http://hoofcare.blogspot.com/2009/10/video-breeders-cup-prompts-instrumented.html
Thought this interesting but scientific article would be interesting fodder to start the debate again....
Is it safer or not? Can you wager or not?
NCT
Scientific??
This was a 3 horse sample.
I need pre-entries, post positions, Sheets, and a DRF. Not a new hypothesis before the biggest two days of racing of the year.
Europeans and Santa Anita based runners is about all you need to know once you have all of the above.
That\'s terrific. Watch the three views: synthetic, dirt, turf - for just the following thing (although there is more to it than just one parameter)
See how much the hoof slides forward and around, and doesn\'t plant soundly, on dirt? That\'s bad, bad, bad, bad ...
Notice by contrast how the hoof \"sticks\" on turf, but synthetic has a tad more give than turf, yet is far more stable than dirt. That\'s exactly why synthetics were invented.
I\'m not sure the \"stick\" on synthetic is a good thing. I had one good horse of mine who\'s ankles just got chewed up from training on the synthetic at Fair Hill every day. Maybe it is better to slide a little bit instead of sticking like velcro with every step.
What do you mean by \"chewed up\" - rundown?
They do slide a bit on synthetics, that\'s the point. These surfaces were created based upon physics, to try and optimize the hoof-surface interface.
The video simply shows good examples of how the hoof interaction differs for the different surfaces.
Certainly also depends upon which synthetic surface one is talking, of course, they are not all the same.
Dirt tracks are not \"natural\", they are man-made: created out of clay and sand and a variety of soil types depending upon location, because turf can\'t stand up to the wear. Anything we can do to find out what is safest and best for the horses - dirt of a certain type (and we all know they vary), one of the synthetics - is what we need to do.
We used to race early TB\'s over long distances, often in heats. In modern racing we ask them to race harder, much faster, over shorter distances. That style of running contributes to bleeding, contributes to breakdowns.
I\'m in favor of gymnasts and track athletes having custom surfaces for their sports, and horses, too.
I think the vet described the ankle wear as remodeling and lots or cartilage breakdown. Ths filly was lightly raced but worked and even galloped every day on the Tapeta. Seems my trainer who was a real hay and oats guy had lots of leg and hind end ailments with his horses training on that stuff year round. I\'ve heard from other trainers too stabled on synthetic tracks who have similar complaints. Personally now I won\'t have one of mine train on the stuff. I\'ll ship in and race on it but not train on it every day. I\'m also leaning to private track training center type places where the horses can have the opportunity to gallop fast clockwise every other day so they are not making 5 million left turns and get out of balance. At the big tracks you\'ll see them maybe jog the wrong way for a bit on the outside rail, but not be able to gallop fast the wrong way to get that strength on both sides. What do you think of that? I might be wrong but that\'s the way I\'m leaning after having to retire some quality lightly raced horses.
An accurate and often quoted fact is that last year on the Pro Ride no winners had their final prep on dirt.
However, be careful using that fact in your handicapping as (in addition to being a very limited sample) runners with a final dirt prep represented 28% of the total starters on the main track and 28% of the runners who finished in the supers. Of course since they had no winners they made up 38% of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place finishers.
Martoon,
I dislike synths period, however owner friends on the West Coast swear that their horses are staying generally sounder on synths.Many West coast trainers praise the surface when it\'s not too hot, too wet and whatever else.Similar to your experience others have attributed all sorts of \"new\" issues with their horses that were training on some type of synth.
Maybe it\'s all just random and horses that are prone to issues will have them regardless of which surface they train/race on.
Mike
I think polytrack (from what I\'ve observed in KY directly) does build a horse stronger in their back, hind end (not legs) - thus that\'s where issues can present.
I have a hard time attributing bone or cartilage wear to synthetics, as the impact force is less than dirt (that was in the posted YouTube video, too)
Think of yourself training (jogging, running) on a good indoor synthetic professional track, versus running outside on asphalt. Different types of injuries. Also, speed vs marathoners - different injuries.
I don\'t see many having success shipping in to race on Poly from dirt - may work better on Tapeta or ProRide. Turf to Poly works well. I would expect alot of muscle soreness after a race like that.
I think you are absolutely right about the advantages of private training centers for variety in work, both directions developing a more even muscular strength, keeping a horse balanced, head down and extended in it\'s stride, relaxed with turnout, taking them for trail rides or gallops on grass, etc.
If I see alot of sore backs in horses, I wonder who the exercise riders are in the am.
The back, the spine - from the head carriage back to the tail - is key. It\'s what everything else muscular works around.
Watch horses go around with their backs up and rounded (strong), their heads and necks down, the rider light in the saddle - versus horses going around with their heads stuck up in the air, their necks looking upside down, their backs hollowed, and the ex rider bumping along and slamming into the back with every stride.
(a reason why some horses improve in different claiming trainers barns - the ex riders can do wonders)
Another pet peeve of mine: ponying. I don\'t like to see the horse with it\'s head elevated, it\'s body all crooked. Not easy to get a ponied horse relaxed and kept in control without holding it\'s head in a certain place, but I hate to see warmups like that.
The video was interesting. Did they say which synthetic surface they were showing? The root of the problem with synthetics is that the hoof sticks as you can see; that\'s very bad - if you\'ll notice, the hoof slides on the dirt and the force of impact is spread out more. On synthetics the force comes back into the horse\'s bones. On grass you have a similar situation to synthetics, but horses have been running on grass much longer and they have learned how, if you will, and I would suspect many, though not all grass courses, have more cushion just naturally built in with the depth of the grass. Also a horse with a wide hoof and one who is more adept at running over the grass would have fewer problems, and it is no surprise that those type of runners do well on both grass and synthetics.
The real bottom line with synthetics in California is you now have a large group of very inferior runners who, for whatever reason, have migrated to the synthetics; they are far inferior in quality to other circuits that have dirt racing and the situation is only getting worse and worse. Yeah, part of the cause of the problems was the rampant drug usage in California, so you can\'t totally blame synthetics, but the only real evidence of the success or failure of synthetics at Santa Anita in this case you really need look at is the quality of racing.
Did you check out the cards this meet? Oak Tree has historically been one of the best meets of the year (anywhere in the world) and the racing now is a complete joke: short fields, crippled horses, horses off long, long layoffs and so many cheap races. It is an absolute disgrace. All the worst horses who are only a few steps away from the truck to the slaughter houses in Mexico race at Santa Anita. Maybe you\'ll get one or two interesting competitive races on a weekend card, but the average weekday card at Oak Tree is full of cheap, boring, non-competitive races. There is nothing to intellectually challenge you in any way. There\'s no way to save this product. It\'s way too late. I mean I\'m going to have to find something else to do with my life. That\'s a challenge b/c I\'ve basically been involved in racing since the mid 70\'s when I was only a teenager. I went from the days of California racing when it was strong to grossing about 600-700K a year (on a modest investment of say 20-30K) to about 50K this year. I have no funds withheld by the IRS this year for the first time in my adult life. The betting is impossible and churning is now non-existent. I can\'t believe I\'m the only one either. In fact, I know I\'m not. I was pretty stupid and hung in there long time, but I should have been smarter. You know my grand ego loved the high roller treatment I used to get, so I ignored all the warning sings that things were going downhill, and by the time the full impact hit me I was toast. I really want to hear (as someone in this thread posted) who these moronic trainers/owners are who are supposedly are praising this surface b/c no one seriously involved in the game I\'ve ever spoken with has ever said one good thing about synthetics. Yeah, enjoy the Breeder\'s Cup but hold a funeral for California racing afterwards b/c it is OVER. There is no debate on that. Hollywood Park will be condos and Santa Anita will be a mall or a golf course in our lifetimes. Maybe they\'ll keep Del Mar standing as a museum or homage to Bing Crosby or have concerts and craft fairs in the facility.
Dana....
Wow, I really didn\'t think it was that bad out west, but you very eloquently described the eventual downfall of racing. When players like yourself are as dispirited about racing as I have seen, maybe racing\'s days are numbered sooner than we all think.
Did you get a load of Alex Waldrops last NTRA Blog Post, Racing Future is Bright? Oh really? I am sure I can go back to posts and debates I had years ago about this, and people thought I was just being negative. Consolidation is needed. fewer racing dates, better quality (See HONG KONG).
I love racing. I wants things to change for the better. I also wanted synthetics to work. I am looking at synths as a completely different surface, but cannot help play it more like turf racing> The stuff can have a bias, but it comes and goes quick, and you better adjust right (and quick) as they disappear as quick as they materialize (my opinion). I am convinced, I miss dirt racing.
Racing never did anything to help bring in new fans during my years of growing up. Anyway....
QuoteThe video was interesting. Did they say which synthetic surface they were showing?
Yes, at the start it says the video was shot at Keeneland (and shows the track/grandstand), thus Polytrack.
QuoteThe root of the problem with synthetics is that the hoof sticks as you can see; that\'s very bad - if you\'ll notice, the hoof slides on the dirt and the force of impact is spread out more
Whoa - respectfully, no, that\'s backwards. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the measurements in the video clearly show how the above assumption is wrong.
The very problem synthetics primarily address is that yes, that the hoof does slide around alot more on dirt, as you say - but
that instability is what is extremely dangerous.You can see it in the video of dirt, with the hoof sliding, eventually sliding to an abrupt stop, and the pastern, fetlock/ankle, lower leg (cannon) wiggling all over the place while the horses weight carries over it.
Also notice the difference in breakover (the circular roll forward) on dirt vs synthetic vs turf. The synthetic is very smooth, the dirt is abrupt, jerky.
The manner in which synthetics absorb the force without the foot sliding all over the place is exactly what they were designed to do. That is what makes them
safer.
That force is not spread around on dirt, and that force is clearly higher on dirt than on Polytrack. It can be clearly seen on the graphs within the video that measure the impact force off the horseshoe.
Go to 1:48 in the video, where the graphs start, and you will see the following:
Synthetic:
vertical force peak at about 12 N/kg, spread over about 250 milliseconds.
Dirt:
vertical force peak at about 16-17 N/kg (markedly higher), spread over less than 200 milliseconds.
Turf:
vertical force peak at about 18-19 N/kg (higher yet), spread over slightly longer time than dirt.
The synthetic clearly decreases the force, and spreads it over a longer time, than any of the three surfaces. Dirt has increased force, spread over shorter time period.
Some excellent, often overlooked points made here ... (IMO) One cant say enough about quality exercise riders and being able to gallop in both directions is also key. Horses have a dominant side and if its not going left ... oh well ... Nvr thought about the ponying angle but often wondered why its not used in Europe but is mandated in this country. Although I did feel bad this past weekend for the one guy who had to walk the horse to the gate up at Woodbine ... Its funny as the more I learn about the horse the less I should wager ... But wager I will !!!
Thanks for posting the video Sight - a fantastic visual aid for beginning to understand the different type of footings .
The new surfaces seem to be in their infancy stages imo and constantly will need to be \"tweaked \" so as not to make them to \"sticky\" or to \"slippery \" either .
The way I see it , the ( breakdown/ injury ) data is there for how the new surfaces are performing and should be looked at .
This was the study to which the blogger was referring (notice the conclusion):
Abstract
American Journal of Veterinary Research
October 2009, Vol. 70, No. 10, Pages 1220-1229
doi: 10.2460/ajvr.70.10.1220
Hoof accelerations and ground reaction forces of Thoroughbred racehorses measured on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces
Jacob J. Setterbo, BS; Tanya C. Garcia, MS; Ian P. Campbell, DVM; Jennifer L. Reese, DVM; Jessica M. Morgan, BS; Sun Y. Kim, DVM; Mont Hubbard, PhD; Susan M. Stover, DVM, PhD
Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616. (Setterbo); J. D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616. (Garcia, Reese, Morgan, Kim, Stover); Santa Lucia Equine Veterinary Associates, 1924 W Hwy 154, Santa Ynez, CA 93460. (Campbell); Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616. (Hubbard)
Supported by grants from the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, the Southern California Equine Foundation, and the Center for Equine Health with funds provided by the State of California pari-mutuel fund and contributions by private donors.
Presented in part at the Veterinary Orthopedic Society Conference, Sun Valley, Idaho, March 2007; the International Conference on Equine Locomotion, Cabourg, France, June 2008; and the Annual Convention of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, San Diego, December 2008.
The authors thank Tara Johnson for racehorse and personnel management, Ellen Jackson for donating racehorses to the study, Dr. Amy Kapatkin for kinematic assistance, and Dr. Neil Willits for statistical consultation.
Address correspondence to Mr. Setterbo (jjsetterbo@ucdavis.edu).
Objective—To compare hoof acceleration and ground reaction force (GRF) data among dirt, synthetic, and turf surfaces in Thoroughbred racehorses.
Animals—3 healthy Thoroughbred racehorses.
Procedures—Forelimb hoof accelerations and GRFs were measured with an accelerometer and a dynamometric horseshoe during trot and canter on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces at a racecourse. Maxima, minima, temporal components, and a measure of vibration were extracted from the data. Acceleration and GRF variables were compared statistically among surfaces.
Results—The synthetic surface often had the lowest peak accelerations, mean vibration, and peak GRFs. Peak acceleration during hoof landing was significantly smaller for the synthetic surface (mean ± SE, 28.5g ± 2.9g) than for the turf surface (42.9g ± 3.8g). Hoof vibrations during hoof landing for the synthetic surface were < 70% of those for the dirt and turf surfaces. Peak GRF for the synthetic surface (11.5 ± 0.4 N/kg) was 83% and 71% of those for the dirt (13.8 ± 0.3 N/kg) and turf surfaces (16.1 ± 0.7 N/kg), respectively.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The relatively low hoof accelerations, vibrations, and peak GRFs associated with the synthetic surface evaluated in the present study indicated that synthetic surfaces have potential for injury reduction in Thoroughbred racehorses. However, because of the unique material properties and different nature of individual dirt, synthetic, and turf racetrack surfaces, extending the results of this study to encompass all track surfaces should be done with caution.
The bold type is mine. That conclusion is not much to be basing mandates on, don\'t you think? You seem to have a much better grasp of the physics that I certainly would. I was basing my point on what I observed only. On dirt the hoof slides and the dirt flies in the opposite direction when it strikes the dirt, on synthetic the hoof sticks right there, I don\'t see how the energy isn\'t sent right back through the hoof into the horse\'s leg in an unnatural or exaggerated way. Also, with the dirt, the horse digs in more and pushes off much better (sliding less) which would seem to indicate (as I have observed) that they would feel more confident on dirt and much less secure on synthetics, often leading to poor performances for horses who don\'t handle the stuff. I know after you run on Hollywood for a few months, the wax wears off and the track gets very slippery on the outside paths. Anyway, the sliding on synthetic seems to be at the push off, the opposite of dirt where the sliding is at impact. In any event, thanks for the physics lesson. I never could get through it in college.
\"Did you get a load of Alex Waldrops last NTRA Blog Post, Racing Future is Bright? Oh really? I am sure I can go back to posts and debates I had years ago about this, and people thought I was just being negative. Consolidation is needed. fewer racing dates, better quality (See HONG KONG)\"
Tony,
You point is very significant. Here\'s a guy,Wal-Dope,heading the NTRA,without a clue as are most of the racing execs. How can you be CEO of a business and be so out of touch with your customers/reality.
Mike
Not nearly enough benefit from synths to justify the upheaval they have caused.Some of the best horses won\'t come to the worlds premier race day, some players have refused to gamble on it or have reduced their play.The soundness issues really no better. Wheres the real upside to this garbage surface?
The synth experiment must be classified a failure,so far,in the \"big picture\" of racing.The clueless knee jerk reacting racing execs do it again, they f--k up.Racing is mainly a gambling venue and until it is run by casino type exec\'s, it will never prosper.
Mike
Miff-- the question is who Waldrop\'s customers (constituents) are. As far as I can tell he is representing a) the old white guys in Lexington (who are also on the boards of many tracks),whose agenda is simply to keep the feds out, and b) himself-- raising his own profile.
amen, brother!
True JB,but his function is to advance all aspects of racing. I\'ll guarantee you that if you speak to any Racing Exec about the game, they won\'t mention gambling once, it\'s like they are embarrassed by the word.
QuoteThe bold type is mine. That conclusion is not much to be basing mandates on, don\'t you think? You seem to have a much better grasp of the physics that I certainly would.
I don\'t see where anybody is embracing this as a mandate for anybody. It is what it is, an excellent starting point for accumulating more physical data.
I think one also has to look at the physics and data surrounding synthetic surfaces over the last 10-20 years, too, no? The reasons WHY synthetics were invented? There have historically been very serious breakdown problems on dirt surfaces, and the search is for change - surfaces - that help solve those difficulties. Synthetics - and there are a variety with different properties, they obviously are not all the same - certainly fit right in there.
QuoteI was basing my point on what I observed only. On dirt the hoof slides and the dirt flies in the opposite direction when it strikes the dirt, on synthetic the hoof sticks right there, I don\'t see how the energy isn\'t sent right back through the hoof into the horse\'s leg in an unnatural or exaggerated way.
The force studies show clearly how the above assumption is incorrect. That\'s why we do scientific studies - to factually measure that which we think about :-)
Why do you think dirt \"flys in the opposite direction\" when a hoof goes down into it? Because the hoof is sliding forward continually in an uncontrolled manner, pushing that dirt out ahead of the hoof. It\'s literally \"stubbing one\'s toe\" against the dirt. When the lower leg is striking contact in an uncontrolled manner, on an unstable surface, things torque, things get stretched and rotated, things break.
When thinking about the force of a hoof strike on synthetic, and that force going back up the horses body, don\'t forget that the properties of the synthetic surface are what dissipates that force, and lessens it, compared to dirt.
One also has to have a little biomechanical knowledge, of what happens to the mass of the horse rocketing over the plant of the foot (where the impact forces come from)
Thanks go to NC Tony for posting the video.
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks go to NC Tony for posting the video.
Thanks go to you sight as well, for always injecting facts into these debates. The facts are often conspicuously missing.
Sight...
On average, don\'t you think these thoroughbreds are incredibly fragile and not really designed to handle the rigors of tough racing and training? It seems like it\'s \"when\" not \"if\" these things with ankles tendons and knees and feet start causing problems and often it is very early in their careers. All these little ouchies seem to me what causes the bounces more than any kind of general tiredness or wind issues I would assume. Would you agree? With the care and nutrition these horses receive they should be able to recover energy wise in two or 3 weeks to race effectively i would think. Is grass racing on the whole safer? Do quarterhorses and trotter-pacers have anywhere near the leg problems these thoroughbreds have? it sure is tough to own these guys when they are always getting ankle and knee sore or chronic injuries. Also do you think the torque or running the turns on synthetic is different than the dirt turns where the is some give in the ground?
Thanks - NoCarolinaTony . BC Debate and Banter ? It seems half the field in this Saturdays Lexus Raven Run is on a surface switch - definitely shopping for a price in that one ...
Michael
You couldn\'t be more right.
NCT
Well, they certainly have a mandate in California -- state law - and that was before any serious research had even been done, back in 2005-2006.
As I said I\'m no physics aficionado, but I\'m still not buying that observation/result that the impact is reduced (what that study really says is they know for a fact horses run slower on synthetics, the rest is speculation regarding reduction of injuries), and I know what I saw, albeit in a few seconds of that video. The energy is moving right back into the horse\'s front leg - that can\'t be good. Better if the dirt slides a little bit and moves some of that energy away. And don\'t even mention the rear ends. How about all the slipping there? They have a hard time grabbing and pushing off on synthetics, and the rear-end injuries have been documented quite clearly since the advent of synthetics in Southern California - we know that. They need to grab and push off with their back legs to feel confident and so many horses just won\'t run on the synthetic tracks because they don\'t feel confident.
The bottom line is, as far as Southern California goes, the mandate of synthetic tracks has been a disaster. They only did it in the first place to cover their asses: They had so many horses breaking down because of the rampant illegal and legal at the time (steroids) drug usage. They had all these ruined animals and they blamed it on the dirt surface because they couldn\'t open themselves up to people finding out the truth of why the horses were really breaking down. They had all these unscrupulous trainers and greedy owners, and no matter what evidence might have been revealed in the little drug testing they did, they kept covering it up and/or imposing minor penalties, and then the chickens came home to roost as a Malcolm X once said.
Honestly, if I have to convince you of this point, you haven\'t been seriously involved in California racing or not watching too closely over the years.
You\'re certainly entitled to dislike artificial surfaces for no other reason than you want to, but sorry - one can\'t disregard what that study clearly shows, and pretend the results were not exactly what they were.
Scientific results and reasoning has nothing at all to do with if one\'s opinion likes what the results are, or not.
Chronic anabolic steroid use has little to nothing to do with breakdowns. Grasping onto eliminating steroids was nothing but a knee-jerk PR response on the part of some of the racing industry. It\'s a very good thing that overuse is eliminated, but that won\'t affect breakdown rates over time.
There was quite a bit of physics and racetrack surface information available about the various synthetics before CA went to them.
For no other reason than I want to??? Hmmmmmmmm. . .what about all those other points I made in about 10,000 posts in this forum on the subject over the years? You\'re being sarcastic, and I\'m missing it, right? God, I hope so. And anabolic steroids have nothing to do with breakdowns??? How about milk-shakes, do they have anything to do with breakdowns? What about the plethora of other illegal substances all those super trainers out in So. Cal used without any real consequences? So, let\'s take a hurting animal who needs a few months on the farm and numb his legs, give him steroids, and then a nice milk-shake to top it off - he\'ll run off the screen until his legs fall off - that was the formula for success by all these greedy f-ing trainers and owners and everyone closed their eyes because we don\'t want to offend the owners -- after all, they pay the bills, right -- no jackasses, the gamblers pay the bills, without us there is no game -period. Without the gamblers, you\'ve got the Far Hills steeplechases and the races down in Aiken South Carolina. Back to the animal in question, when his legs do fall off ship him to Mexico on a truck and serve him up for dinner somewhere in Europe. But the problem was really the dirt tracks - that\'s why the horses kept breaking down or had career ending injuries. It\'s the way we do things in America - let\'s say, we have a huge problem, so let\'s first avoid the problem, sweep it under the rug, make sure the right people cash out while we spend tons of money on some other solution that masks the problem and hope (know) the people are just too stupid to know the difference.
I think I\'ll stick with my years of professional equine veterinary experience and knowledge when it comes to the actual effects of particular drugs in horses, the causes of injury and breakdown, and the physics of synthetic surfaces.
\"I think I\'ll stick with my years of professional equine veterinary experience and knowledge when it comes to the actual effects of particular drugs in horses, the causes of injury and breakdown, and the physics of synthetic surfaces.\"
That\'s easier than addressing any of my points, right? Just tell me one thing I said that isn\'t true -what aspect of that scenario I described in my last post doesn\'t really happen?
No personal offense intended (I don\'t even know you), but experts with years of professional experience are what got us into this mess to begin with. Not just in racing but in all matters of the US economy, health care, education, any area you want to name. What professional folks with years of experience do is usually a)cover their asses b)insure they always get paid and the hell with whether or not they actually solve anyone else\'s problems. It is a rare person in your position who actually stands up and calls the corruption by it\'s rightful name and speaks truth to power -- people seldom challenge anything that pays their bills. Where are all the racing writers, TVG/ESPN commentators, etc. who have ever spoken up against the drugs/corruption in racing??? As far as I can tell, Jerry Brown is one of the only people in a position of power to challenge the drug usage in California - where\'s everyone else? I think Stan Bergstein also wrote many columns on the subject - there\'s nothing they can really do to him and Jerry\'s independent, but where\'s everyone else??? I am supposed to trust the experts? You\'re kidding right?
Again, no offense to you personally, but the Vets are some of the worst offenders - you really think the owners/trainers could get away with what they have without the support of the Vets? You\'re going to have to come up with something better than that.
I have a feeling my experience counts for something, too. Playing So. Cal. for about 15 years 3-4 days per week. Watching countless hours of videos, getting to know each horse and knowing what they are and are not capable of and seeing some things over the years that really blew my mind. It\'s always the same comment, too, \"how do they get away with that stuff?\" Think of the impact when I check out of this game: say 3-4 sets of sheets per week, racing forms, concessions at the track, the take out to the track, the money in the pools for the other betters (too often the case!) -- all this and more is gone. You wouldn\'t want to know how many six-figure payoffs I was beaten out of by a juiced up animal, even some that were later proven to be in violation! How do I get that money back? What\'s the effect of that amount of money taken away from a player like me who is going to churn 90% back into the pools? You think I\'m the only one? I\'m not. There are probably hundreds of people like me each year who are now in the process of withdrawing from the game. Now, where\'s the future? You think having rock bands play after the races is going to attract new fans to replace players like me? Go back to my original prediction, Hollywood Park will be luxury homes and Santa Anita a golf-course or something. You\'ll see it.
Dana,
I\'ve gone back and forth on synthetic surfaces, but now find them useful. The debate is far from over however, and I agree with your take on the Cal mandate. Just curious though ...
You wrote the following a while back. What made you turn so negative on synthetic surfaces?
\"In the past, I\'ve been very skeptical of the Polytrack panacea, however, after wagering on Woodbine and Turfway recently, I have to say I\'m very impresseed at the fairness of the surface.
My best advice is to handicap the races just like they look without any preconcieved bias. Inside/out/speed/closers, it does not matter. The best horse usally wins.
I think people are going to be very happy if they give it a chance.
A few key points - horses MUST be fit as it is a tiring surface. Look especially for horses who\'ve trained well over it. Though Keenland is a short meet, a very solid angle is a horse who runs first time polytrack and doesn\'t bounce from previous numbers, they usually improve dramatically second time. Horses with good action, efficient movers, do very well on Polytrack.
It\'s a very forgiving surface and most horses will perk up on it noticeably. Of course, times will be MUCH slower so note that also. One note I\'m interested in looking into is horses who train on Polytrack and run on conventional tracks, my guess is they will do very well, but there seems to be a limited amount of examples.
I can\'t wait till Southern Cal goes all Polytrack. Hollywood this fall should be terrific with their super grass course and Polytrack. I wish Santa Anita would get moving faster then they are.
Bottom line, it\'s a great help for the ailing thorobred industry. There is no reason for anyone to worry about this trend. Give it a try, observe some races, tread lightly at first. You won\'t be sorry.\"
You see, I\'m not really a skeptical person by nature. I do like to embrace new ideas! Man, that must have been 2005-06 or thereabouts? Right? When was that post? It only took me 4 years of frustration and about 400-500K in losses to see the light. I\'m just like anybody else, you know? The second day they had synthetics in California (Hollywood Park) I won 100K on about a $360 investment. I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread! I would say that post must have been Fall of 2006. I had a great teacher of mine once tell me the one area where human logic is so completely inept is linking cause/effect!
I will say this in my humble defense. In places where they have a healthy industry, like Canada, Ireland, England (for example) they get along better with synthetic tracks because they have more honest racing, and more horses in general, better trainers, less illegal drugs, and in colder climates, polytracks are a bit tighter. I would not say polytrack has been a disaster in Woodbine as it has in California, but the Canadian racing industry is so much stronger and there are so many other factors to be considered. It is just one piece of the puzzle, and in case you can\'t tell, I can get a little emotional, and perhaps see that one piece as either all good or all bad. Boy, I wish I could turn back the clock to that post. If I only knew what was coming down the line, I would have taken a sabbatical on the Amalfi coast for a few years. I could have stepped back into the game today with my brain, soul, and bank accounts in tact. I guess hindsight is 20/20.
For the sake of the argument I\'ll post the ten biggest problems/issues with synthetic tracks.
I\'ll chime in later in the year, after we see how the BC goes, and after we start to get some \'09 statistics on synthetic surfaces. I\'ll definitely keep an open mind.
For now though, as we head into the BC period, it might be better if we shift the conversation towards handicapping. Nobody wants visit this forum over the next two weeks and find nothing but posts whining about synthetic surfaces.
Additionally, just to look at the quality of racing this weekend, for example, at Santa Anita really underscores the failure of any attempts they have made to address the problems they face. Keep in mind this is during the Oak Tree meeting and a Breeder\'s Cup season to boot. Tell me if you think these cards indicate the health of a racing product?
Sat 9-24
Race 1 - CLAIMING $20,000 – $18,000
Purse $17,000.
Race 2 - MAIDEN CLAIMING $32,000 – $28,000
Purse $15,000.
Race 3 - ALLOWANCE
Purse $42,000.
Race 4 - MAIDEN SPECIAL WEIGHT
Purse $36,000.
Race 5 - CLAIMING $10,000 – $9,000
Purse $12,000.
Race 6 - MAIDEN SPECIAL WEIGHT
Purse $38,000.
Race 7 - CLAIMING $12,500
Purse $11,000.
Race 8 -STAKES
Purse $100,000.
Race 9 -
MAIDEN CLAIMING $25,000 – $22,500
Purse $13,000.
Sunday
Race 1 - CLAIMING $32,000 – $28,000
Purse $26,000.
Race 2 - MAIDEN SPECIAL WEIGHT
Purse $38,000.
Race 3 - CLAIMING $12,500
Purse $12,000.
Race 4 -
MAIDEN SPECIAL WEIGHT
Purse $36,000.
Race 5 -
CLAIMING $10,000 – $9,000
Purse $12,000.
Race 6 ALLOWANCE
Purse $40,000.
Oak Tree At Santa Anita - October 25, 2009
Race 7 - CLAIMING $25,000
Purse $16,000.
Race 8 - ALLOWANCE
Purse $40,000.
Race 9 -MAIDEN CLAIMING $25,000 – $22,500
Purse $14,000.
You wouldn\'t see that many cheap claiming races in a weekday card years ago, much less a weekend during a championship season. This stuff is heartbreaking really.
Oh, you\'re so right. Most of my posts are about horses I\'m touting for one reason or another anyway. I think that dude \'Sighthound\' got my feathers ruffled, and I went ballistic. It\'s easy to push my buttons. I couldn\'t agree more. Let\'s pick some winners. Worry about the funeral after the cup.
>> That\'s easier than addressing any of my points, right? Just tell me one >>thing I said that isn\'t true -what aspect of that scenario I described in my last post doesn\'t really happen?
Well, alot of what you said in your last post isn\'t \"true\" or even remotely so, it\'s scattered, it\'s most obviously opinion, it\'s all over the map, it jumps from one scenario to the next and is filled with assumptions and anger.
Considering that you misstated what the study orginally in question said (you apparently didn\'t understand the conclusions, as you quoted it in support of something else entirely that it didn\'t support) - even after it was explained to you - and then you continued to ignore what it said - I can only assume that \"addressing your points\" would be an exercise in futility for both of us.
Your posts on handicapping Cali racing I find enlightening and accurate.
You, however, ruffled your own feathers and pushed your own buttons with no help from me.
But the Keeneland card looked pretty and they race on a synthetic surface. And New York was about as weak and they\'re racing on dirt. So I don\'t see that a weak card at Santa Anita proves anything about synthetics. I understand why such cars can cause you to be disappinted, angry, and frustrated. But it\'s an oversimplification to attribute this calamity to synthetic surfaces. A better case could probably be made that the enhanced drug testing is causing some stables to ship their best horses out. I find that hard to believe personally but it fits the data better than your association to the makeup of the surface.
You\'re correct. It\'s never one thing, but the synthetic surfaces are a huge part of diluting the quality of the racing out there (esp. at Del Mar and Santa Anita- Hollywood has a much better surface when it is maintained properly, almost like dirt), no one can argue that point. They just have no horses, so few can run well over it, and the ones that gravitate out there are the ones who mostly stink on dirt. It\'s a bad equation. Despite my earlier rant, I feel sorry for some of the owners. Let\'s say you\'ve been racing out there for years and now you\'ve got horses who won\'t run on synthetic - what are you supposed to do? You\'re right about the other points, too. Keeneland is a different situation entirely. The meet is much shorter, and they all point to it and the t-bred industry is far healthier in Kentucky than California. I\'m getting tired of this discussion.Unless, they sell Santa Anita to a smart management team and they take out the pro-ride, this is all a moot discussion anyway.
Can\'t disagree. I do that often!
Scattered, sure; opinion, unfortunately not. If you ever want to write an investigative piece, I could put you in touch with some people. Every word I wrote is true; the horse slaughter express happens again and again with no accountability. I wasn\'t merely focusing on the study in question; perhaps that\'s where the confusion came in. And I didn\'t mean to imply that synthetic tracks are the only cause for all the ills in So. Cal racing, but it may have sounded that way. If you wrote that article, no one (other than a blogger) would ever publish it anyway. Perhaps you live in a nicer racing world than I one I have inhabited, one where the Del Mar ocean breeze is always blowing and the afternoon sun is warm on your face. If you do, God Bless you, I wouldn\'t want anyone to know some of the things I know. I\'m kind of done with this discussion for now. Maybe we could focus on something positive like the Breeder\'s Cup?
There is a nice post on pace advantage, general handicap discussion: santa anith we\'ve had emotions what about the stats. Below is the conclusion, check it out
Overall conclusion:
Dirt routers do well on the poly, not on the turf.
Dirt sprinters don\'t do well on either.
Turf sprints belong to turf sprinters.
Horse who come off the polytrack do well on the same surface, but let\'s not get carried away.
The turf-to-poly angle is largely a myth, and an overbet one at that.
__________________
The sad part about the situation is that it didn\'t take a terribly high IQ or significant amount of knowledge of racing to predict many of the developments we now see.
I\'m not fortunate enough to know any of the people at the top of this industry. However, it\'s pretty clear that a business model that has politicians and incompetents (sorry for repeating myself) running the show doesn\'t work.
This is an industry that desperately needs massive consolidation and a single high level entity that sets the rules on drug policy, horse care, and interstate/international betting. The \"states\" have to be out of the picture except for collecting taxes on profits (no more fixed % of revenue).
At the same time, it needs private profit motivated individuals, casinos, etc.. that understand the customer to invigorate the sport by modernizing, promoting, and setting the \"track take\" to levels where racing can earn a satisfactory return but also compete with poker, sports, and other forms of gambling.
Fat chance of any of this happening as long as politicans, unions, gangsters, incompetents, and corruption are all a major part of the landscape. Racing in the U.S. is a lot like everything else in the U.S......DOOMED. Thank God they still allow people to move to Asia. Instead of retiring to Florida like most New Yorkers used to dream, I\'m heading to the Far East where they are at least heading in the right direction and not brain damaged.
Sight... one last stupid question of mine if you could about the European riding style
Do you know if the European horses tend to stay sounder, especially in the forelegs? I see that most of the European jockeys sit a lot farther back on the horse than the US jocks tend to who are way up on the withers. I had one old time trainer here tell me that he thinks that has a lot to do with the injuries and soundness problems here. That a horse has so much weight already up front in the head,neck and shoulder that when a jockey\'s weight is so far up front there that it causes too much weight and imbalance on the front legs when they are running full speed and planting those front legs. he thinks much better to have the jock\'s weight more in middle of the horse on it\'s back. What do you think? Is this nonsense or is there something to it? There is such a noticeable difference when you see the Euro riders...
I hear Hong Kong racing is super!
If you look at the published breakdown stats, Europe has always been less than the US. The cause is open. There\'s alot of variables.
60% of a horses weight is already on his front end. The jockey has to be in a place where he makes it easiest for the horse to carry him. There is a biomechanical center of gravity.
Some US riders do seem on the verge of getting their noses broken by the top of their mounts heads during the race, they are so far forward they can whisper directly in the ears.