Art Wilson: Cali perspective (with Shirreffs, Stute)

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Kasept

THESE ARE TRAINERS WITH REAL HORSES... Mel Stute is saying that he's had as many horses break down in 2 years as he did in the previous 38. Shirreffs is saying his young horses are getting hurt. What other kind of observation is necessary from their perspective?

Honestly.. your approach to this makes any conversation impossible and virtually worthless. I won't bother with another response. Everyone else was tired of the nonsense from you and now I am as well.

Trainer David Hofmans says it's a Godsend for the industry. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Stronach was going to put dirt back in at Anita, but is leaning towards synthetic. Why? No, Stronach doesn't like synthetic. The trainers out here prefer it. A few don't prefer it. People have different training methods. I wouldn't say Stute is typical. He trains horses very hard. Calls it "being fit." Works great for horses when they go to Fairplex. Mullins prefers synthetic. Frankel prefers synthetic. Ron Ellis prefers synthetic. I think if ya had the numbers it's about like that(twice as many trainers out here prefer synthetic to dirt.) I saw an actual breakdown of that type of voting out here(by the trainers.) It was roughly 2 to 1. Hofmans,Mullins,Frankel,and Ellis would be in favor. Stute,and Shirreffs would be against. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Steve,you can craft and couch arguments (against synthetic) all you want,but you can't avoid that fact. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. This would not be the place to back up your argument against synthetic. We mainly had 4-6 horse fields. Now,we have bigger fields. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Do you really want to look out here to support your anti-synthetic stance?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. This would not be the place to back up your argument against synthetic. We mainly had 4-6 horse fields. Now,we have bigger fields. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Do you really want to look out here to support your anti-synthetic stance?

First, the opinion of the trainers is pretty close... Personally, I don't have an anti-synthetic stance Steve.. I don't care either way. I have an open mind stance that allows for it's use in appropriate venues. It's the other viewpoint that has an imperative attached to it that I don't care for. (The "We have to go to synthetic everywhere immediately to save the game" camp.)

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Kasept

First, the opinion of the trainers is pretty close... Personally, I don't have an anti-synthetic stance Steve.. I don't care either way. I have an open mind stance that allows for it's use in appropriate venues. It's the other viewpoint that has an imperative attached to it that I don't care for. (The "We have to go to synthetic everywhere immediately to save the game" camp.)

No, it's not close.It's not like if you polled 150,then you would get 80 for,and 70 against. It would be like 40-60 against,and 110-90 for. It's a definite obvious majority,but we don't have to speculate on it. I'll find the results. You put up a story with people complaining about synthetic. I don't think that's by chance. You and Crist both got a anti-synthetic bias. So, why deny it? I have heard you take shot after shot at synthetic on your show. You didn't really like very many horses winning 3 year old stakes races on synthetic to be taking up spots in the Derby starting gate etc. I have seen our field sizes go up out here, and overall it's a safer surface. In the end, this is gunna be the argument ( "synthetic isn't safer" ) that will be proven totally incorrect. Do I "like" synthetic surfaces? Well,I like that horses come back quicker. The fields are bigger now. That's the 1st thing I would say I like about the synthetic surfaces. Horses can run more often. I guess the ant-synthetic people think it's some kind of fluke(that fields out here are bigger now.) Are they as easy to cap as dirt? Our dirt tracks out here had a lot more short term bias problems than any of these synthetics have. The dirt tracks we had constantly favoring speed,and always favored the inside or outside. That wouldn't be that awful if it stayed that way for weeks at a time(like synthetic course biases do.) Our dirt courses often had biases that changed during a day's racing. The cushion track at Hollywood would be my favorite synthetic course. The polytrack at Keeneland and Del Mar are my least favorite. They are very difficult to cap,and that's why people mainly hate synthetic tracks. There is no doubt in my mind that the cushion track at Hollywood is a less biased track than the previous dirt course we had here. How soon people forget the speed biases we had on Friday nights out here. I want something that's good for horses,trainers,and the betting public. I don't think that's what we had at Churchill last Saturday. I don't think it's what POLYTRACK provides either(very poor for betting purposes.) If we could do what Dutrow said to do (have better people in charge of tracks,) then I would be fine with dirt. There needs to be a lot more quality control ,and basic standards used with dirt courses. If we could do that,then I think we could train on the surface people prefer,and race on dirt.The problem is that (at this time) dirt courses are very hard to keep standardized. Dutrow is correct (theoretically.) We( theoretically) could get dirt courses as safe as synthetic,but we don't come close to that right now. As long as we keep thinking it's cool to have a rock hard dirt track on big days at Churchill,then injuries to well known horses are going to keep being an issue. Look, the 1st race that I saw last Saturday (at Churchill)was probably the 5th race. The top two horses out of the gate were the only two involved in the race. They were tired,but nothing moved to them as they came to the wire. That's when I wrote on here that they didn't open that track up enough. Johnny V. said it was "tight n' fast." Nobody seemed to care. They just wanted to know who was going to win the Derby. As long as people don't keep track of how hard dirt tracks are, then horses are at a lot of risk. There needs to be a way to quantify just how hard a dirt track is, and make sure there are standards. Theoretically,I believe we can race safely on dirt,but it will take a lot more effort and money than is put into it right now. I'm not against racing on either dirt or synthetic,but quality control with dirt tracks has to be increased incredibly.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Kasept

http://www2.whittierdailynews.com/sports/ci_9200513

John Shirreffs, a harsh critic of the synthetic surfaces, claims the reduction in catastrophic breakdowns during the afternoons is more than offset by the casualties during morning workouts. "And the horses that get hurt in the morning are the promising young horses," he said.

Said Melvin Stute: "I've had nine horses put down in 40 years, and five of them have been since the synthetics."

I work everyday here at the tracks in So-Cali and this is the first I have heard of Mel having to put down 5 head since the synthetic tracks have been installed and we all know how things get around the track so Im inclined to think Mel might be fudging a little bit. Ill look into it further and ask some people who would know.