now nyra is thinking about it

[tector]

If you think high-profile breakdown after high-profile breakdown is going to occur with no consequence, you are kidding yourselves. Of course the problem is ultimately the breed, which has been more screwed up than many of AKC dog breeds, and drugs, but those require hard solutions (indeed, the first would take several horse generations to reverse, even if the will to do so existed, which it doesn't--it has been 30+ years in the making). But running the horses over a chopped up trampoline is a quick, partial fix. It will happen, and horseplayers will adjust. They continue to bet notwithstanding widespread cheating and doping--and they will bet the synthetic tracks when there is really no other choice. So far the changeover has been haphazard and badly researched in advance, but now that it has happened in SoCal and other places, NYRA and the others can learn from them. I seriously doubt there will be a North American Grade I race run on dirt by 2015.

[SniperSB23]

In ten years this could easily be synthetic tracks:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2008-...rf-cover_N.htm

[sumitas]

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

http://thoroughbredtimes.com/nationa...-surfaces.aspx

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

http://thoroughbredtimes.com/nationa...-surfaces.aspx

Well then I guess it is settled.

[slotdirt]

WELL then, if Jack Knowlton said it, then clearly it must be fact.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

http://thoroughbredtimes.com/nationa...-surfaces.aspx

Where does he say this.....not that I saw in the linked story

[sumitas]

“The data thus far shows a reduction in fatal injuries, maybe 25%,” Knowlton said.

But he said that trainers are reporting more soft tissue, back and hind-quarter injuries with artificial material."


from the Tbred times link in my post.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by sumitas

“The data thus far shows a reduction in fatal injuries, maybe 25%,” Knowlton said.

But he said that trainers are reporting more soft tissue, back and hind-quarter injuries with artificial material."


from the Tbred times link in my post.

I stand corrected

[sumitas]

I do understand that systhetics are evolving. They don't have the ideal track yet. I was overly optimistic at their initial North American introduction. On balance, are they the way to proceed ? Zito has volunteered to chair a commission of 3 trainers (2 named by the state) to research the cost/benefits of state of the art dirt vs. synth.

[SniperSB23]

How about we compare the safe dirt tracks with the synthetics before all these people come up with meaningless statistics to support their case? What the committee should do is for the next two years track the all weather tracks against SAR, BEL, AQU, CD, GP, FG, and OAK and see what the results show. Make it clear to those tracks that if any of their individual breakdown rates are significantly higher than the average of the synthetic tracks, AND the dirt tracks as a group come out higher in breakdowns than the synthetics that pressure will be put on those tracks to switch to synthetics. If they show that dirt is just as safe or safer, or they can show that their individual track is as safe as the synthetics on average then they are free to keep dirt with no pressure from anyone. The current crap that is being compared is completely meaningless.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

How about we compare the safe dirt tracks with the synthetics before all these people come up with meaningless statistics to support their case? What the committee should do is for the next two years track the all weather tracks against SAR, BEL, AQU, CD, GP, FG, and OAK and see what the results show. Make it clear to those tracks that if any of their individual breakdown rates are significantly higher than the average of the synthetic tracks, AND the dirt tracks as a group come out higher in breakdowns than the synthetics that pressure will be put on those tracks to switch to synthetics. If they show that dirt is just as safe or safer, or they can show that their individual track is as safe as the synthetics on average then they are free to keep dirt with no pressure from anyone. The current crap that is being compared is completely meaningless.

I feel ya man!! I dont know how they can compare top class horses running at del mar (eventhough they had there fair share of fatalities last summer) to a place that runs broken down claimers like finger lakes or mountaineer. No **** the numbers will be different. I totally agree with the tracks you chose to compare with artifical tracks.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

One of the problems in this industry is who gets anointed as somehow knowledgable. Nothing personal against Jack Knowlton, as he seems like a nice man, but what exactly are his qualifications? Other than, of course, having been quoted by Sumitas.

[Danzig]

you mean misquoted...mr knowlton said 'maybe 25%'-sumitas gave it out as 25%. i think the maybe is important.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you mean misquoted...mr knowlton said 'maybe 25%'-sumitas gave it out as 25%. i think the maybe is important.

That moves Jack up.

Saying " maybe 25% " is pretty useful.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

That moves Jack up.

Saying " maybe 25% " is pretty useful.

it could be 5%-saying maybe gets you off the hook. maybe he doesn't know what the #'s are himself....