MD blamed it on the fact the horse had been previously training on dirt;
without any problems, I might add.:confused: :confused:

I wish someone could look up the breakdown %'s to the type, age and level the runner was that went down. Like 3 year old colt $20,000 claimer. I wonder what the Bell curve is?

It annoys me that the title reads "Trainer: Churchill Downs should go synthetic". Trainer? This dumbass hasn't had a decent horse in five years. "Synthetic salesman: Churchill Downs should go synthetic" would be a bit more accurate, but then.. That wouldn't be a story, would it?

Seriously, how could any journalist even think of writing this article. Why not just write that OPEC is calling for everyone to buy gas guzzlers?

Renowned trainer my ass.

Ya- I thought he retired as a trainer to focus on peddling crapeta?

I can't believe they let him give his little sales pitch at last year's horseplayer expo. . .

It is hack journalism, that's how. Very few racing writers, and I'd make that none, save some of the DRF, Bloodhorse and TTimes writers, actually earn a living from their writings. The ESPN "Contributors" like Plonk certainly fall into the hack category. He's just doing what I assume is a free gig to get his junk ass tout sheet on the ESPN site.

Way too much phony "press" in the internet/cable world doing what they can to get any piece of pie. Being a decent reporter has nothing to do with it.

The same goes for Dickinson, only triple.

For the most part,racing fans don't give a **** about the safety of these tracks.Just be honest about that.You look ridiculous when you try to say dirt is as safe.If you want to say dirt is easier to cap,then just do it.Please stop with the whole "dirt is just as safe " crap.You people aren't stupid.Don't act that way."Some horses race better on dirt than on synthetic," or " synthetic is hard to cap."Any of that is fine,but you look stupid when you say dirt is as safe.If you could take the same horses and race them on the same dirt and synthetic,then you would see synthetic is safer. Yes,they are gunna run some very borderline horses on the synthetic,and they will break down.Trainers know it's safer,and some think they can get away with stuff they know they can't get away with on dirt.I think Eight B would be alive and well if that race had been on a synthetic,but I don't think people care enough about horses to make the switch.Simple as that.So,we will continue to read that "it's random," and no break-down is anybody's fault(always just a normal part of the game.)If you're so addicted to dirt,then you damn sure better get more concerned with the conditions that make dirt racing safer.Churchill loves those fast hard tracks on big days,and nobody is going to change that.So expect more of the same.

i think your post, and your blanket statement that anyone who thinks dirt is safe is stupid or doesn't care is absolutely asinine.

That's my opinion.It's obvious dirt isn't as safe.Only self-centered people would keep repeating that it's as safe.If you put the animals 1st,then you'd be for getting them on the safest surface possible.Fact is people don't care about these horses enough to do what's best for them.They care about watching them run in traditional races on dirt.I understand that.It's what you grew up with etc.,but it's not the safest way for the horses to race.Hell,you shoot hot metal into animals(and enjoy it,)honey,so you're the last person I would listen to when it comes to safety for animals.

how is it putting an animal first when a trainer runs a horse who is 'off' on synthetic, as it's so safe..and then the horse breaks down?

if arlingtons numbers are similar now (as i read on here earelier) as they were when they had dirt, how is the surface safer? well, the first answer you get is that trainers are running unsound horses-would those horses run if the surface hadn't changed? maybe not. maybe the trainer would have waited. so how is this situation any better for horses?

I am not going to try to make sense of anything that happens in Chicago.I don't think they are going to be very careful with Illinois bred horses...PERIOD!!........I do know we have had much fewer horses breaking down on the synthetic in SOCAL.We were having 5 and 6 horses fields in most races out here at one point.So,don't tell me dirt is better for the horses.They come right back to race on synthetic,and they couldn't do that nearly as quickly on dirt.It put us in the position where we didn't have enough horses to race unless we went to synthetic.Stronach wanted to put dirt back in at Anita,but the majority of trainers here favor the synthetic(and so he is leaning towards synthetic.)Over n' over again,you are going to see that when trainers get to use the synthetics like the cushion track,then the majority will favor it over dirt.Their horses have less injuries over it,and can race more often.Most fans just ignore that.They want to keep studying to see what's safer,but the trainers are already making it obvious which they think is safer.People just ignore the obvious,though. I guess they think the majority of trainers out here are wrong about what's best for their animals....I don't think that.

Scuds...becareful of how you throw around generalizations for your benefit..Out of 84 runners today, only 23 are IL breds

Plus, if they don't care about IL breds (or their horses in general), why did they switch to Poly in the first place?

The California tracks were terrible. We have no clue what sort of a safe dirt surface could have been put down for the same price it cost to put in the synthetic. It could have been just as safe or safer, who knows? The reality is the tracks that have switched to synthetic have been the tracks with the highest breakdown rates. I have no doubt with a new safer dirt track in that the breakdown rates would have dropped significantly and possibly even as much as they dropped on the synthetics. To blindly say that synthetics are safer is not accurate. Safer than a crappy dirt track, sure. But we've seen when synthetics have gone wrong they are the least safe surface out there. Comparing the least safe dirt tracks to the synthetics that replace them is like comparing the least safe synthetics to the safest dirt tracks, completely meaningless.

They switched because so many horses broke down in 2006. At the time, Chalk trainer Christine Jenks blamed it on the trainers running horses that they shouldn't have been entering in races. Wouldn't surprise me if the same thing took place last season. If trainers are entering horses with really bad problems, then it probably doesn't matter what they are running on (quite a few will break down.) Really got to wonder if the vet in Chicago looks at the horses very much (on race day mornings.)

Scuds, I have to disagree with you. I have yet to see one solid statistic that proves that synthetics are safer than dirt. Horses have been running on dirt for thousands of years, it is natural. Just like we cannot make a real substitute for grass, I can't buy that synthetics are safer because the people who profit off of it say so. In actuality, what I have heard more often is that the injuries on horses tend to occur on different spots on the horse than on dirt, but are not necessarily reduced.

i know that because of cali's climate, the poly in most instances was better than the rock hard dirt you had out there. what i'm saying is just because it's true there, doesn't mean it's true everywhere. not every track has your past experiences, and not every other track would benefit from going to synthetics-nor would every horse.

a couple things and let me know if this is wrong. i thought i read that breakdowns on synthetic are only about 1.5 per thousand starts as opposed to 2 per thousand on dirt, not a gigantic difference considering when the synthetic sample gets large it might get even closer. and also arent the 3 ny tracks looking to go synthtetic?