Art Wilson: Cali perspective (with Shirreffs, Stute)
 

http://www2.whittierdailynews.com/sports/ci_9200513

John Shirreffs, a harsh critic of the synthetic surfaces, claims the reduction in catastrophic breakdowns during the afternoons is more than offset by the casualties during morning workouts. "And the horses that get hurt in the morning are the promising young horses," he said.

Said Melvin Stute: "I've had nine horses put down in 40 years, and five of them have been since the synthetics."

Are the # starters/race stats holding up this year vs last in California or at Keeneland? I'd be surprised. To me, the proof is in the betting. I read a few days ago that Keeneland's average daily all-sources handle was down 12%. Santa Anita was down. Aqueduct was up 3-4% and had purse increases. Oaklawn was up as well. Of the bigger dirt meets, only Gulfstream was down (The Stronach Effect?).

Maybe it was the weather (or maybe '07 had more big carryover days) but when Keeneland Spring is down double digits, that says a lot.

Finally, Keeneland's percentage of winning favorites on the main track for the meet was 24% which is far below average and lower than the 29% of 2007. In spring of 2006 - the last year of dirt - the percentage of winning favorites on the main was 34%. I'm no big chalk fan but to me that means the surface is increasingly unpredictable. And when bettors move from playing Keeneland to Aqueduct in April, that says a lot too.

Hollywood's winning favorite % looks about right and I think they've had good weather so far. But if there is any weather involved, the synthetics are unpredictably unplayable and not just for the days or days after it rains.

A Jockey Clubs report showed fatalities for synthetics are down vs dirt .... 1.5/per 1,000 starts for synthetics vs 2.0/per 1,000 starts for dirt. That's certainly a good thing But like the article said, who knows how many are going down in training?

http://www.kentucky.com/232/story/396504.html

those are some damn tough races to handicap at Keeneland, I don't care what the surface is. 12 horse fields of quality horses? I like the challenge but the handle going down indicates not everyone does.

I would was true and complete records of all injuries to be used. Lets face it, unless a horse crashed to the track, is he counted. Many horses finish races every day, walk back and then are foiund later to be seriously hurt. Are they counted? Trainers are not required to report injuries and if hurt horses are shipped out via private carrier, no one has to know why.

Dr. Mary Scolay's injury reporting system is the reference point for that question. But frankly, since those 'out of view' injuries/fatalities weren't being reported previously anyway, they wouldn't impact the study now if they continued to go unreported...

Horses that bow tendons are rarely vanned off

These are observations without a valid statistical sample to substantiate their personal conclusions.

It's called the Sumitas method.

OOOOOOOOOO

It's called legitimate scientific data. You all and Shirreffs prefer the old Greek method of who yells the loudest is right.

WRONG

I was at the Wood Memorial and War Pass, Spring at Last and Tater Tutt all got hurt. More may have. None of them were vanned off and I doubt that any of them would show up on an injury report.

Sumitas has some nice "observations" of his own

Really? So you're saying that John Shirreffs is famous for shouting down those with differing opinions? That's the way you think he's approached this discussion?

Steve, you have no basis to ask those questions of Sumitas unless you can find a scientist like Jack Knowlton to say that Shirreffs is maybe wrong.

THESE ARE TRAINERS WITH REAL HORSES... Mel Stute is saying that he's had as many horses break down in 2 years as he did in the previous 38. Shirreffs is saying his young horses are getting hurt. What other kind of observation is necessary from their perspective?

Honestly.. your approach to this makes any conversation impossible and virtually worthless. I won't bother with another response. Everyone else was tired of the nonsense from you and now I am as well.

In some ways yes. And Moss as well in Cali has brought his peresonal track bias to the soap box level as well...imo.

I'd like to thank the new thoughtful menbers of the board for sharing their insights. The vast majority on this board are not interested in discussion, just shouting down and ridiculing those they disagree with. Kind of like Moss and Shirriffs.

His bias is backed up by millions upons millions sopent in the business. He's earned the right to express the opinion he's formulated.

Absolutely, but I caution that those are only his opinions. NOT based in fact or any meaningful data he can produce.

You have no idea what you're talking about in reference to Jerry Moss and John Shirreffs. NONE.

They've been opposed to the Cali intiative on synths all along. But Moss has consistently been outvoted, thankfully, by the CHRB.

But you have the meaningful data in your possession that is irrefutable.. definitive.. debate-deciding? Utterly ridiculous.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You get one more and then I am out of smiles or whatever they are called

I'm through now with it. I have a show to put together yet.

he is our resident horse porn expert though.

Data gathering is in process and as Linny stated, many injuries are never reported because they are detected after a race or during a workout. I'm waiting for comprehensive data, although the rate for breakdowns has been quantified as lower on synth races than dirt. That's a start.

The industry is moving very slowly for full reporting on all on track injuries regardless of work outs or races. NJ has a great model where they can test for drugs anywhere, anyplace, anytime. Comprehensive data is needed and many fight that, of course. They've got the stakes purses cornered, they're making all the money now.

I am under no obligation to report injuries nor will I report them. For one, the fear of litigation if an "injured" horse were to ever breakdown in the future, I dont want ammunition for a creative laywer. Secondly it is no ones business except mine and the horses owner what the status of my horses are until they are entered in a race. Then they can perform any kind of check up or examination that they want. If they pass out of competition testing for illegal drugs I will willingly participate.

care to explain this? If we're waiting for the comprehensive data, how is it that its already been quantified that the breakdown rate is lower on synth?
I haven't seen any real strong data on that yet.

Trainer David Hofmans says it's a Godsend for the industry. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Stronach was going to put dirt back in at Anita, but is leaning towards synthetic. Why? No, Stronach doesn't like synthetic. The trainers out here prefer it. A few don't prefer it. People have different training methods. I wouldn't say Stute is typical. He trains horses very hard. Calls it "being fit." Works great for horses when they go to Fairplex. Mullins prefers synthetic. Frankel prefers synthetic. Ron Ellis prefers synthetic. I think if ya had the numbers it's about like that(twice as many trainers out here prefer synthetic to dirt.) I saw an actual breakdown of that type of voting out here(by the trainers.) It was roughly 2 to 1. Hofmans,Mullins,Frankel,and Ellis would be in favor. Stute,and Shirreffs would be against. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Steve,you can craft and couch arguments (against synthetic) all you want,but you can't avoid that fact. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. This would not be the place to back up your argument against synthetic. We mainly had 4-6 horse fields. Now,we have bigger fields. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Do you really want to look out here to support your anti-synthetic stance?

WHAT??? YOU'RE HIDING INJURIES??? Hmmm...I need to make a note of that for future litigation purposes. (That creative enough for you?)

First, the opinion of the trainers is pretty close... Personally, I don't have an anti-synthetic stance Steve.. I don't care either way. I have an open mind stance that allows for it's use in appropriate venues. It's the other viewpoint that has an imperative attached to it that I don't care for. (The "We have to go to synthetic everywhere immediately to save the game" camp.)

I work everyday here at the tracks in So-Cali and this is the first I have heard of Mel having to put down 5 head since the synthetic tracks have been installed and we all know how things get around the track so Im inclined to think Mel might be fudging a little bit. Ill look into it further and ask some people who would know.

Jim,
O/T a bit but this is a very good read on synthetics. Owners, vets, breeders, jocks, track supers, trainers give thoughts. Pro and con. If nothing else, the leading ADW sire info is probably useful.

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/ne...c_surfaces.pdf

thanks bruce, I already got that article. it was pretty good, lots of comments and fairly balanced.

No, it's not close.It's not like if you polled 150,then you would get 80 for,and 70 against. It would be like 40-60 against,and 110-90 for. It's a definite obvious majority,but we don't have to speculate on it. I'll find the results. You put up a story with people complaining about synthetic. I don't think that's by chance. You and Crist both got a anti-synthetic bias. So, why deny it? I have heard you take shot after shot at synthetic on your show. You didn't really like very many horses winning 3 year old stakes races on synthetic to be taking up spots in the Derby starting gate etc. I have seen our field sizes go up out here, and overall it's a safer surface. In the end, this is gunna be the argument ( "synthetic isn't safer" ) that will be proven totally incorrect. Do I "like" synthetic surfaces? Well,I like that horses come back quicker. The fields are bigger now. That's the 1st thing I would say I like about the synthetic surfaces. Horses can run more often. I guess the ant-synthetic people think it's some kind of fluke(that fields out here are bigger now.) Are they as easy to cap as dirt? Our dirt tracks out here had a lot more short term bias problems than any of these synthetics have. The dirt tracks we had constantly favoring speed,and always favored the inside or outside. That wouldn't be that awful if it stayed that way for weeks at a time(like synthetic course biases do.) Our dirt courses often had biases that changed during a day's racing. The cushion track at Hollywood would be my favorite synthetic course. The polytrack at Keeneland and Del Mar are my least favorite. They are very difficult to cap,and that's why people mainly hate synthetic tracks. There is no doubt in my mind that the cushion track at Hollywood is a less biased track than the previous dirt course we had here. How soon people forget the speed biases we had on Friday nights out here. I want something that's good for horses,trainers,and the betting public. I don't think that's what we had at Churchill last Saturday. I don't think it's what POLYTRACK provides either(very poor for betting purposes.) If we could do what Dutrow said to do (have better people in charge of tracks,) then I would be fine with dirt. There needs to be a lot more quality control ,and basic standards used with dirt courses. If we could do that,then I think we could train on the surface people prefer,and race on dirt.The problem is that (at this time) dirt courses are very hard to keep standardized. Dutrow is correct (theoretically.) We( theoretically) could get dirt courses as safe as synthetic,but we don't come close to that right now. As long as we keep thinking it's cool to have a rock hard dirt track on big days at Churchill,then injuries to well known horses are going to keep being an issue. Look, the 1st race that I saw last Saturday (at Churchill)was probably the 5th race. The top two horses out of the gate were the only two involved in the race. They were tired,but nothing moved to them as they came to the wire. That's when I wrote on here that they didn't open that track up enough. Johnny V. said it was "tight n' fast." Nobody seemed to care. They just wanted to know who was going to win the Derby. As long as people don't keep track of how hard dirt tracks are, then horses are at a lot of risk. There needs to be a way to quantify just how hard a dirt track is, and make sure there are standards. Theoretically,I believe we can race safely on dirt,but it will take a lot more effort and money than is put into it right now. I'm not against racing on either dirt or synthetic,but quality control with dirt tracks has to be increased incredibly.

The synthetic fields are bigger cause they are filled with turf horses.

We'll see how much the trainers like the sythetic surface once it comes BC time and nobody shows up. Curlin isnt going near that crap. A big thanks to Santa Anita for making the best horse in the country or possibly the world go over seas for his final races. Cant wait to see those on tape delay.

If Zenyata handled Anita and OP,then Curlin should be able to do it,too. The really good horses are supposed to be able to run on anything. I think what you both are saying is that you don't like that turf horses can handle running on synthetic.So,guess what happens when you have a surface that allows traditional dirt and turf horses to compete together? Big competitive fields. Regardless of which horses like it,they can run more often on it than they can on dirt (ESPECIALLY THE DIRT WE HAD OUT HERE.)

Your right I kinda like my dirt horses to run on dirt and my turf to run on turf and not have grade 2 turf horses scaring off Curlin in the classic.