Dubai WC

[TGJB]

I haven\'t got time to respond to all of this now, and I\'m sure others will anyway. But one point, again-- we have been breeding horses specifically to run on DIRT in this counry for the last 100 years, which is about 10 generations of horses. It\'s, not much less than the amount of time there were thoroughbreds in England preceding that, and it\'s obviously more recent-- and more relevant.

[bobphilo]

Jerry,

True but also irrelevant. It does not change the fact that dirt is a harsher surface for horses than either grass or synthetics. Just compare the biometric properties.

Bob

[P-Dub]

Lost Cause Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > -----
> >>
> > Then we could have read once again how she beat
> > nobody?? That she is a synthetic freak?? Sounds
> > great.
>
> I guess that\'s true but for 6 mil you can call me
> what you want..


LOL, good point.

[TGJB]

What will eventually be meaningful will be an apples to apples study. All the large studies I know of so far have been of all dirt tracks combined, which includes small tracks with lots of cripples, while the synthetics are all at high end tracks.

[miff]

Very true,JB.Latest from Cali CHRB comparing fatal breakdowns at Los Alamitos dirt surface to Cali synth surfaces...BRILLIANT!

[bobphilo]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What will eventually be meaningful will be an
> apples to apples study. All the large studies I
> know of so far have been of all dirt tracks
> combined, which includes small tracks with lots of
> cripples, while the synthetics are all at high end
> tracks.

Absolutely. Any meaningful study must compare equals. The Jockey Club has just finished gathering data for a comprehensive study of all U.S. tracks. They haven\'t broken it down by surface yet but I\'m eagerly awaiting the results of the comparative study.

I suspect it will show the same results of the studies comparing the same tracks before and after conversion, which showed the rate of fatal breakdowns decreased.

The sooner large meaningful studies are done, the sooner the truth will be firmly established.

Bob

[Silver Charm]

A survey of the fans.

Do you like it or not? Do you bet more, less or at all.

I\'m not taking sides here but this surface has created a fairly devisive set of opinions with the fans who shove the money through the windows.

Changes should made that create NEW fans not piss off or run off the existing ones.

[bobphilo]

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A survey of the fans.
>
> Do you like it or not? Do you bet more, less or at
> all.
>
> I\'m not taking sides here but this surface has
> created a fairly devisive set of opinions with the
> fans who shove the money through the windows.
>
> Changes should made that create NEW fans not piss
> off or run off the existing ones.

Good idea. And lets not forget those who never become fans or leave the sport because they are appalled by all the fatalities. So far studies show that these tragedies, and the perception that racing does not care to do enough about them, are the number one reason why racing is losing fans and not picking up new fans.

Racing is in serious trouble in finding the new fans to replace the ones it loses and today\'s fans are the ones who become tomorrows betters and the old dirt traditions mean nothing to them.

Just look at the surveys of those just starting to go to the races, the ones we need to become tomorrows bettors. They say those horrible breakdowns drive them away. They are not terrified of losing their dirt speed bias angles but love to see close exciting finishes and safe racing that employs the latest technologies like other major sports, to protect the horses they love.

Bob

[BitPlayer]

Bob -

I\'m not optimistic about the future of American horse racing on any surface, but one thing seems abundantly clear to me in the injury statistics I have seen to date: if you want to reduce fatalities, you\'ll accomplish more by eliminating races for cheap claimers (the \"cripples\" TGJB referred to elsewhere in the thread) than by any change in surface.

[Silver Charm]

>bobphilo wrote
>
> Good idea. And lets not forget those who never
> become fans or leave the sport because they are
> appalled by all the fatalities. So far studies
> show that these tragedies, and the perception that
> racing does not care to do enough about them, are
> the number one reason why racing is losing fans
> and not picking up new fans.
>
> Racing is in serious trouble in finding the new
> fans to replace the ones it loses and today\'s fans
> are the ones who become tomorrows betters and the
> old dirt traditions mean nothing to them.
>
> Just look at the surveys of those just starting to
> go to the races, the ones we need to become
> tomorrows bettors. They say those horrible
> breakdowns drive them away. They are not terrified
> of losing their dirt speed bias angles but love to
> see close exciting finishes and safe racing that
> employs the latest technologies like other major
> sports, to protect the horses they love.
>
> Bob


Bob great point and one that did not entirely skip my mind when I posted but maybe one that I did not consider we should weigh \"this against that.\"

Wagering numbers are down pretty good. THE ECONOMY is THE big reason. But is it the only reason. I quite frankly do not bet as much as certain venues as I used to and it is the surface. I know of one player who is a friend, a take off the rubber band type when he feels it, WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT touch the stuff.

He lives 15 minutes from Keeneland. Has not bet Calif in a year or more. So there is the rub. Is the new guy coming in offseting the old guy with the big handle who is backing off?

[bobphilo]

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So there is the rub. Is
> the new guy coming in offseting the old guy with
> the big handle who is backing off?

Silver, Very well put. It\'s not uncommon for veteran fans or players to back off when there is a change. It\'s a point I readily understand. I also believe that not all horseplayers are such extreme die-hards that they will give up playing forever if most of their favorite tracks change.

We horseplayers can be a stubborn lot (myself included) but I also believe that we are also resilient and know how to change if that\'s what it takes to become profitable. Who knows, maybe the influx of new fans and the old ones returning can give racing the shot in the arm it so badly needs.

Another question we need to ask is, that even if there is a current decline in handle that we can determine to be due to synthetics, is it the darkness that must come before the new dawn, or the final shot that puts racing down for good.

True, it\'s a gamble (how appropriate) and a bit of a dream, but I hate to just stand by as this great sport of ours continues to die, like too many horses on the track do. Wouldn\'t it be great if we could save both with the same changes?  Only time will tell. All we can do is go where the facts, reason and compassion take us.

Bob

[bobphilo]

BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob -
>
> I\'m not optimistic about the future of American
> horse racing on any surface, but one thing seems
> abundantly clear to me in the injury statistics I
> have seen to date: if you want to reduce
> fatalities, you\'ll accomplish more by eliminating
> races for cheap claimers (the \"cripples\" TGJB
> referred to elsewhere in the thread) than by any
> change in surface.

Bit,

You have a point. Eliminating cheap claiming races would reduce fatalities, as well as reducing the overproduction of horses that fill them. Less permissive drug policies, banning the juicers and breeding more for soundness would all help.
 
I agree some cripples on pain killers would break down if they raced on pillows, only less of them.

The point is that none of these measures are mutually exclusive. It\'s not either-or. The problem of increasing breakdowns is serious enough that as many of these measures be employed as possible.

By all means, I\'m 100% for eliminating cheap claiming races. But why not try to provide safer surfaces for those races we can\'t get of, as well as higher quality ones? Even top horses breakdown too often.

Bob

[bobphilo]

Hoping to finally discuss some of the other factors involved in the results of the Dubai WC besides the surface, I want to look at the new configuration at Meydan, the pace and trips involved and give this surface debate a rest, before the race becomes ancient history.

I was personally disappointed with the configuration of the new Meydan 10 furlong course compared to the previous one at Nad Al Sheba. The old course had a long straightaway, allowing plenty of time to get a good position on the single turn. The new course has 2 turns with the 1st turn very close to the starting gate, meaning that the horses with outside posts are in immediate trouble, like 9 furlongs at Gulfstream Park, except even worse because of the big field.

Pace, or the lack of it was also a huge factor. The winner Glorea De Campeo had competitive figures and a perfect rail trip as the lone speed on an easy lead, as cleverly spotted by ThredHead (Congrats). Apparently, they didn't install equipment for timing the pace fractions, or sectional timing as they call it, which was included in previous year's results from Al Sheba. In any case, the slow pace was pretty obvious and clearly helped the winner while dooming most of the closers.

The finish was the closest for all placings I've ever seen for any race, which is no surprise. In a race where nobody is asked to run until the final couple of furlongs you're going to have a finish resembling the Quarterhorse Futurity.  

Race video link:

http://tinyurl.com/DubaiWC

Bob