Santa Anita = Dirt (Starting with Winter Meet)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

From the same article, the sample before had 1.96 for dirt to 1.95 to synthetic. I'm still waiting for any kind of stats supporting synthetics' superior safety from you, since you said that pro-synth rhetoric is about "the safety and welfare of the horse."

You misunderstood why I said that. Many people talk synthetic track surfaces, and will continue to do so, because they were and are worried about the safety and welfare of the horse. To dismiss that concern out of hand is insulting to people that love the horse and it's place in a racing world, and to the people that are actively trying to create safer racetracks, safer racing environments. Synthetics are certainly part of that ongoing discussion. That is not a static field (artificial surfaces).

My point was that not everyone is worried about only gambling or winning, when the "rhetoric" is about synthetics.

You just dismissed out of hand stats from 2008 that showed synthetics were markedly safer (that year, regarding fatalities only) You only want to use 2010 year fatality stats - and only the early summary - because they support your view. 2010 stats don't "void" 2009 stats, or 2008 stats, or stats from elsewhere. They all matter. There are no detailed injury stats (types of injuries, etc) public yet - obviously those are important.

Both the figures you reference are American. Do you actually care about any of the stats from other countries? From individual tracks, American and not? From different types of synthetic surfaces? All the stats that were listed and quoted before American tracks considered going synthetic? All the stats are are in development now?

I don't think so - I think you just want to say, "synthetics are not safer", no matter how broad, generalized or unqualified that statement is, because you simply don't care for them. Fine.