Slower doesn't mean safer
 

Remember when most all race tracks liked to soup up their track a bit for big days and have them playing faster than par?

You'd always have the crazy people who would say "the track is so hard it might hurt some horses" out posting in force.

Now, on these big showcase days in New York, you're seeing Eskanderya win by a football field in just 1:49.97 - on the same card, Pletcher's Nite Light was beaten less than a length in a Grade 3 Excelsior that needed 1:51.43 - both horses were sidelined.

Another Pletcher horse from that day, Munnings, was 3rd as the 6/5 favorite in the Grade 1 Carter .. he should have been sidelined on the basis of his two subsquent horrific performances. The other sprint stakes was won by Eightyfiveinafifty - his last sound performance - but that race was marred by the breakdown of El Rocco.

Just 23 horses competed in the four stakes on that card - and while you only had one breakdown.. you had a few who got hurt and haven't started again - and others like Awesome Act (16 Beyer next out) Munnings (37 and 51 Beyers with perferct trips next two) and Eightyfiveinafifty (beaten 35+ lengths total at 3/2 and 2/1 next two) who ran like they were off.

Drosselmeyer's final time of 2:31.57 in winning the Belmont was the 2nd slowest time since 1970. He's sidelined.

I'm not saying the track had anything to do with it - it's all coincidental - but slower tracks certainly don't mean safer tracks.

If what Jerry Brown is hearing from all the track supers he talks to is correct - they keep adding more cushion to the racetracks over time because they assume it makes racing less stressful ... yet horses at all levels appear more and more fragile all the time.

Even turf horses break. It's always gonna be there. Sucks. There was more cushion in the olden days and they still broke down.

In general, the rock-hard, lightening fast tracks are more dangerous. This is a generalization and it's not always true, but for the most part, all things being equal, a track that's a little slower is usually safer. That's not a big secret.

When they seal the tracks because they think it's going to rain, the tracks are always harder and they're practically always more dangerous.

If you believe what tracks supers tell Jerry Brown - the cushion was less in the 70's and 80's than it is now.

Certainly in theory and common belief....

And yet - if anything - the opposite proves true the more you observe it on paper.

Your Drossel example is a poor one. Slow horses run slow times. He didn't get hurt b/c he's slow.

I think he ran about four seconds (24 lengths) slower than Jazil and 2 seconds (12 lengths) slower than Da Tara.

The winner is slow - but so was the racetrack.

I can come up with plenty of examples of horses that got hurt as a direct result of a hard, sealed track. Back in 2005, they sealed the track a day or two before Big Cap day. Both Declan's Moon and Rock Hard Ten got hurt that day.

I don't know if any of the horses you mentioned actually got hurt on the day you alluded to. I'm not saying they didn't. I'm saying we don't know one way or the other.

Anyway, a few examples and anecdotes don't really prove anything one way or another. There will still be injuries even on a really safe track. You'll just have less injuries.

Horses obviously need some cushion. If they didn't, the tracks wouldn't have to spend all this money. They could just pave the tracks and the horses could run on cement.

What was it that was wrong that last summer they had dirt at Del Mar? I think it was called "cuppy." Was sort of a killing field.

Again, he's slow. The race track was fine on Belmont day. Guess what Commendable was slow too....Surprising to me you would use lengths beaten as anything since we all know the track is not the same every Belmont day. You are better than that.

Just to clarify, the speed of the track is not the only factor in determining safety. There are other factors too. The consistency of the track is very important. If you have holes in the track or if you have soft spots in the track, the track will be dangerous even if it's not very fast.

I'm talking about observations over many years at many different tracks involving many different horses.

It doesn't matter either way to me though.

Mineshaft in his prime wouldn't have run a final time even close to Jazil's Belmont over the track.

Mineshaft is not slow - but the track was that day.

True enough I suppose.

Maybe when the tracks are a little faster than par they're more consistant - I don't know.

Interesting comeback. Dumb. But interesting.

You know that it would obviously be dangerous for horses to run on cement. Why would it be dangerous? It would be dangerous because it is way too hard. That may be an extreme example but the point is that the horses need some cushion. How much cushion? I don't know exactly but when horses start running 6 furlongs in 1:07 and change, I would say that you're getting to the point where there's not enough cushion.

Majesticperfection seems to beg to differ at the moment, and that race card hasn't exactly come back with horses limping to the bench -- in fact, they practically swept Saratoga Sunday.

I have doubts more cushion is better.

Slower tracks are probably a little tougher and more stressful to run on - obviously a track has to provide some level of cushion — much more so than a concrete road for instance.

Tracks are never so dangerous that most of the horses get hurt on a card. If 10% were getting hurt, that would be a really dangerous track. I don't know if the track at Prairie Meadows was dangerous or not, but knowing that some horses came back fine is hardly evidence that the track was safe.

You can ask any trainer and they will all tell you that they get more injuries when the track is too hard whether it's grass or dirt.

Any comparison of tracks from years past and now are pretty much not valid based on the difference in how horses are trained/raced. Perhaps if horses ran more often they wouldnt be as frail as they are when every race is "spaced" to try to produce max efforts.