|
|
 |
|
|
|
#4
01-05-2008, 01:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts 
|
|
#5
01-05-2008, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
01-05-2008, 03:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
01-05-2008, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The situation at Santa Anita is obviously a disaster. But that is not an indictment on all synthetic surfaces. We are extremely happy with the track at Hollywood Park. There have been a few minor issues at Hollywood, but overall the track is great. It is a huge improvement over the old track and the old track was the best track in Southern California, so that should tell you something.
The vast majority of trainers out here are extremely happy with the track at Hollywood Park. From Richard Mandella to Ron Ellis to Marty Jones to Jeff Mullins, the list goes on and on. All of these guys love the track at Hollywood. I have talked with them about it. There are a ton of horses out there that could not stay sound on the regular dirt here, but they are staying sound on the syntetic surfaces here. Back in the 1980s, I think the dirt tracks were pretty good out here. The problem was that when it would rain, the tracks would become a mess. So they started adding sand and a buch of other things to the surface which made the track hold up much better in the rain but it made the tracks much worse over all. The same thing happened at Turf Paradise. I was talking about this very subject this morning with a trainer that we use in Arizona and New Mexico when we ship horses there. He said that Turf Paradise was very good years ago, but it was a total mess when it rained. So they added a bunch of stuff to the track that made it hold up well when it rains, but overall it pretty much ruined the track and nowadays the track is not very good there. Anyway, I don't know what the answer is. I think there is definitely a place for synthetic surfaces. They are certainly not the cure-all, but they are a big improvement over what he had here before. These new tracks may not be an improvement over what we had here 25 years ago, but those old tracks could not withstand rain. I personally would prefer a regular dirt track, if you could find one that was safe and that holds up when it rains but I'm not sure that such a thing exists. The worst thing for the horses in when they seal the track. When they seal the track, it becomes rock-hard and your horse has a 10x greater chance of getting hurt.
|
|
#8
01-05-2008, 05:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rupert
Belmont, Saratoga, CHD, etc. Those are all good dirt tracks that hold up to pleanty of rain When synthetics were installed they were supposed to 1) Require little upkeep 2) Be all weather 3) Have Fewer breakdowns They have done none of the above. If I ordered a new TV and it was supposed to have a crystal clear picture, record things by voice, and have great audio, and they delivered an old floor model wooden Zenith, I would be pretty pissed off. Especially if that Zenith cost 15 million. I wouldnt call my buddies to come over on Sunday for football and tell them I had an incredible TV that was perfect. Why are people still saying these tracks are better, or as good as what was in before. I dont get it
|
Hybrid Mode
