different tracks suit different horses, due to differences in running styles, correct? and a horse who feels uncomfortable on a certain surface won't run the same way, or the correct way for him, thus possibly incurring an injury...so, if you take a horse who can move well over dirt, and run him on synthetic, and he detests it and doesn't have the correct action to run over that surface, isn't he at an increased risk for injury? jocks and trainers have conceded that different horses run over it differently-and we all know some like it, and some don't-so how can a blanket statement be made that this surface is 'safer'. seems a horse would be safest where most comfortable, and AWT is not what makes all horses most comfortable.

Amen to that.

No offense, SCUDS, but honestly I would like to read your posts, even though I completely disagree with you on this issue, but because of the lack of spacing I personally find it impossible. I don't think I'm alone.

Everyoneknowsthatthespacebarsendsmorsecodetoaliens andmustbeignoredcompletely.

If you think high-profile breakdown after high-profile breakdown is going to occur with no consequence, you are kidding yourselves. Of course the problem is ultimately the breed, which has been more screwed up than many of AKC dog breeds, and drugs, but those require hard solutions (indeed, the first would take several horse generations to reverse, even if the will to do so existed, which it doesn't--it has been 30+ years in the making). But running the horses over a chopped up trampoline is a quick, partial fix. It will happen, and horseplayers will adjust. They continue to bet notwithstanding widespread cheating and doping--and they will bet the synthetic tracks when there is really no other choice. So far the changeover has been haphazard and badly researched in advance, but now that it has happened in SoCal and other places, NYRA and the others can learn from them. I seriously doubt there will be a North American Grade I race run on dirt by 2015.

In ten years this could easily be synthetic tracks:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2008-...rf-cover_N.htm

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

http://thoroughbredtimes.com/nationa...-surfaces.aspx

Well then I guess it is settled. :rolleyes:

WELL then, if Jack Knowlton said it, then clearly it must be fact.

Where does he say this.....not that I saw in the linked story

“The data thus far shows a reduction in fatal injuries, maybe 25%,” Knowlton said.

But he said that trainers are reporting more soft tissue, back and hind-quarter injuries with artificial material."


from the Tbred times link in my post.

How do you know that you disagree with me on this issue? You said you find it impossible to read the posts. It doesn't matter what most of us think about the issue. Like anything else in racing, it's gunna be decided by a few boards of connected people, and the "horsemen" (of course.) Why do people start complaining about my lazy writing at this moment in time? Took you long enough.

I stand corrected

How about we compare the safe dirt tracks with the synthetics before all these people come up with meaningless statistics to support their case? What the committee should do is for the next two years track the all weather tracks against SAR, BEL, AQU, CD, GP, FG, and OAK and see what the results show. Make it clear to those tracks that if any of their individual breakdown rates are significantly higher than the average of the synthetic tracks, AND the dirt tracks as a group come out higher in breakdowns than the synthetics that pressure will be put on those tracks to switch to synthetics. If they show that dirt is just as safe or safer, or they can show that their individual track is as safe as the synthetics on average then they are free to keep dirt with no pressure from anyone. The current crap that is being compared is completely meaningless.

I do understand that systhetics are evolving. They don't have the ideal track yet. I was overly optimistic at their initial North American introduction. On balance, are they the way to proceed ? Zito has volunteered to chair a commission of 3 trainers (2 named by the state) to research the cost/benefits of state of the art dirt vs. synth.

Am I missing something? Is there anything to suggest that the NYRA main tracks are unsafe or are responsible for an increased incidence of injuries or breakdowns?

Nope, but the synthetic advocates keep spouting off improved numbers based on tracks that made the switch cause they had such high breakdown rates and of course their breakdown rates were going to improve the next year whether they stuck with the same track, put in a new dirt one, or put in a synthetic. That is what happens when you have an outlier in a data series, it regresses to the mean the following year.

Of course we recall that one record after another fell at the Spa last meet. And how many horses were injured there? Majestic Warrior has never been the same, Mymayonniase has dropped from sight, etc. The Spa super hard track conditions were vehemently criticised last August.

Reflecting back to last fall when a huge deluge covered the mideast for the week of the BC. Keeneland was super impressive with their drainage and the track played much the same throughout their 17 day meet, regardless of rain. Now compare that with Monmouth or any dirt track under those conditions.

Majestic Warrior was never good to begin with and how many times have we seen a fast, high priced Baffert 2yo drop off the radar? How many breakdowns were there on the dirt at Saratoga last year? Can you name one other than the Frankel horse that broke her hip in the Ballerina? One breakdown in a 6 week meet is better than any synthetic has ever done.

Good point. the critism leveled, as i recall, was directed at the way the dirt surface was prepared, very hard, not at any fundamental problems with the engineering of the track itself. Dirt can be a hard or a softer, deeper surface, as we know.

Don't forget that injury was probably the result of her hitting the gate at the break, not from the surface.