will go so far as to confess in public forum that I always knew, from the early sixties, to this very day off, that the racing surfaces that facilitated feeding the hungry were the ones that were hard on horses. One very significant to me reason that I was distraught about not being able to send Bear Now, was that the track was conducive to
1) Her need to clear, and her apparent on video ability to do so, as well as her winning if she did, but
2) I can\'t tell why I should believe she will like the track, something I didn\'t have to worry about for 40 years.
The key to \"staying ahead of this game\" has been since I was born, sending speed on surfaces that will carry it, in pace scenarios that favored it, with horses that were best and or had the best of it. I say that without fear of genuine contradiction, from anyone that has always been on the grandstand side. If you had control of a horse, trained a horse, attended to a horse\'s health, you can have a valid point of dispute.
D. Wayne, young Todd, Mr. Silver Charm himself, and many of the rest of us have found it more than a little disconcerting that racetracks that \"eat speed for a first course\" are thought de riguer. My first commonsensical answer is to come to a performance figure, something I never dreamed of doing. In accepting that, I now see the turf and other things as possible, if not as cool or CONTROLLABLE, or to my immediate liking. I am trying to take a page out of K-Mac\'s book; calm acceptance. It\'s been a learning experience, among other things to notice how much I wanted to use my spear, as opposed to the fly rod that would get Student Council, for instance, or believe that Bear Now was leveraged at the price; she had about a 50% chance from WO to a firm surface so why wasn\'t 8/1 a steal?
I see in front of my eyes now, the potential of staying ahead of the turf cuties,
and \"booking up\" on the Europeans, so as to better anticipate events here and abroad. Two years ago I was damn near suicidal about this polytrack thing at a place that gave you several plays a meet, inside/front. It was interesting to me Sunday PM, while waiting on my wife to call me back, to play the Derby workup for the race after Sinister Minister\'s Bluegrass. It apparently played to an audience that wasn\'t counted on to know that his scenario couldn\'t be repeated at CD, under any conditions. I put that is the same bucket as I did Jerry defending a moving variant in Vegas. I couldn\'t believe there could be serious discussion given how we have had to fight that, forever.
Didn\'t anyone ever play a drying out track? Or one that got a gust, or or...
Wow, I thought if this is news to anyone, what can they tell me that I don\'t know?
On television, during the 24 hours of Aug that this product was front and center, I realized how to win, without surface in your pocket, and given the fact that the money moves from event to event now, as Davidowitz noted in column this summer, you can\'t memorize every surface, every horse in NY, every move in the city and win. You have to take it on the road, and this fig will make sure you get home in time, if you keep your attitude right. I feel ya,
skip
I would rather have had the 8/1 in the top slot for Bear Now, than the 11/1 return that Jerry said he got for Shakespeare\'s win, with Kip Deville and Galantas. That\'s why I feel this message about the synthetics, but my response is meant to cheer the handicapper. There is hope.
The dope thing is beyond myspeak, for exactly the reasons that Richie stated at the bottom of his reasoning earlier today. I got married to this thing a long time ago, too late for a D. Vorce. I would be willing to boycott, should the brothers WITH AMMUNITION ask. I love horses, and I do have a slightly guilty conscience about SENDING them so often in my life. Not as sensitive as Jerkens, but on that page, and if I lived with them, I would starve, because I couldn\'t ask them up close like he has to, finally.
I\'m thinking maybe the only way to change laws or regulations will end up being lawsuits- it seems to be the only way real reform happens in this country.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having said that looking eagerly forward to Oak
> Tree (hope its a lot like the Hollywood surface)
> and Ky Cup Day. If I want to dig up some dirt
> there is always Belmont.
Silver Charm:
So, after this 44 - 1:08 in the third, what do you think?
Actually, like the man said, I am not sure time is that important;
in other words I am not convinced that this means it\'s easy. er.
Tinkering still, and as far as energy distribution (pace implications), I still don\'t get it. I am not having a REVELATION here.
When I see reruns of this deal, if I see a horse move twice to any distinguishable degree I will call that if not a revelation, a relief. The person I always want to see interviewed about surface is Richie Migliore. I believe the Mig on exactly these issues. When he said you can\'t move twice on Poly, I thought that was very succinct, so I published at another site that while he might be on different types due to his historically gate readiness and hustling or active style, he would get that kind and so was stuck in San Diego, but I assured my neighbors that he \"understood\". I want a word from the Mig! b4 getting excited about SA on time alone.
skip