Polydeaths in England

[ArlJim78]

Well okay guys, bid, todko, i tried to warn you about jumping to conclusions. It seems that according to a story in the Racing Post titled "Professionals united in support of Wolverhampton track ", the track is not seen as the culprit for the recent spate of breakdowns.

http://www.racingpost.co.uk/news/home.sd
The site requires you to register. Here are a couple quotes.

"Before racing, HRA inspector of courses Nicky Carlisle conducted an inspection of the surface, initially declaring himself "satisfied but cautious".
He was later confident enough to condemn a "knee-jerk reaction"

"It was not helpful how some reacted, but the most logical conclusion for now is that nothing has changed here, and that spate of incidents is a result of bad luck."

senior jockey "McKeown said: "There is no problem over the track and the surface. The problem is 7lb claimers."

and finally;
"Of the five fatalities, only Money For Fun’s remains unexplained. Two of the others were caused by heart attacks, while another two came as a result of injuries sustained during falls caused by interference. "



So of the five breakdowns that made the headlines, only one came from an unknown cause, the others were explained by factors having nothing to do with the surface.

Please read the article and then read the knee jerk reactionary posts made on this thread. For the life of me I cannot understand why some are going to such lengths to distort this issue..

[brockguy]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Well okay guys, bid, todko, i tried to warn you about jumping to conclusions. It seems that according to a story in the Racing Post titled "Professionals united in support of Wolverhampton track ", the track is not seen as the culprit for the recent spate of breakdowns.

http://www.racingpost.co.uk/news/home.sd
The site requires you to register. Here are a couple quotes.

"Before racing, HRA inspector of courses Nicky Carlisle conducted an inspection of the surface, initially declaring himself "satisfied but cautious".
He was later confident enough to condemn a "knee-jerk reaction"

"It was not helpful how some reacted, but the most logical conclusion for now is that nothing has changed here, and that spate of incidents is a result of bad luck."

senior jockey "McKeown said: "There is no problem over the track and the surface. The problem is 7lb claimers."

and finally;
"Of the five fatalities, only Money For Fun’s remains unexplained. Two of the others were caused by heart attacks, while another two came as a result of injuries sustained during falls caused by interference. "



So of the five breakdowns that made the headlines, only one came from an unknown cause, the others were explained by factors having nothing to do with the surface.

Please read the article and then read the knee jerk reactionary posts made on this thread. For the life of me I cannot understand why some are going to such lengths to distort this issue..

I think there is also the overall argument that there is too much racing on the track and that maintenance isnt what it should be!

[Danzig]

it would be nice if one could read thru a thread, and not find it cluttered with other garbage.

thanks to those who posted other info clarifying the issues with the track.

i think that poly may turn out no better than dirt. i think many of these tracks were due a change, and for whatever reason decided to go to poly. one thing it will bring about is fuller fields involving turf when it has to move to the main track.
BUT i think the line of bs involving this type of track was just that. it's been billed as being all-weather, when in fact cold temperatures are causing problems. of course dirt doesn't handle icy cold either. not as maintenance free as what was presented, kickback is an issue.

i think there was a rush to it. i think everyone knows that dirt tracks have to be re-furbished every so often. i know that some dirt tracks seem to be just fine regarding safety.

i think this poly was sold as a cure-all. it's not.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

it would be nice if one could read thru a thread, and not find it cluttered with other garbage.

thanks to those who posted other info clarifying the issues with the track.

i think that poly may turn out no better than dirt. i think many of these tracks were due a change, and for whatever reason decided to go to poly. one thing it will bring about is fuller fields involving turf when it has to move to the main track.
BUT i think the line of bs involving this type of track was just that. it's been billed as being all-weather, when in fact cold temperatures are causing problems. of course dirt doesn't handle icy cold either. not as maintenance free as what was presented, kickback is an issue.

i think there was a rush to it. i think everyone knows that dirt tracks have to be re-furbished every so often. i know that some dirt tracks seem to be just fine regarding safety.

i think this poly was sold as a cure-all. it's not.

i think you and I are saying the same thing.

to me its, whatever the benefits or shortcomings are for polytrack, lets not exagerate them one way or the other. as they say "just the facts maam"

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

i think you and I are saying the same thing.

to me its, whatever the benefits or shortcomings are for polytrack, lets not exagerate them one way or the other. as they say "just the facts maam"

I agree basically with everything you have said. The good argument, and the typical self-aggrandizing by others has obscured this, is that Polytrack was falsely billed, and defended, as being safe where dirt was not. These same arguments, which I believe, from Wolverhampton could have been made concerning the breakdowns at Del Mar last summer. Yet, of course, the Hari Polytracknas used that as more ammo for their arsenel. Those same horses would have broken down on Polytrack. The simple fact is the jury was still out last year on whether or not this surface is safer just as it is now. Ultimately, if it is used as just another mask by this screwed up industry to continue to ignore the real problems, it will do way more harm than good in the long run.

The problem is that once again the desires and concerns of the bettors, the ones who pay the bills, were completely ignored. We fuel the game yet have no say. When our biggest ally, Andy Beyer, attempts to voice our concerns he is met by the usual " you're only thinking about yourself, and not the horses, like we are " BS. These people, whomever they are, need to realize that we have more than a right to " think about ourselves ", just as the owners have a right to think about themselves when retiring horses early, as we pay the bills. Wouldn't it have been nice if these synthetic tracks had not been insidiously forcefed upon us and instead had received a better wait-and-see approach as many bettors would have encouraged?

[ManilaRose]

Amen Blackthroat. The jury is still out which amazes me why so many tracks are installing the surface. A trial period would've been a good idea before so many tracks jumped to it. Secondly, I totally agree on the comment about the bettors. As a horse owner and horse player, and fan of racing I have several issues with poly. First of all, I am for safer conditions for horses. It better be alot safer for that amount of money though. As a bettor watching the Keeneland meet I was so turned off by the laughable results and manner in which the races were being run that it was the first time I didn't go to a meet since I've been in the sport. Lastly, I believe poly will render the results of some of the most historic and important races as irrelevant. Why do I care who wins the Bluegrass Stakes this year when I'm handicapping for the Derby? Maybe I'm wrong on this and if so feel free to help me out, but the Breeder's Cup preps on poly lost all relevance to me and I feel the same about the upcoming Derby preps. Anyway, I could write a book on my poly thoughts so I digress.

Originally Posted by ManilaRose

Amen Blackthroat. The jury is still out which amazes me why so many tracks are installing the surface. A trial period would've been a good idea before so many tracks jumped to it. Secondly, I totally agree on the comment about the bettors. As a horse owner and horse player, and fan of racing I have several issues with poly. First of all, I am for safer conditions for horses. It better be alot safer for that amount of money though. As a bettor watching the Keeneland meet I was so turned off by the laughable results and manner in which the races were being run that it was the first time I didn't go to a meet since I've been in the sport. Lastly, I believe poly will render the results of some of the most historic and important races as irrelevant. Why do I care who wins the Bluegrass Stakes this year when I'm handicapping for the Derby? Maybe I'm wrong on this and if so feel free to help me out, but the Breeder's Cup preps on poly lost all relevance to me and I feel the same about the upcoming Derby preps. Anyway, I could write a book on my poly thoughts so I digress.

Rose be very careful, the synthetic track secret police are on their way to your house as we speak. Stay calm, and get to your car. If you are being followed, drive to the nearest police station and begin beeping your horn when you get in front of it. Now make sure you have your story straight, these people are very well skilled manipulators and liars and could sell a ketchup popsicle to a women wearing a white dress. Godspeed to you.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

i think you and I are saying the same thing.

to me its, whatever the benefits or shortcomings are for polytrack, lets not exagerate them one way or the other. as they say "just the facts maam"

ArlJim, I completely agree with you and Deb on this one as well.
Its been fraudulently marketed as a cure all in so many different ways.
Its not the existence of it or possible uses of it that I oppose, just the bull**** used to sell it.
The problem is that those who buy into it cannot easily, or ever, decide they made a mistake and take it out. A total and complete reconfiguation and resurfacing and cushioning of Gulf cost 5 million bucks. This stuff is upwards of TEN MILLION to install. Once a track makes this huge expenditure its gonna be hard pressed toever take it out, its like the roach motel, you can check in but never check out. To be this makes it almost a permanent decision once the choice is made. Not enough facts or data is in to move to this stuff on a broad and sweeping range.
because no tracks have the room to install synthetic and keep dirt, it is INDEED a dirt replacemnet surface and I see no way it could be called anything but. Has any track installed this stuff and kept dirt racing yet? Of course not.
In an ideal world they could experiment with it by installing a new course with synthetic and keeping dirt but noone has done this.
The severe way in which trainers are being asked not to speak out against it, or if they don't like it to just leave is wrong as well. Tracks have such big investments in it after they install it that they don't wanna hear, see, or speak any evil about it.
Horses will always break down as they are now on Turf, dirt, or synthetic. I'd think that first trying to make dirt tracks safer with better cushions, deeper harrowing, and safer top layers would make more sense at a fraction of the price and many trainers have wondered aloud why this can't be.
Noone seemed to care for years about whether the tracks were safe or not and they could have adressed the issue had they chosen to at a fraction of the price.
My firm theory is that these huge contracts and bdiing processes work no different than they do in any other business in the real world. You get in a few guys ears and tell them if they help steer the contract to you, that maybe a big job or Christmas present awaits them in a Swiss ban account.
Why else would everyone rush to spend 10-12 mill when in the past the same guys wouldn't spend one mill to just resurface the track? Call me cynical, but I think this is allabout lining people's pockets. the rest they make up as they go along.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by brockguy

I think there is also the overall argument that there is too much racing on the track and that maintenance isnt what it should be!

Yes that did seem to be a big concern, I believe I read that they have completed the most race dates in the history of UK tracks.

Also from reading the article it sounds as if the configuration of the track, tight turns, etc, i'm not sure, make it actually very narrow in terms of where you need to have your horse and therefore this was the reason for some of the interferences. Also I think young inexperienced riders were being looked at as another cause.

Honestly I don't know a lot about this place, mainly just what I read in a couple articles.

[todko]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Well okay guys, bid, todko, i tried to warn you about jumping to conclusions. It seems that according to a story in the Racing Post titled "Professionals united in support of Wolverhampton track ", the track is not seen as the culprit for the recent spate of breakdowns.

http://www.racingpost.co.uk/news/home.sd
The site requires you to register. Here are a couple quotes.

"Before racing, HRA inspector of courses Nicky Carlisle conducted an inspection of the surface, initially declaring himself "satisfied but cautious".
He was later confident enough to condemn a "knee-jerk reaction"

"It was not helpful how some reacted, but the most logical conclusion for now is that nothing has changed here, and that spate of incidents is a result of bad luck."

senior jockey "McKeown said: "There is no problem over the track and the surface. The problem is 7lb claimers."

and finally;
"Of the five fatalities, only Money For Fun’s remains unexplained. Two of the others were caused by heart attacks, while another two came as a result of injuries sustained during falls caused by interference. "



So of the five breakdowns that made the headlines, only one came from an unknown cause, the others were explained by factors having nothing to do with the surface.

Please read the article and then read the knee jerk reactionary posts made on this thread. For the life of me I cannot understand why some are going to such lengths to distort this issue..

You post is a little unclear -- you say "of the five breakdowns" -- how does a breakdown result from a heart attack? That follow-up article is a lot of CYA if you noticed.

Breakdowns are distorted here too. Often they are labeled as "pulled up" or "eased". I saw them put the white sheet up at one race last year at TP and the chart said "vanned off". Didn't say dead or alive however. If anything breakdowns are under-reported.

I'm not saying poly is more dangerous than dirt -- all I'm saying is that industry should avoid the "knee-jerk reaction" in rushing to install it everywhere.

I didn't get to see much of it live last night. After the first race at Polyway a transformer blew knocking out the lights in the back stretch. They worked on it for a while and then ultimately canceled racing. Hopefully a piece of poly didn't kick up and short out the transformer .

[ArlJim78]

It seems like many people are concerned about "THE RUSH" to install polytrack. I'm just not sensing the rush like some of you. Polytrack or its cousin Cushion track are to my knowledge now installed on a grand total of four NA race tracks. Arlington has also commited to an installation before the 07 season. The vast majority of tracks are still with the good old dirt that everyone seems to love and I don't think its a huge number of tracks that have signaled a pressing need to change. Why are people nearly apoplectic about this supposed rush. The only places where you can currently find it in action is at Turfway and Hollywood, and Holly will close soon. That will leave one track until probably the Keeneland spring meet.

To me it almost looks like what is going on is exactly what people want, a gradual rollout, testing it and evaluating it at different sites, hot and cold, and monitoring the results over several seasons.
Two cold weather sites have installed it (WO and TP) and there are reports of some issues do to freezing etc. From my own observations at Keenland I was amazed at how much water the track could take with little or no visible effect. We'll see what the consensus is at HP after the meet wraps up.

I just think we haven't even come close to crossing the point of no return yet. If the results continue to come in the way I see that they already have, slightly positive relative to dirt, then I think the trend will continue with a few tracks each year making the transition.

If on the other hand a stronger consensus starts to develop, either postive or negative, I think you'll see either a more rapid transtion or perhaps it will stop cold.

[Danzig]

all cali tracks are having to make the switch, just read that del mar is about to make a decision. and of course arlington as well. i think keeneland is the one who really is pushing the issue at this point, since the tracks that had installed up til they did weren't major league tracks. let's face it, no one is going to hurry to follow in turfway or woodbines tracks. but keeneland?! i think the chrb jumped the gun in mandating all state tracks having to install. there's no wiggle room there. how do you argue with that, or state your case? you don't. it was pushed down the tracks throats, willing or no.

here's another thing. perception vs reality and the medias ability to skew that perception. del mar and arlington were all over the news during their most recent meets, breakdowns trumpeted as being at unprecedented levels. how much of that had to do with making a possible problem seem as a foregone conclusion? how many times was arlingtons track looked over? and by how many experts? and every time it was ruled safe. then del mar, how many breakdowns occurred early on, when horses had to re-acclimate? was it a higher than usual #? if not, why wasn't that discussed?
i'll tell you why...the almighty dollar.

[sumitas]

Poly has received a lot of support from the horsemen and fans. Betting is up, field sizes are up. I see this surface improving with time and more research.

from the recent Michael Dickinson interview in Bloodhorse
"I believe that the tracks which install a good synthetic surface will have a lot of runners and those that stay with old dirt surface will lose horses. The owner wants his horses back. If he gets beat, it is not the end of the world; but if his horse is lame, it is not a good result and many owners leave the industry because of injuries."
http://www.bloodhorse.com/talkinhorses/MD120706.asp