Arlington safety...putting it in perspective
 

Racing breakdowns leading to death at AP by year:

2007 12
2006 24
2005 8

Hmm, was this really any safer? While it improved upon 2006, most of which happened early in the meet before work was done on the track, it also represents a 50% increase over racing fatalities on the 2005 dirt track.

Posters flocking...........................

1. Most of us are tired of this debate
2. The stats given, taken at face value, are pretty much worthless without some context
3. We are watching football

At this point in time, its probably more informative on the nature of synthetic surfaces to assess the incidence of new, training-related injury, as opposed to the number of fatal breakdowns. This could be done through veterinary records and surveys. Over time one would anticipate a decline in total breakdowns if the surfaces do what they are supposed to.

That said, the troubling thing is the variety of synthetic surfaces available, as some seem better than others as far as injury prevention goes.

In fact, anticipate a blood bath at Santa Anita if the workout times hold like they are doing now.

Last year Arlington insisted over and over that the surface was safe and that the breakdowns were an aberration. The track was tested over and over and found to be flawless. They added more pre race vet inspections and more vets in general. etc, etc, etc. AP wasn't looking for a reason to spend $11 Million on a polytrack. One unfortunate year force their hand. You want to play with statistics? Look at the number of starters in '05 vs '07. I guarantee you the % percentage breakdown was less. Try reading "How to Lie With Statistics"...A quantitive case can be made for almost anything you want. Obviously there are traditionalsists who think poly is to horse racing like the DH is to baseball. Fine, but don't put out lame numbers in the face of real hard numbers...attendance, # of starters, handle, etc

The facts he posted weren't lame. Do you prefer fake dirt racing? I've been betting AP for 25 years and starting this year, will only bet their grass races. The reality is, the Chicago Tribune was on a smear campaign last year against the track and put out so much bad publicity, I'm guessing the track felt they had little choice but to do something. But in retrospect, I believe it was the wrong decision. Funny how tracks like AP and Dmr claim their handle is up, yet I've heard a number of handicappers say they won't bet AP or Dmr, or have cut back play significantly. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say they'd play a track because it was synthetic. If bunched fields of slow paced races is the future of dirt racing, the coffin is already shut on the sport.

Agreed there was a ton of negative press against them LY. But do you think they are lying about attendance, # of starters, etc? You say you have bet AP for 25 years, but what about this year? There weren't bunched fields and slow paced races. And maybe "handicappers" aren't the future of horse racing. New blood is needed and I really don't think poly/cushion is going to be the death of racing.

i'll say it, i play tracks that are synthetic, for that reason. i concentrate my play on those tracks. Arl, DelMar, SA, Holly, Keeneland, TP. I like the way it plays because they don't overwhelmingly favor a particular run style.
like gbbob said, the data on breakdowns will be more meaningful if the number of starters is included because the fields were bigger this year. not sure where to get that data.

7.18 last year 8.19 this year

How about '05 though...That was the year brought up earlier

Look..a lot greater horse minds than me have had a lot of intense debates here on poly and what is has done to racing. I look at it from a bigger perspective than bunched fields and potentially distorted breeding lines. Horse racing needs and wants to be considered a "major" sport. That likely won't happen again anytime soon, but what every major sport has gone through is change and evolution. DH's, artificial turfs, wild cards, domes, the BCC, , etc are all, depending on how you look at it, advancements or tragedies in their respective sports. The one thing that none of those did was cause the demise of the sport. And poly sure as hell won't cause the demise of horse racing. If Delmar was my home track, I probably wouldn't feel so positive about it, but fortunately, Arlington showed it can work and that there is a reason to look at it as a positive

This is just my opinion (for what it's worth), but what I don't understand about the whole polytrack/cushion track/tapeta etc. is WHY spend all of that money on an artificial surface when less money could have been spent by making the DIRT safer with similar results? Look at Saratoga as an example...

They ripped up Arlington, I think, 3 times last year and brought in all these independant track "experts" and every one said there was nothing wrong with the track. And there probably wasn't. I agree that Poly wasn't put in strictly based on the condition of the dirt track. But it was and there were a lot of added benefits that we debate vs the detractions.

The last 2 years were on hand - 2005 is taking a bit longer. I haven't given up yet.

I agree that there are probably certain tracks that are at a benefit by having an artificial surface, but what I DON'T want to see is every track in the country having this stuff. It makes my stomach turn at the idea of the Kentucky Derby (for example) being run on this stuff. There are many contributing factors to breakdowns... surface is just one of them.

you have to go with what works for you.

the routes at KEE and Dmr did favor closers, and I'm okay with it as they are limited special meets. the full meets at SA, Holly, Arl and TP on synthetics seem pretty balanced overall.

sometimes i think that people get so used to a speed bias that when they are faced with a fair track it initially appears biased.

I think Jamie this is where it gets deep. If there was truly nothing wrong with the Arlington dirt LY, then what lead to the breakdowns? Probably inferior, unready horses, um..Cat-Cal class droppers, weakened breeding lines...and you know the rest. So they took a problem caused by a dirt track, that may not have been a problem caused by a dirt track and put in poly. All of a sudden Pletcher shows up with 30+ horses, attendance jumps 10%, handle is up 15 %, breakdowns drop and the debate is on.

All I know is Dallas covered +3 and the Packers are 3-0..what poly?

2005 - 7.6

Also, what percentage of horses broke down over the turf vs. dirt (or fake dirt). What about training breakdowns, which are never included? Its too broad a stroke to take, what's good and what's bad. The poly in Chicago seemed to play much differently to the one in Keeneland, which is a travesty. Im not sure who uses what surface, but the difference in Chicago races didnt LOOK that different. Now, how about a breakdown of where winners came from i.e. wire to wire, stalk, dead closer?

So, certainly not 50% more starters.

i still think only a couple tracks should have installed this stuff, rather than a blanket change such as in cali. you have different surfaces, different brands, different methods of maintenance, and of course different weather.
there are so many things to look at overall to decide if this is a good change, a bad change. the total # of catastrophic breakdowns during a race may have decreased. but then you read about training injuries, and increase in soft tissue injuries which can force the euthanization of a horse--it's not just a bone injury that can bring that about. i've read that there are more hind end injuries in horses that run on the poly. woodbine banned toe grabs, then allowed them after the problems they had last winter, and trainers screaming for them.
as for handle, the use of poly means no more MTO in the turf races, no more scratches due to weather. how much of an increase in handle is there-and is there a correlation between the larger handle and full turf fields regardless of weather. also, are there more ways of betting those tracks with an increase than in past years? what about dime supers?

as for horse racing becoming a major sport again--i don't see it happening. it's a niche sport, and will toil along with soccer and ice hockey.

Its just a matter of time before the same morons who pimp this stuff are calling for it to be ripped out and complaining about being lied to. Should get good once the winter rolls in again, the stuff is junk. Im personally looking forward to the excuses coming out of Turfway this winter, I wonder how many bullshit road closing stories we will get when the track is frozen or balling up 2 inches in their feet.

If we could somehow manage to have a debate about the safety of polytrack AND the 2004 Belmont Stakes at the same time, we would really have achieved the most tiresome debate possible.

Already covered that.


http://derbytrail.com/forums/showthr...938#post260938

Probably going to be worse this year. Fair Grounds and Phil PArk will probably draw away a couple decent stable this year with slot horse racing and the quality of racing at TP will continue to erode. So, you'll have more bad horses at Turfway this year. Which means more breakdowns which means more bad weather closings.

i'd think the most tiresome debate would be 'who's the best horse since...?'

with artificial surfaces still being fairly new, and with happenings such as baffert and zayat at del mar, breakdowns at presque isle, cancellations at the 'all weather track' at turfway, this debate will continue for some time.

What isn't mentioned is that AP had a prolonged bias from 2004 thru June 2006 (dead rail). Last year, when they worked on the track, whether they realized it or not, they got rid of the bias until late August. And the breakdown rate slowed considerably. The only problem was they couldn't pinpoint what the problem was, but they did fix it.

Also, do those average number of starters pertain to all races or just the Poly races? The turf races at AP invariably get big fields.

Well maybe some people are turning away from synthetics and only betting turf races after 25 years of playing every race, but others are loving it.

I'm not a huge bettor, but I put about three times as much money into Arlington's pools this year as I ever have in any previous year. I know there are other people who felt the same way. Bigger fields and fairly run races are a pretty big attraction for me.

I'm not really trying to say that polytrack isn't safer. However, the stats I posted are AT LEAST as relevant as the stuff the pro polytrack crowd started promoting after about 1 week of the first meet. This continued until the last few months when they didn't really favor the "poly is the cure all" argument anymore.

now i'm confused, what is your point then?

i've never run across a person spouting "poly is a cure all" however there have been many that come out with a "poly is the death of racing" mantra.

thing is, it was sold as safer. but, if they have the same amount of loss overall, regardless of injury type, than it isn't safer. they need to keep track of all this--ARE there more soft tissue injuries? more hind end? virtually eliminating catastrophic breakdowns is to be applauded, but are they actually losing horses to other types of injuries? also, i saw that a study is commencing about breathing in the artificial fibers. what if they find that there is an adverse affect on the respiratory systems?

certainly we all want what is best for the horses, regardless of turf, dirt, or some sort of artificial surface.

It is funny you should mention that.
I have been thinking about buying a parrot and teaching it to say:
"Poly is a cure all" instead of the more traditional, "Polly wants a cracker."
:D

Oh please. I'm not saying your typical racing fan was, though certainly some were and that includes at this board.

Every single "story" that was fed to the press was hailing the safety and the incredible downturn in breakdowns at the polytracks when this stuff first came out. It was hailed as the savior of racing, a godsend. There was zero balance in the reporting. Now, there is just zero reporting.

A couple of horses broke down today at Santa Anita, including reportedly Drill Down, a top 2yo. I wonder if anyone's compiled any numbers yet for this track, because these are not the first major injuries since the track was opened in early September.

Is that the colt that ran decently (2nd or 3rd I think) in the Del Mar Futurity?

Yes he did, he ran second or third and looked to be a nice horse. I hope its not true.