ROTW - Sham Stakes

[heatherk]

P-Dub your points are well taken, but what about Delmar?

[bobphilo]

P-Dub,

I must be missing something but I just don't see any explanation in your post as to how all-weather surfaces are "sucking the life" out of top quality racing. In fact, the effects of AW surfaces on the mechanics of a top quality horse in motion point to just the opposite conclusion. Horses evolved to run on surfaces that that have the traction, shock absorbing and energy return properties of grass, which is why grass was the original surface in the U.S. and remains the principle racing surface in the world. The only problem with grass is that it cannot stand up to the huge volume of racing that the U.S. industry with it's over production of cheap horses and proliferation of races demands. Therefore along came the dead, ugly dirt courses that allow virtually unlimited racing at the cost of losing the naturally protective and aesthetic properties that grass and grass-like surfaces provide.
 
Just as rubberized surfaces have improved both the safety, speed and aesthetic efficiency of human track events, AW horse racing surfaces allow horses, and especially powerful striding high class horses to express their quality with better traction, cushioning and energy return, much like grass, which is why AW form translates well to grass, without the fragility of grass.

I must confess that I'm old enough to have run on the old cinder tracks in High School track before having the privilege to run on the new rubberized ones in college and it was like night and day. The new surfaces allow the superior runners to better express their stride strength and efficiency. From an aesthetic point of view, I'd much rather see great runners, equine or human, battle down the stretch on a surface whose superior traction, shock absorption and energy return allows it to exhibit the potential in its muscles, heart and lungs, than see it stagger home, pounding on a harder dirty surface while struggling against its inefficiency.

When it rains, not only do dirt tracks become disgustingly muddy, but are usually rolled, making them even harder and unsafe. Gary Stevens said he could feel the pain of impact on his knees when riding on rolled dirt tracks. Imagine how the horses feel. Breakdowns notoriously increase on rolled dirt tracks.

P Dub, have you considered that perhaps you associate the memories of the great horses you saw in the past with the surfaces they raced on. Aside from that, I can't imagine why you would have such a dislike for the newer, better surfaces. You, of course have the right to your own subjective impressions of racing on any surface, but I am addressing the issue that as far as objective qualities are concerned, it is not correct to say that AW surfaces are sucking the quality out of high class racing racing. In fact, the evidence points to just the opposite position.

Bob

[ajkreider]

Concerning \"aesthetic efficiency\":

This takes us far afield into, of all things, philosophy of sport. And, while likely beyond the scope of this blog, since you raised it:

There\'s a couple reasons to oppose the artificial surfaces on grounds that have nothing at all to do with safety.  

1) Continuity of the sport
2) It\'s naturalness - the connection of the sport to actual horse activities

A purist about racing (which you seem to be, to your credit), as with purists about any sport, ought to oppose changes to the sport which do not allow comparisons with racing\'s past. There seems to be a connection between the Citations, Seabiscuits, Dr. Fagers, and Curlins of the world.  They were playing the same game.  To introduce artificial surfaces is to, in effect, make it a different sport.  The same rationale is used (in part) to oppose the use of performance enhancing drugs in racing - as it is for other sports.  This is exactly why the home run records of Bonds, etc. are tainted.  But a better analogy to the artificial surface is the (supposedly) tighter-wound baseball of the early nineties that led to a couple year dramatic jump in home runs.  Such a change altered the nature of the game, such that it did a disservice to to game of years gone by.  Synth surfaces seem to be in the same category.

Additionally, it seems pretty clear that the racing of horses is derivative of what horses actually do - run.  And horses run on either earth or grass, not plastic.  Using the latter makes the sport itself artificial.  It would be like having the Olympics fill the swimming pools with glycerin instead of water because it made swimmers more graceful or efficient.  People don\'t swim in glycerin.  Horses don\'t run on plastic.

Of course, all this is just considering the sporting aspect.  If gambling and/or safety is all that matters, then the foregoing is irrelevant.  But I\'d be surprised if that was your view.

[P-Dub]

Heatherk,

I don\'t like it at Del Mar either. However, that track injured many many horses so something had to be done.

Bob,

I don\'t disagree at all with your points regarding safety, mechanics, or any of the other points you made regarding the synthetic surfaces.

My point about sucking the life out of top quality racing refers to the point of trainers refusing to run top dirt horses on synthetic surfaces. I mentioned horses I had the privilege to watch race in person, compared to the horses that have raced in the Big Cap since Pro Ride was installed. There is no comparison. The starting gate for the last 2 BC Classics was sorely lacking in established dirt horses which diluted the quality of the races.  Curlin was not the same horse he was on dirt. Same with the other main track races over synthetics. Horses that race predominantly on dirt are a shell of themselves on these surfaces. To me, that sucks the life out of top class racing because we get substandard performances from horses that could run much better if racing on dirt.

We do see more quality turf runners race and perform well on synthetics. While the last 2 BC Classics had fewer top dirt runners, there were several top quality turf runners race and perform well. But we have races for turf horses already established, I don\'t want to see them run in races that were originally intended to showcase the top dirt horses.

I don\'t mind synthetics from a handicapping and wagering perspective, but from a fan\'s perspective (at least mine) the quality of top class racing on synthetics has been diluted. Just my opinion.

[RICH]

Bob

Please, they basically destroyed the triple crown trail in Cal. This poly track has sucked the life out of racing in cal, no doubt, regardless of if you bet on it or not.

[miff]

\"One one hand when I see horses racing over a good all-weather surface I see the horses bounding in a natural stride otherwise only seen on grass,where horses where evolved to run and which all-weathers are designed to resemble. That\'s why the number of catastrophic injuries are down because all-weathers have the same cushioning effect and return of energy as natural grass as opposed to conventional dirt tracks\"

Bob,

From the perspective/formula of measuring speed, AW(synthetics) produce much slower figures at the highest level of racing.The efficiency,energy return you speak of,are illusions which are confirmed in slower performances.Have not seen big negative figs TG/RAGS or high Beyers  on synths.I can\'t reconcile how running \"slower\" translates to horses \"bounding in natural stride\" and getting the best/most efficient energy return.

From my observation,AW\'s rob brilliance/speed,especially going long.Hitting and planting on that surface is the root of it\'s evil according to horsemen I know  who race on it.The reduction in fatal breakdowns may also be the result of more vigilant drug/pre race screening. There is no doubt that Cali\'s former dirt highways needed better maintenance.

Bob, to me,AW\'s promised much, delivered little and are at death\'s door in California if money shows up.

I know you have only the best of intentions for the animals,but in the end, racing is a multi billion dollar business driven mainly by wagering and that must have equal weight in the surface equation.There is still a fair amount of players who play/bet less on synths.

Mike

[Ill-bred]

The synthetics allow poorly conformed horses to look like good movers.

[bobphilo]

Ajkreider,

You make several errors in your use of the words "natural" and "continuity". While everyone can agree that grass is the surface horses evolved and run best on. The things that we call dirt race tracks are a far cry from that. It may have become traditional for a period of time in one part of the world but that is not the same as natural. Charles Carrol gives an excellent explanation of how a typical dirt track is put together in "Handicapping Speed"

"Tracks are not just rototiled out of the native earth but are artificially constructed by first, evacavating up several feet below the existing ground surface. A bottom layer, usually of crushed stone, is applied for drainage; than a middle layer or "cushion", which is sometimes composed of "decomposed" granite or limestone; then the final racing surface, which is usually a mixture of sand with clay. This is why racetrack construction and maintenance is big business with its own experts who travel the world"

This is clearly a complex artificial man-made structure that requires an army of maintenance equipment to constantly work to keep it from returning to a true "state of nature". Even if you remove the stands and rails, it wouldn't take a geologist to recognize this as a man made structure and not naturally occurring."

That doesn't mean that we can't take the properties of natural substances and duplicate them with man made materials, many of which, like rubber, were originally found in nature. One of the purposes of all weather tracks is to provide the natural properties of grass, such as shock absorption, energy return and traction that dirt tracks do not. In behavior AW behave much more like the original grass surfaces that horses were meant to run on. Whey do you think that form transfers so much better from natural grass to AW tracks than to conventional dirt?

I wonder if those that condemn AW tracks as unnatural would go for a jog in their natural leather dress shoes instead of their polyurethane rubber running shoes ones or would eschew the rubberized running tracks as unnatural.  AW tracks are often criticized for their fiber content. Why don't these critics remove all their fiber carpets and walk around on natural dirt floors. Am I the only one to see the hypocrisy and selective use of the word "natural"?


The invoking of the negative and incorrect image of plastic as a hard brittle substance to characterize AW surfaces is a common practice among those trying to sabotage the effort to bring about better and safer racing surfaces is just plain wrong. I am disappointed that you are resorting to such tactics. AW tracks in no way play like some piece of plastic.

You mention that dirt racing is needed to maintain a sense of continuity with the sport, while a careful study of the sports history shows that it is dirt tracks that have disrupted the continuity of the sport, whose history goes much further back than you mention.

Thouroughbred racing history actually goes back to the 1700 with the importation of the Godolphin Arabian, the Darley Arabian and the Byerly Turk as foundation stock. Their blood is carried on through the great Eclipse (who we name the awards after) and from whom all modern thoroughbreds trace their origin. The universal surface was natural grass then, as it remains through most of the world. The introduction of dirt tracks came about in the U.S. strictly as a greedy mechanism by which there could be an endless number of races to accommodate all the cheap overproduced horses we were breeding. It is this surface which broke the continuity of racing on natural grass surfaces.

You equate installation of AW tracks with replacing water with glycerin in swimming pools. Swimmers drowning in races are not the same problem that horses and jockeys breaking down and dying in races are. If this were to indeed become a problem and a new medium that could reduce injuries and save lives, like AW tracks do, then I'd be all for the new type of water. However that is far from the case and your analogy does not apply.

[bobphilo]

P-Dub,

I'm glad you made you make yourself much clearer in what you meant by AW's are "sucking the life" out of quality races. If you had read my previous reply to miff I expressed my own similar problems with AW weather surfaces. Yes, I do try to see both sides. There clearly is confusion when most of the major races are run on conventional dirt but divisional championships cannot be clearly decided because many of these horses can't or won't run on the SA surface.
I must admit I don't have a quick and ready solution to this. Of course, if all the major tracks had a standardized surface that would be ideal but I'm not holding my breath on that. On the other hand, it would be a tragedy if all the lives that could be saved by AW tracks were lost because conventional dirt becomes the only surface. Not an easy situation.

I do applaud you for sticking to the only real problem with AW instead of some wild rhetoric about them being "unnatural".

Bob

[P-Dub]

Bob,

I\'m with you concerning safety. It sickens me to see a horse break down, especially witnessing it live. As you alluded, I was referring strictly to the starting gate. Others much smarter than me can debate the other issues with regards to synthetics.

[TGJB]

Bob-- we have been breeding horses in this country for an awful long time (especially when you consider that a horse generation is only 10 years or so) specifically to run on dirt, not grass or synthetic. (In fact, the \"stigma\" of being a grass horse is death to a stallion-- I have heard they are having a hard time filling English Channel\'s book, even though he is by Smart Strike). This is one point that a lot of people miss (including Beyer and one incredibly repetitive guy who snuck back on here)-- there is no reason to expect horses to run as well on synthetic. We haven\'t bred horses to do that.

We haven\'t bred horses to swim, either, but if we did specifically that for maybe ten generations, I bet we could get some pretty good swimming horses.

Point being, these are not the same horses who a thousand years ago adapted themselves from running around on grass. And one way that plays out is that a whole bunch of injuries you don\'t see on dirt are being reported as happening often over synthetics.

We could start breeding horses for synthetics, probably take a few generations to get real good ones. We might even still have a couple of racetracks left by then.

[bobphilo]

Jerry, agreed there is a subtle difference in the type of stride that is most efficient on either dirt versus AW/grass. I\'m guessing that this is due in large part to the better traction afforded by grass/AW surfaces that allows for a longer smoother stride than the slipperier dirt surface would. Whatever the reason, the U.S. breeding industry had no problem in coming up with the quicker shorter striding horse that dirt favors when dirt became the premier U.S. surface. There was no dramatic increase in injuries due to the newness of the surface, though the inherent problems with dirt are now becoming more evident as horses are becoming both faster and more fragile at the same time and there are more catastrophic breakdowns on dirt compared to the more natural grass and grass-like AW tracks. Should AW tracks dominate, all indications is that catastrophic injuries would decrease and this clearly overcomes the less significant number of minor injuries that might increase. Polls show that one of the main PR problems racing has are the large numbers of fatal breakdowns. Unless EVERY measure is employed to stop this - including breeding sounder horses, ending permissive drug use and developing safer surfaces - is employed, the sport is doomed.

I can totally understand the anger and confusion caused when horses are compared as if they were running on the same dirt surface when there is such a difference between conventional dirt and all weather dirt tracks. It\'s a mess when the TC races are run on one surface and the BC on a totally different one and people are supposed to treat them as the same surface in judging the best horse. We clearly need a standardized surface for dirt, but it is wrong to put the blame on just one of the surfaces when the real villain is the lack of standardization, especially when the surface that is most often the victim of this venom is probably the safer and better one.

There is going to be a long period of confusion until this issue is decided rationally and fairly. Absurd charges that say AW surfaces are unnatural do nothing to help the situation. The prize for stupidest reason goes to Nick Zito for saying that he doesn\'t like AWs because they aren\'t mentioned in the Bible and dirt is. If so, how come Mr. Zito drives a car and watches TV? Is he becoming Amish, but only with regards to racetracks?

The one true problem is that we need to have one best standardized surface and how to best bring this about in a financially realistic way - period.

Bob

[TGJB]

One hopes Mr. Zito was kidding. More later if I have time.

[bobphilo]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One hopes Mr. Zito was kidding. More later if I
> have time.

Jerry, unfortunately I think he was being serious. It was on a TV interview asking trainers their opinions of the new all-weather surfaces. I don't have the exact quotes but the gist of it is that Zito said we should only be racing on dirt because it's "natural" and is even mentioned in the Bible, while there's no mention of synthetics there.

While I think Nick's heart is in the right place with his efforts to keep retired racers from the slaughterhouse, I wish his head were working better concerning his criteria for judging all-weather surfaces.

Bob