Not sure if many of you saw this on Equidaily so I am posting the link here.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/sports/2009/November/sports_November520.xml§ion=sports&col=
FWIW I am sure the writer was told what to write by the ruling party....(kind of Like NBC with the current administration in the white house).
Synthetics may be here to stay. Please note the remark that the triple crown tracks refuse to install.......
Everything the author said appears to me to be accurate.
If you think Synth is the true test of Champions...
The true test of champions is where ever the best horses in the world run against each other.
Like the Breeders Cup
As far as I\'m concerned, the BC did a very good job in bringing together the best horses in the world. Some of them couldn\'t make it due to injuries. Some decided to duck the competition. But for the most part the top horses that were still in training took a shot at the BC.
Love the qualifying statement, \"still in training\" sort of like a starter allowance.
NCT
Thats a pretty lame analogy.
The problem as I see it is what did the horses that were brought together at Santa Anita show? To me, they showed turf champions and synthetic champions. As far as I am concerned, what happened at Santa Anita has nothing to do with dirt horses. Maybe instead of a 2 day breeders cup, they should have a 3 day cup split out over two places (Unless Belmont or Saratoga decides to replace one of its turf courses with a synthetic course or maybe Aqueduct turns the IDT into Synth or some other place builds three surfaces). Take a look at the sprints. How many dirt sprinters did not show up in the two non-grass sprint races? I suppose enough chose not to show up to make a solid dirt sprint championship somewhere. I would imagine that Indian Blessing should be female sprint champion hands down and as far as male, it is probably not any horse who entered at Santa Anita. I love that they actually ran something called a \"Dirt mile\"on something other than dirt. That was funny.
Anyway, rather than have debates over which surface has primacy, why not just have three surfaces? it is not like there was trouble deciding to have dirt champions and turf champions before synthetic came along. Seems to me like it is time to add more championship races. Imagine if turf races were rained off the turf for a breeders cup. I cannot imagine anybody would rely on sea of slop conditions to determine who is a grass champion. Assuming that is true, why use synthetic results to determine dirt champions? It is nonsensical.
We really idolize dirt in the US, don\'t we? Nobody else in the world does. Nobody else breeds for \"dirt specialists\".
I\'m just sayin\' Not looking to start anything, nor diss people that like dirt racing (I love dirt racing) - just saying that we are a bit parochial in America We are not good at being on the outside, looking in at ourselves, sometimes.
I hear what everyone is saying about dirt racing.
But when a dirt track comes up muddy or sloppy, aren\'t there certain horses that relish that surface too?? How fair was that Monmouth track?? Or the other years that the BC has been run over an off track?? There are many horses that hate off tracks, just as there are horses that hate synthetics.
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We really idolize dirt in the US, don\'t we?
> Nobody else in the world does. Nobody else breeds
> for \"dirt specialists\".
>
> I\'m just sayin\' Not looking to start anything,
> nor diss people that like dirt racing (I love dirt
> racing) - just saying that we are a bit
> parochial in America We are not good at being on
> the outside, looking in at ourselves, sometimes.
I have the same feeling as you with this Sight..I could care less if they run on dirt or synth but just one or the other not both as it wreaks havoc on my bankroll trying to figure out who is going to like it and who isn\'t..
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We really idolize dirt in the US, don\'t we?
> Nobody else in the world does. Nobody else breeds
> for \"dirt specialists\".
>
> I\'m just sayin\' Not looking to start anything,
> nor diss people that like dirt racing (I love dirt
> racing) - just saying that we are a bit
> parochial in America We are not good at being on
> the outside, looking in at ourselves, sometimes.
Who cares if nobody else breeds dirt horses? You see something special about being just like everyone else? And why is it that we\'re supposed to change our surface to be like everyone else? Why don\'t others change over to dirt to be like us?
I\'m not wanting to be like the Europeans. Take a look at their list of greats. The list is paltry, with horses who made one or two handfuls of starts. Compare that to all our greats, from Man o\' War to Secretariat, Fager, Bid, Affirmed, Slew, Citation, and dozens of others. American dirt horses are the greatest racehorses in the world, and the proof is in the horses we\'ve produced. Don\'t forget that, and just say no to synth.
Why can\'t there be three types of surfaces and three types of championships? If expanding the breeders cup to two days was a good idea, why not expand it to three or four days? People can pick and choose whether they like dirt, turf, synth or some combination and everybody just does what they like. Let the free market decide. The problem is when people suggest that one surface can determine the championship for another surface (which is what has happened nowadays with the way the breeders cup is [dis]organized). Are we going to hear next year that the synthetic horses are being prejudiced because the cup is being run on dirt for two years? Personally, I prefer dirt, but if others prefer synthetic I do not begrudge them that. Why not run some synthetic championships at Arlington while the cup is being run at CD? To have a battle between dirt and synth adherents is a surefire way to kill the sport even more than it is already being slaughtered. We do not need to be alienating fans, we need to be including them. To quote Rodney King, why cant we all just get along?
My response would be \"Why?\" Why do we need a third surface? We were doing just fine with the 2 surfaces, and no one complained about the supposed need for a third surface that \"levels the playing field\" for Europeans to be able to compete against our dirt horses until we put in a third surface that doesn\'t \"level the playing field\" but instead gives an advantage to Europeans and turf horses, and totally takes our dirt horses out of the equation.
We installed synths because they were thought to be a panacea. No more break downs, or at least a significant decrease in break downs. Well, the break downs have continued, hind leg injuries are way up, as are soft tissue injuries (which may not kill as often but have a very negative result nonetheless). We\'ve had two jockeys paralyzed at one meet on the synth at Arlington, due to the very lack of slide/give in the surface that is causing problems to the horses. If synths aren\'t the panacea, not serving its one intended purpose, why should we keep them? All to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, confusion, and pretty much total chaos?
The Europeans have been racing horses far longer than we. Dirt is the exception, not the average or the historical. We didn\'t start getting good strains of good horses until we imported Euro horses here (see Claiborne, Spendthrift, etc)
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Europeans have been racing horses far longer
> than we. Dirt is the exception, not the average or
> the historical. We didn\'t start getting good
> strains of good horses until we imported Euro
> horses here (see Claiborne, Spendthrift, etc)
Before then, horses came from the desert, which is sandy the last I looked. And while we brought prolific stallions to our shores, we\'ve also dispacted prolific stallions to foreign shores (including Europe). See Danzig\'s sons, particularly Danehill, for an example.
Which is all neither here or there. Racing in this country has been primarily dirt racing, and no other country can boast of a roster of great racehorses anywhere remotely close to what we\'ve produced. Why should we give up our dirt racing again? For what purpose? Does it do anything to improve American racing?
Yes, but we never raced horses on the desert, we bred them with coarse grade mares in England and got lucky with fast. Desert sand has nothing to do with dirt (look at the different hooves required), and nothing to do with speed (it\'s about endurance and toughness and smallness).
Which, you are right, is neither here nor there. Racing in this country hasn\'t always been dirt, however, it\'s origin was indeed turf, endurance, heats, etc.
We don\'t have to \"give up\" our dirt racing, but I think we are rather narrow-minded and provincial in thinking it\'s the only real racing. Especially when one thinks no other country can boast as many great racehorses as we do. Which is true only if you think grass racing doesn\'t count.
I don\'t think it\'s a matter of people asserting that dirt racing is the only \"real\" racing, but rather frustration that the new state of affairs has really hurt the game without providing what it was touted for...improved safety for horses.
There were good intentions with the switch to synth...but now that it\'s unclear whether the synth is really safer for the horses...we\'re left with this surface issue which makes handicapping (which is what we really enjoy doing) a total mess for the consumer, the horseplayer. Horseplayers at least need the ILLUSION that they can figure things out. This goes a long way towards undermining some of the foundations of the game and the enjoyment that goes with it.
Hindsight being 20/20...I think it would have been better to try the synth on a really limited basis (maybe one or two tracks?) to get the read on the \"safety\" issue. Instead it\'s already all over the place and it\'s a classic lose/lose proposition. You didn\'t get the \"safety\" improvement and you screwed your customer. I would say the whole \"dirt\" vs. \"Euro\" thing is more misdirected anger and frustration than anything else.
HP
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Especially when one thinks no other country can
> boast as many great racehorses as we do. Which is
> true only if you think grass racing doesn\'t count.
Nah, it\'s true if you look at their records (counting grass).
Sea Bird II is generally said to be their greatest racehorse. He made a whopping 8 starts in his career.
Mill Reef (US-bred & owned, btw) and Brigadier Gerard may be battling for second, and they made 14 and 18 starts respectively.
Others making their top 10 would likely be Nijinsky II (Canadian-bred, btw) with his 13 starts, Ribot with his 16 starts, Nearco and Roberto (US-bred) with their 14 starts apiece, Alleged (US-bred) with his 10 starts, and Sea The Stars with his 9 starts.
Compare those records to the records of our top 10 or so horses:
Man o\' War & Secretariat with 21 starts, Citation with 45, Kelso with 63, Fager and Native Dancer with 22 each, Forego with 57, Slew with 17, Bid and Tom Fool with 30 each, Affirmed with 29. And I can keep listing the greats: War Admiral (26), Buckpasser (31), Damascus (32), Round Table (66), Cigar (33), Bold Ruler (33), Swaps (25), Equipoise (51), John Henry (83), Nashua (30), Seabiscuit (89), Whirlaway (60), and I\'ll leave you with Exterminator (100).
I\'m not a frustrated handicapper. I\'m one who appreciates the history of this great sport, and a big admirer of what American dirt racing has produced in the way of great horses. I used to be one of those guys who thought the grass was greener on the other side of the pond until I really started looking at their history and the horses they\'ve produced. Hands down, we\'ve produced a faster, better, and more durable product than those who have been racing on the kinder turf. I don\'t want to go in the direction of what they produce in Europe.
Just a couple of points here, FC, and not to unduly prolong this string ...
\"Compare those records to the records of our top 10 or so horses:
Man o\' War & Secretariat with 21 starts, Citation with 45, Kelso with 63, Fager and Native Dancer with 22 each, Forego with 57, Slew with 17, Bid and Tom Fool with 30 each, Affirmed with 29. And I can keep listing the greats: War Admiral (26), Buckpasser (31), Damascus (32), Round Table (66), Cigar (33), Bold Ruler (33), Swaps (25), Equipoise (51), John Henry (83), Nashua (30), Seabiscuit (89), Whirlaway (60), and I\'ll leave you with Exterminator (100).\"
I notice that one horse on this list has raced within the last 25 years. How many starts are the great American racehorses making these days? I know, syndication and the trend towards \"layoff\" training. But European horses have been training up to big races for decades now, so it seems pretty unfair to compare Nijinsky or Roberto to Exterminator using starts as a metric.
I\'d also note that the one recent horse on your list was a late bloomer who started his career on grass. Any chance that helped him make 31 starts?
I\'m for racetracks that are as safe as possible, for horses and riders, period. Even though \"safe racetrack\" will probably always be a contradiction in terms.
magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I notice that one horse on this list has raced
> within the last 25 years.
As compared to the European list of horses, who were all born between the 1930s and 1970s, with the exception of Sea The Stars?
> How many starts are the
> great American racehorses making these days?
More than the Europeans. Our two most recent top horses Rachel and Zenyatta both raced significantly more than the recent top Europeans Sea The Stars and Zarkava.
> know, syndication and the trend towards \"layoff\"
> training. But European horses have been training
> up to big races for decades now, so it seems
> pretty unfair to compare Nijinsky or Roberto to
> Exterminator using starts as a metric.
Races are tougher than works, so I think it\'s a fair measurement. Do you have a better one?
> I\'d also note that the one recent horse on your
> list was a late bloomer who started his career on
> grass. Any chance that helped him make 31 starts?
Take away his grass starts, and he still started more times than Zarkava and Sea The Stars combined.
> I\'m for racetracks that are as safe as possible,
> for horses and riders, period. Even though \"safe
> racetrack\" will probably always be a contradiction
> in terms.
I don\'t know anyone who isn\'t for a safe racetrack. Synthetics aren\'t safer, and have been severely life-changing for Douglas and Straight.
\"As compared to the European list of horses, who were all born between the 1930s and 1970s, with the exception of Sea The Stars?\"
The point wasn\'t about the trans-Atlantic comparison, which I think is silly, anyway. The point is that you are defending today\'s American racing scene by citing horses from the Hoover administration.
\"Races are tougher than works, so I think it\'s a fair measurement. Do you have a better one?\"
No, clearly Exterminator is a better horse than Nijinsky because he started 100 times. How could I argue with that?
Q:\"Any chance that helped him make 31 starts?\"
Non-Answer: \"Take away his grass starts, and he still started more times than Zarkava and Sea The Stars combined.\"
I\'m done. No offense, FC. Good luck at the windows.
magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"As compared to the European list of horses, who
> were all born between the 1930s and 1970s, with
> the exception of Sea The Stars?\"
>
> The point wasn\'t about the trans-Atlantic
> comparison, which I think is silly, anyway. The
> point is that you are defending today\'s American
> racing scene by citing horses from the Hoover
> administration.
I\'m defending American dirt horses from the past to current, which includes Zenyatta, Rachel & STS from just this year. A list of greats over the past century though will extend back aways, and I don\'t see how that\'s offensive.
> \"Races are tougher than works, so I think it\'s a
> fair measurement. Do you have a better one?\"
>
> No, clearly Exterminator is a better horse than
> Nijinsky because he started 100 times. How could I
> argue with that?
I have no idea how one would expect a horse to prove their longevity of both form and soundness except by doing it on the track.
> Q:\"Any chance that helped him make 31 starts?\"
>
> Non-Answer: \"Take away his grass starts, and he
> still started more times than Zarkava and Sea The
> Stars combined.\"
>
> I\'m done. No offense, FC. Good luck at the
> windows.
That\'s ok, I thought it was a non-question, so we\'re even there.
Good luck to you as well.
1)It was intended that way, so glad you got it.
2)I was responding to something that was lame to begin with.
3) I could care less what you think.
NCT
NoCarolinaTony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1)It was intended that way, so glad you got it.
>
> 2)I was responding to something that was lame to
> begin with.
>
> 3) I could care less what you think.
>
> NCT
If number 3 were true, you don\'t show it very well. Glad it took you 5 days to come up with those witty replies. Time well spent.
P-
Could it be.......that I did not checked the board in 5 days??
Brilliant,
Have another Red Bull, it gives you wings...
NCT
Guys-- to quote a friend of mine during an argument on the basketball court years ago, I didn\'t come out to stay home. If I want to hear six year olds ranking out other kids I\'ve got one at home.
I hear you.