PRIORITY NO. 1: HORSES OR HORSEPLAYERS?
By Ray Paulick
Southern California-based trainer Bob Hess crystallized the often toxic debate over synthetic tracks as well as anyone I’ve talked with on the subject: “My horses are happy on it, and they’re lasting a lot longer,” said Hess, a 44-year-old, second generation horseman and a graduate of Stanford University. “My clients are getting more bang for their buck. But without gamblers, we are nothing: there are no purses and no owners. The reality is the gamblers hate this shit. They have no confidence in it. From what they tell me, it’s inconsistent and changes from track to track. Most gamblers tend to play speed, and if you play speed out here, you’re screwed.”
Maybe that’s why Sheikh Mohammed has installed a Tapeta Footings synthetic surface at the lavish Meydan racecourse that is due to open in Dubai later this month and will host the Dubai World Cup program in March. He apparently believes, after extensive testing, that it’s safer for his and other people’s horses. And, since gambling isn’t permitted in Dubai, the sheikh won’t be bombarded with emails and phone calls from unhappy horseplayers who may have had to reinvent how they handicap a race.
SYNTHETIC TEST TUBE
That certainly hasn’t been the case in California, which, for better or worse, has been the test tube for synthetic racetracks, even though the surfaces also are installed at Keeneland and Turfway Park in Kentucky, Woodbine in Canada, Arlington Park in Illinois, and Presque Isle Downs in Pennsylvania.
Ron Charles, the Santa Anita Park president who on Monday strongly hinted that the beleaguered synthetic track will be ripped out and replaced with conventional dirt at the end of the current meeting, called synthetics one of the most polarizing issues he’s ever seen in racing. The tracks have created a great divide among trainers, owners, track executives and regulators, and critics in the press and in online forums and blogs have made synthetics their perpetual punching bag and a principal reason for the industry’s troubles.
Santa Anita, along with Hollywood Park, Del Mar and Golden Gate Fields, was required by a California Horse Racing Board mandate to install synthetic surfaces by Jan. 1, 2008. However, recently elected CHRB chairman Keith Brackpool was quoted in published reports as saying the CHRB would no longer hold any track to the synthetic mandate, one that was championed by former board chairman Richard Shapiro in reaction to reports of an unacceptably high rate of injuries and fatalities occurring on dirt.
One thing the CHRB didn’t do was require all California tracks to install the same surface, a move supported at the time by Jerry Moss, a member of the CHRB and co-owner with wife Ann of unbeaten champion mare Zenyatta. John Shirreffs, Zenyatta’s trainer, is one of the most vocal critics of the synthetic tracks.
When the mandate was approved by Shapiro and the other CHRB members (Jerry Moss abstained in the voting; in the original version of this article, the Paulick Report incorrectly stated that Moss voted in support of the mandate), Hollywood Park and Santa Anita opted to install Cushion Track, manufactured by an Australian company. Del Mar went with Polytrack, a company owned in part by the Keeneland Association, and Golden Gate Fields opted for Tapeta Footings, a surface created by synthetic track pioneer and former trainer Michael Dickinson.
Santa Anita has experienced the most problems—not with safety of the horses—but with drainage. The all-weather aspects of the surfaces were hampered by drainage problems almost immediately during the winter of 2007-08, during the winter of 2009, again last fall, and most recently this week when the track was closed to training and racing on Monday after heavy rains hit California. (Golden Gate Fields, meanwhile, with its Tapeta surface, didn’t miss a beat during the recent storms that hit both Northern and Southern California.) The surface was altered in 2009 with polymers from another Australian surface known as Pro-Ride. It since has played host to two Breeders’ Cups in 2008 and 2009 without incident.
Sources said Ron Charles had his hands tied when he went shopping for synthetic surfaces for Santa Anita. Track owner Frank Stronach is said to have told him not to go with Polytrack because it was owned by the “old boy’s club” at Keeneland. Others confided to the Paulick Report that corners were cut in the installation process, especially in the selection of the sand that was used in the all-weather surface.
Santa Anita isn’t the only track that’s had problems. Hollywood Park and Del Mar’s synthetic tracks have been criticized by horsemen and jockeys, but adjustments in maintenance alleviated some of the concerns. Some trainers who were early critics took a c’est la vie approach, figuring that criticizing the synthetic surfaces was akin to complaining about the weather: that it wasn’t going to change anything.
However, late last year, the California Thoroughbred Trainers board of directors came under fire from a rival group of trainers who formed an organization called California Horsemen for Change, which wanted, among other things, to have the synthetic tracks replaced with dirt. CTT, under president Jim Cassidy, has been supportive of synthetics. The California Horsemen for Change threatened to petition to become the representative organization for trainers, a move that convinced the current CTT board to resign en masse, paving the way for new elections (which have just been completed). According to a source, the newly formed CTT board will be dominated by a slate of candidates backed by California Horsemen for Change, though the CTT has not yet made the election results public.
Supporters of the surfaces say many of the critics have short memories, reminding them that their protests over track conditions in part led to the CHRB’s mandate for synthetics. A return to exactly the same thing in place before synthetics is not going to make anyone happy. There needs to be serious work on a track’s base, cushion and drainage, no matter what type of material lays on top.
STATISTICS SUGGEST SYNTHETICS ARE SAFER
The criticism of the synthetic tracks by horsemen flies in the face of statistics showing they are safer than the dirt surfaces that preceded them, at least as far as fatalities are concerned. What hasn’t been proven or disproven in statistical research is the common belief by many trainers that horses are sustaining more hind end or soft-tissue injuries on synthetics than they were on dirt.
In addition, a growing number of jockeys are saying that synthetic surfaces are more dangerous than dirt if they are involved in spills. Two jockeys, Rene Douglas and Michael Straight, suffered severe spinal injuries on Arlington’s Polytrack this summer, and Julia Brimo suffered a spinal injury in a spill at Keeneland in this fall.
According to statistics compiled by the CHRB’s equine medical director, Dr. Rick Arthur, the number of equine fatalities per 1,000 starts has declined significantly at every track in California. Santa Anita Park, for example, had 2.81 fatalities per 1,000 starts in the four years prior to the synthetic installation; that number has fallen to 1.64 per 1,000 since the conversion. (Hollywood Park has gone from 2.87 to 1.57/1,000; Del Mar from 2.47 to 1.65/1,000; Golden Gate Fields from 3.90 to 1.84/1,000). Click here to see the complete set of statistics.
One Southern California trainer who supports the synthetic tracks said it’s his understanding Santa Anita has had 30,000 recorded workouts without an ambulance run. He said in the days of a sealed dirt track and the aftermath of sealing the track, it was difficult to even plan workouts because there were so many breakdowns during morning training hours.
Del Mar, which has studied results over its Polytrack surface extensively, has statistics showing an overall reduction in the number of post-race injuries, in addition to a reduction in fatalities. Click here to see Del Mar’s statistical report.
“We think we have achieved a measurable increase in safety,” said Craig Fravel, Del Mar’s executive vice president. “Has it done everything we had hoped it would do from the beginning? It probably has not lived up to that. Would we do it again? Yes. I don’t think we’ve done as good a job as we should have done in making the case for the tracks in this tradition-bound industry. But we are confident we did the right thing.”
Many horseplayers insist they are betting less on California tracks since the synthetics were installed. Craig Dado, Del Mar’s director of marketing, isn’t convinced. “There’s nothing we can point to that says the fans are betting less,” said Dado.
In fact, when synthetics were installed, they almost resulted in increased handle at some tracks, due to larger field size. But then came an economic crisis and a recession that saw wagering volume falling at most tracks around the country and fewer owners to fill races with horses.
“There has been criticism that the synthetic tracks are unpredictable,” said Fravel. “But winning favorites at Del Mar have been at 30-31%. There are a lot of differences: they are not as speed favoring as the old California tracks and some people have had to throw out their traditional handicapping methods. It creates issues for people. If they were winning money before and they aren’t now, I consider their angst. There are a lot of people who don’t like these tracks because they are different. But empirical analysis, an intelligent, thoughtful approach, has been lacking. I know handicappers who love the synthetics, partly because they are contrarians. Gamblers all over the world have been betting on that kind of racing for many years and doing so happily. Asking for people to do something different isn’t easy.”
Back to Hess’s belief, that synthetics are better for the horses but not as good for the handicappers, Fravel stood his ground. “We are going to make that choice in favor of what’s best for the horses,” he insisted. “At the same time, it’s incumbent on us to put out better information to make the handicapping issues less significant. I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. “
Copyright © 2010, The Paulick Report
Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: bob hess, California Horse Racing Board, CHRB, craig dado, craig fravel, Del Mar, Frank Stronach, golden gate fields, Hollywood Park, Horse Racing, injuries, jerry moss, keith brackpool, Magna Entertainment, Paulick Report, polytrack, pro ride cushion track, Ray Paulick, richard shapiro, rick arthur, ron charles, santa anita, Synthetic surfaces, tapeta, tapeta footings, zenyatta
January 20th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Jockeys will always be hurt when involved in spills, so the goal is to prevent the spills.
Horses come back from hind-end injuries. They don’t come back from compound fractures.
Sythetics are superior to dirt as long as they are properly installed and maintained.
Smarter gamblers learn how to handicap different surfaces.
Our sport can and will be killed by an image of cruelty to horses.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
There are some surveys that show that 30% of the American people want horse racing banned. Not tweaked or tinkered with - banned. I am in favor of anything that will make racing safer for the horses and their riders. As a gambler, I can adjust and have. I bet more money on SoCal racing than any other circuit since they switched. When I was a kid, I remember the old-time harness players complaining about the mile track at the Meadowlands when all they knew was the half mile tracks at Yonkers, etc. They adjusted. As for the critics that say synthetic tracks are not consistent, please come to Saratoga and we can see one track when training opens, another track after the renovation break, another track that has been changed dramatically before the first race and sometimes another track during the raceday.
All Santa Anita had to do was install Tapeta and most of their problems would have been solved. We made a killing the past two years betting horses from Presque Isle Downs and their Tapeta racing surface when they raced at Keeneland as well as Fair Hill shippers. Smart trainers are able to put more work into them and many horsemen have told me they come out of the race better than they went in.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Does Santa Anita believe that it would not have been forced to cancel racing this week if a dirt surface were in place?
How many training days would be lost with a dirt surface and 20 inches of rain?
January 20th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
The health and safety of the equine athlete is paramount. I contend that shunning technological advances in racing surfaces is worse than the pieces of garbage who make their racers moving experiments in illicit drug cocktails while searching for the ultimate “edge”……the former is something tangible that can be done NOW by owners of the bricks-n-mortar, while the latter will always hover on the finges of the sport and needs a number of entities combining resources to combat it.
And - sorry, gamblers - most of you want a sure thing to cash win tickets. Listening to you to set policy is like a baseball manager making decisions based on polls taken each half-inning in selected sections of the stands.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I appreciate my friend Bob Hess’ straight talk. Without gamblers we have a sport, but not a business.
I believe that it is not a mistake to install synthetic tracks. The mistake is that the wrong ones have been installed, and that several different surfaces have been used. Michael Dickinson’s Tapeta surface seems superior to the others and has worked well where it has been installed. No surprise that it has been chosen for Dubai. Based on performance, it looks to me like Tapeta should be installed everywhere, providing the benefits of safety for the horses and uniformity for the bettors.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Rick Arthur manipulates statistics.
Can anyone tell me how you can compare the worst three years of dirt with a 40 year old base to a one with new synthetic material and a new base. The answer is you can’t! Why is it that reporters keep reporting the same thing without asking the tough questions of Mr. Arthur and his spinning of the truth.
Synthetic surface wear out and every two years all 19 tons of the material needs to be replaced. If you don’t believe me then read this quote from Bill Casner of Winstar Farms last meet at Del Mar.
http://www.nctimes.com/sports/equestrian/racing...
Excerpt:
“Maintenance is the absolute critical thing,” said Winstar Farm’s Bill Casner, who owns Colonel John, the morning-line favorite in Del Mar’s $1 million Pacific Classic on Sunday. “They have tightened up the Del Mar surface this year. The first year, it was slow but safe. It was pretty good last year. This year it sounds like a herd of buffalo down there on the track.”
The truth is that the track don’t run the surfaces to specifications because everyone complains when nobody can win on the lead and racing is slow and ugly. So the tracks water it, work it, and speed it up. Do they want a synthetic surface or a surface that plays like dirt? What a joke
The safety guilt trip has been thrown at everyone from the beginning as if there would be no injuries. Another joke. Everyone wants a safe surface and a quality dirt surface will be safer than the absolute junk at Del Mar. The racing Executives there should be ashamed of the misleading comments since it was installed.
These guys are so out of touch they use a reverse osmosis water system to water the junk while horses and people drink tap water. Does anyone wonder why Calfornia racing has become a bad joke?
How many fatalities did they have a Saratoga compared to Del Mar last year. Quite a few less and if any reporter worth his salt would bother to check they would be amazed.
Quite giving guys like Rick Arthur a pass when he throws statistics at you and when the Executives from Del Mar spin there way to another contract.
How about someone following the money from the Keenland mothership for once?
I’ll stick with John Shirreffs who is quoted in the article below:
http://horseracing.bloginky.com/2009/10/06/shirreffs-running-on-synthetics-like-running-on-velcro/
Excerpt:
California-based trainer John Shirreffs, who conditions undefeated champion Zenyatta, has long been a vocal opponent of synthetic tracks and, during a national teleconference today, he detailed why he feels the surface does more harm than good in developing young prospects.
“I personally hate synthetics,” Shirreffs said. “I’m more into developing young horses and I find that young horses really don’t like training on synthetics. I don’t know if you can imagine training on Velcro. When the foot lands, it doesn’t slide, it sticks to the ground. Depending on how synthetic the surface is, the horse can’t rotate the foot into the track and push off.
“Imagine running around flat-footed all the time without getting up on your toes and pushing off,” Shirreffs continued. “That’s probably how it would feel to a human.”
January 20th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Delmar 2004 - 2006 ON DIRT 2.47 horses die per 1000.
Delmar 2007 - 2009 ON SYNTHETIC 1.65 horses die per 1000.
In summary 49.6% more horses die on dirt than die on synthetics.
And from other California tracks similar stats are true..
But bettors don’t like the synthetics claim some tracks. Really?
Nothing drives potential new long-term fans out of a track faster than the sight of a horse with a shattered foreleg waving in the breeze.
But many trainers don’t like synthetics because of increased hind end injuries. Really?
Consequently to reduce hind end injuries by returning to dirt 49% more dead horses is acceptable to many trainers. Now isn’t that just brilliant fodder for a salivating media already targeting horse racing for excessive cruelty, drugs and slaughter or abandonment?.
Think about it…just sit down for a few private moments and think about it.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I agree with Rob Whiteley’s post above. The right choice for all California tracks would have been Tapeta. It has performed spectacularly at Golden Gate Fields. How ironic that of the four synthetic tracks in California the only one that made the right decision was the lowest-level track of them all. The Tapeta surface has been incredibly consistent, fair from a handicapper’s perspective, and it handles rain (even massive amounts of rain) very well.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Ideally, most trainers I’m involved with would like the option of training on synthetic, or dirt, and racing on dirt. Put in the miles of conditioning on poly and do most speed work on dirt. Highpoint training center, La Grange,KY., has both options so virtually no training days are missed due to inclimate weather. If Churchill wanted to be “horseman friendly” they would put synthetic in at their training center (the old Sports Spectrum). My point is, there’saplace for both surface options.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
The theory that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt tracks is based on (selected) data comparisons of the final 2-3 years of decades old dirt surfaces vs. the first 2-3 years of a new synthetic surface. This is terrible science. Not to mention some tracks, such as Arlington Park, have experienced no change in fatal injuries with the synthetics.
Researchers in California already have reported an INCREASE in fatal hind-end injuries on the synthetics. That study has been swept under the rug by the synthetic backers.
In reality, the synthetic tracks have created more problems for the industry than they solved. And the biggest problem of them all may be how to get rid of them.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Lance Briggs:
Right on with those comments and hat off to you.
When is a Journalist/Reporter gonna report the truth instead of just “repeating” what Rick Arthur tells them.
This has been a completely disgraceful display over the last few years from Racing Officials and Racing Executives.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I know there are trainers who support synthetic tracks, but, there are just as many, or more, who claim to have experienced more injuries to their horses than ever before. The injuries they are experiencing are more hind-end (tibia’s etc.) and soft tissue injuries.
As far as the fatality statistics are concerned, I would implore you to question the source of the information. The NFL long denied having a concussion issue regarding the safety of its players until recently. Those that govern industries can and will skew numbers to favor their agenda. ie- Horses that are put down off track, don’t count as an on track fatality, etc. etc.
The materials used in synthetic tracks are toxic. The rubber product obtained from ground up car tires contains benzene, a known carcinogen. How good can that be for horses, riders, gate crews, etc. ? If they do decide to remove the synthetic surface, I can’t wait to see the debacle in how and where they are going to get rid of it. (Maybe some of you supporters would like some in your yard?)
The fact of the matter is this, the proper research was never preformed before installing these surfaces. They were an experiment, one that has failed until this point.
There are many safe dirt tracks all over the country. Please compare breakdowns per 1000 starters on sythetics as opposed to the same statistic on known dirt tracks that are safe.
California dirt tracks began to become unsafe when track maintainers began adding wood products to the them. The wood was added to retain moisture, so less water needed to be added on a daily basis. The wood products aided in the dirt balling up in horses’ feet, which lead to injuries. On top of that, you have a practice of injecting the joints of unsound horses in order to get them to the starting gate. A practce that continues today. Someone should hold the vets accountable, but that is a a whole different issue.
If Santa Anita does go back to a dirt surface, they need to avoid making the same mistakes they had before. And as long as certain people allow unsound horses to run in races, the real problem isn’t going away.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
As a former race track marketing executive, I have seen countless studies illustrating the psycho-graphics of the horseplayer and potential horse player. To simplify them: They are typically above average in intelligence and seek and enjoy the satisfaction of exploiting their intelligence in the pari mutuel environment. aka: The “I’m smarter than you syndrome.”
As a horse player( #1), I have thoroughly been frustrated by synthetic track surfaces and my lack of understanding of their impact on a given race. So I’m in the group Mr. Hess spoke of.
As a horse player (#2) I have recently begun to benefit from my very limited quest and knowledge of synthetic track handicapping angles.
As a horse player (#3) The safer the horses, the more consistently they run. The more consistent they run, the better chance I have of making money.
As a blogger: If Magna says it’s the right thing to do. It’s the wrong thing to do.
Great post Ray.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Without change this industry is dead. People are fed up with the excesses or as Arthur Hancock nailed it, ‘drugs and thugs.’
Synthetic tracks, as the statistics prove, are reliable, consistent and much safer if PROPERLY installed and maintained. (One should insert an asterisk, of course, every time Stronach’s name is mentioned in connection with anything.)
I agree with the posters who argue that without a safer surface, this industry will die quicker than it already is apparently destined to - but you can’t tell that to the pin-firing, shoot ‘em up and stand ‘em in ice crowd. There will be always be a minority with one foot in the past.
Safer tracks are imperative, but so are uniform, enforceable drug laws (conforming to international standards would be a good place to start) accompanied by consistent penalties, humane whipping rules, and a comprehensive post-retirement program for equine athletes.
There are some very smart and caring people trying to guide this sport to safer ground, but I fear that there are too few of them to make a decisive difference. I have come around to the point of view, reluctantly, that it is time we admitted we cannot administer the sport ourselves and turn control over to a Federal central authority. We need a powerful central office and bringing in the Feds may be the only way to ensure uniformity and fairness. Life under a McConnell Amendment may not be perfect, but it has to be better than what we have now with so many diverse interests pulling in different directions in every State where racing is conducted. At the moment, it is dysfunction times 38.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Lance Briggs,
Please share with us the research you mention that has been swept under the rug. What research, by what researchers and what are the statistics they produced?
January 20th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
To Lost in the Fog: http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=632536
January 20th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I have the answer. I have been in the business for forty years and have been racing all over the world. Without a doubt, the best surface that I have ever seen is at Palermo Race Track in Buenos Aires. It is a dirt track but without the fluff on top where horses slip. It has a considerable amount of compacted cushion which absorbs the shock and horses stay very sound. There is no slippage and you can see the print of the shoe clearly. Since it is rolled the rain does not dramatically change the surface. Has anyone ever wondered why the Argentine horses are so tough and run for so long? Many of them have the benefit of training and racing over this great surface until they are more mature and have developed strong infrastructure. I would highly recommend that this be given a serious look by track management and horsemen.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
It should be left up to the trainers. If they like it keep it. If not get rid of it. They supply the product and that is the most important role. Gambler bets 100 dollars on a horse that cost 20,000.00 by owner to get to the race. Who is more important? Fulton is right about Argentine surface. They good ship it by boat chaeaper then putting in plastic track.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Ignore the bettor and racehorse owner at your own peril. How would you like to be a Southern Ca horsemen at the moment. No racing again and the liklehood the entire week will be cancelled. Vanning to Hollywood Park from Santa Anita to work your horse?. The synthetic experiment is flawed. It produces faulty form, inconsistent performances and no one can figure how to maintain it. When the best horses in the world boycott the Breeder’s Cup and large gamblers ignore the venue you have a serious problem. A bad track is a bad track. I don’t agree that a safe and fair dirt track cannot be installed using the best materials and proper design without cutting corners. A brilliant idea to mandate the installation of synthetic tracks to create consistency then installing three different synthetic tracks.jgs
January 20th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Romulus, you have an inherent conflict in your post. The owner puts up the money, as you say. Thus the trainer does ‘not supply the product.’ So why should the trainer dictate the terms and not the owner? I have dealt with quite a few trainers, but there are few I would entrust a horse to. For many of them, not even a dog.
The poster talking about Argentina, and any poster from Australia where they race on the lawn, will tell you that US trainers, for the most part, condition their charges much differently than in other parts of the world. The number of starts per lifetime is much higher in many other countries. Why is that, do you think?
January 20th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Lost in the Fog-
I replied with a link to the story you requested (regarding hind-end injuries on the synthetics), but for some reason it is “awaiting moderation.”
I didn’t think the PR moderated its comments(?).
Anyway, go to google and type in “hind end injuries synthetic tracks dvm360″ and it will be the first link that pops up. Rick Arthur is even quoted:
“This actually confirms that there are additional hind-leg injuries on synthetic surfaces, which is what trainers have been telling us,” says Rick Arthur, DVM, equine medical director for the CHRB.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
I would be happy to see Santa Anita go back to dirt and hopefully do it the right way so everyone wins. Such tracks as Fair Grounds have great dirt surfaces that handle water and some hard weather well and are very friendly to the horse’s health - as such top horsemen as Steve Asmussen, Neil Howard, Tom Amoss, etc. would attest.
Finding a way to have a good and well-managed dirt track would allow for safe racing while also preserving the integrity of the way races were meant to be run. We’ve bred horses for hundreds of years to race on dirt - a natural surface. Bettors count on it and breeders count on it…it’s what they know. It’s how we determine quality. Synthetics have changed that.
While I’m not sure where California is basing their fatality numbers, I’m happy to see that the numbers of deaths have decreased. But I still question the number of career-ending soft-tissue injuries occurring now that we never hear about. The jury is still out on the synthetics.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
This story really illustrates how bad off the industry is:
1. Responsible breeding and ethical sales
2. Four year old Triple Crown, bring them along slowly so we can enjoy them
3. Uniformity
January 20th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Lance,
As protection against unrelenting spammers, we have had to divert any posts with URL links to our moderation file. That’s why you post was temporarily prevented from being published. Anyone using any of George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words also goes into moderation.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Good luck to Frank Stronach, Ron Charles and Co if and when they rip up a synthetic surface and replace it with dirt. It better be the best, safest dirt in the history of the world and they’d better hope that no horses suffer fatal injuries in the first few weeks/months.
The animal rights activists will be on this like white on rice and they’ll have a compelling case for the mainstream media. To paraphrase Bob Hess, they’ll say we’re killing more horses because that’s what gamblers want.
It ain’t pretty, but that’s exactly what will happen.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
As the article Lance Briggs linked pointed out, California had the highest number of dirt fatalities in the country before they installed synthetics. I often heard trainers complain that the California dirt tracks were similar to running on concrete.
Since California opted to switch to synthetics instead of replacing their “concrete” dirt tracks with a better dirt surface then we can’t know if a better dirt surface would have produced the same safety results as synthetics. For all we know, proper dirt tracks could have had even better safety stats than the synthetics.
So I agree with Joel, the jury is still out on synthetics.
And I note your article did not mention what we are supposed to do with all the dirt breeding stallions and mares if every track switched to synthetics. I seriously doubt many of them would meet a happy fate if they were no longer of value in the breeding shed.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
The “30% prefer a ban on horse racing” polls that Dick Powell speaks of were taken less than a week after Eight Belles died. IMO it’s quite a stretch to cite them when claiming that 30% of the “American people” support such a ban.
The Gallup poll, for example, only sampled 1,017 adults so all that tells us is that 30% of those polled support a ban. In other words, in a country of 300 million people a poll that small is pretty much worthless.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
The safety and welfare of the horse first and foremost. Everyone else can adapt.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Mary,
I don’t know about the timing of the Gallup Poll cited by Dick Powell but I do know that the Gallup organization is the oldest and most trustest name in public opinion polling and that a scientifically selected sample group of 1,017 is more than adequate to be considered accurate with a plus or minus of 5 points in accuracy.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Rick Arthur also said that he didn’t have much (or no) records available regarding injury and fatality rates prior to synthetic being installed in CA.
Here is an eye opener regarding how corrupted scientific research and stats can be:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/insights-obama-politics-medicine-science-on-potomac.html
January 20th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
To “trappeddowntherail”, who claims American horses race far more often than those in other countries: According to data from the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities, U.S. horses started an average 6.15 times in 2008, the latest year of data posted on their web site. The number in Britain is 6.08, in Australia is 5.83 and in France is 5.89. This strikes me as another lame excuse from those who say “we do it differently here”, so racing in every other place can’t understand why we have to have dirt tracks and multiple race-day drugs to allow horses to cope with them.
U.S. racing seems to be designed with the horse last: tight, dirt tracks, all racing the same direction, which makes bettors happy because they can remove the horse from the equation and just bet based on workout times and race times. Put these tight, dirt tracks as close as possible to polluted cities and force horses to live there 24/7. Make races as short as possible for maximum speed. Oh, and yeah, it looks like this whole situation isn’t so great for the actual horse, so we better allow a list of drugs to help them cope. What could go wrong?
January 20th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Post 30,Danthebluegrassman,
My understanding (through e-mails) that the reason why the numbers that Dr. Arthur used to compare the old dirt with the new synthetics did not match the numbers published previously in the CHRB annual reports (CHRB website) was that they needed to be reconstructed because of flaws in the data collection previously.
Hmmm…We report, you decide.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
There are too many variables for anyone to say that synthetic tracks have reduced fatalities or increased hind-end soft tissue injuries.
Let’s all remember the chemical cocktails in 2004 at Del Mar versus chemcal cocktails in 2007 versus the chemical Shirley Temples (some sweetened, no doubt) of 2010.
Too many variables. Truth, lies and statistics. Until one compares hoss age, class, breeding, medical history (most particularly past use of therapeutic steroids and Adequan), trainer’s history, humidity, temperature, heat index, barometric pressure, crowd noise might upset a hoss, funky shadows, wayward seagulls, state of each jockey’s love life… on and on… I dunno how anyone can draw DEFINITIVE conclusions about ANY surface’s superiority or inferiority wthout an exhaustive study including at least some of the referenced variables.
Oh, yeah, then there’s politics and self interest and statements from trainers who habitually kill young horses at GG. Wow. I’m glad my opinion means nothing. Too much for me to computate, fo’ sho’.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
The CA trainer lamenting that he couldn’t “train” when the dirt track was sealed because the ambulance was out there all the time says it all about surface safety in CA. It Ain’t The Surface That’s the Biggest Problem.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
The fact that Santa Anita’s all weather track doesn’t drain says it all. How hard and packed is the base that water can’t move through it? How compressed is the material on top of the base?
Why would this surface be safe for a horse to run over?
They install an all weather track in CA, where it rains 15 days a year, and the piece of garbage doesn’t even drain. ROTFLMFAO!!
January 20th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
i have no comment..
January 20th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Please shut down Hollywood Park already
January 20th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
The major flaw in the Calif All- weather tracks mandate was failure to check the differences in climate. The stuff was first used in England as a surface in private showrings and arenas. There were at least two different brands, each with a slightly different formula. Considering the latitude and longitude of Southern California in contrast with England and the respective weather patterns, the need for extensive testing was obvious, but ignored.
On the other hand, Michael Dickinson had his Tapeta in use in Maryland for years. Of course, Maryland is not So. Cal, but it is a heck of a lot nearer, hotter and colder than England. All the problems might have been avoided if Tapeta - a proven alternative surface - was mandated.
Not so many years ago, racing on grass in the USA was rare. I will bet that, initially, the professional gamblers were confounded by turf races. They grew accustomed to it, despite some surface differences from track-to-track and between firm and soft turf at the same track.
While not knocking their contribution to racing, what would American gamblers do if faced with the the considerations confronting European gamblers? Among things they must take into account are: Firm to sloppy going; right- or left -handed courses; undulating courses; stretches short, long and in between; sharp or wide turns; no published workout times.
Should I conclude gamblers here are not as smart as the Europeans? Perhaps they just have a longer learning curve.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
So Mayden got “rave reviews” upon opening. Every So Ca. track opened to equal raves. You could always count on the press being pushed to get quotes from the same “raving” trainers.
Every jock and exercise rider fears falling on synthetics. You hit and stick. Hess ought to know . His wife is still in a back brace.
Horses don’t reach and there is no give. No one wants to return to the previous California dirt tracks which were described perfectly by Nickel Defense: Destroyed by wood products. And, his statement is correct concerning the continued injection of lame and injured horses. That has nothing to do with surfaces.
Dr. Arthur’s statistics are used by management throughout the country to defend the indefensible.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
I agree with an earlier comment that the Fair Grounds has a safe track with a great cushion. In fact there are alot of good tracks in the east that handle as much or more rain than So California has gotten this week and bounce back pretty quick.
But let me ask you California folks this. How is BobBaffert and some of the other speed boys going to like a surface like the one at Fair Grounds that produced these times on a FAST main track the other day for six furlong races… 112 4/5, 112 3/5, 112 1/5, 113 1/5, 112 1/5 and 112 flat. These weren’t dogs racing either. You hang those times up on the board in So California and those trainers will nail the track super to the cross
They want to hear there horses feet rattle.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
I’ve known Rick Arthur for many years and anyone who suggests he is trying to cheat on research or is using the research to further an agenda should know that is not part of his DNA. The California board has the right person in the job in trying to protect horses and the integrity of racing. I’m not going to defend Polytrack but anyone taking shots at Rick should take the time to get to know him, and I think they would change their opinion.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
G. Rarick, The figure I wanted to compare US vs. Australia, Argentina etc was STARTS PER LIFETIME, as my post clearly stated not starts per year (although in my experience in Australia, some horses start five times in a month!). I don’t know how many starts they average outside the US, but I vaguely recall a Bloodhorse study that said that starts per lifetime in this country had plunged something like 50 per cent since the 1960’s to just 12 point something starts per lifetime. Let’s compare apples to apples.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
it comes down to our “horseman”
take some time and look at some aussie racing at night. the actual horses look like a totally different bred of horses compared to ours.
our horseman are nothing more than drug managers outside a very few.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
California’s dirt tracks must have been in awful shape (as some have said above) since the CA death rate was reported as almost double that of KY or NY before synthetics. On synthetics, CA’s death rate seems to be about the same as that of KY or NY, based on the meager information available. Does that mean going synthetic in KY and NY would cut those states’ death rates by half? Or does it just mean that synthetics are about as safe as good dirt tracks and better than CA’s bad old dirt tracks?
LJ Broussard had the right idea - leaving out the state of the jockey’s love life and other distractions, there are a lot more variables that ought to be considered. A one-to-one comparison of deaths/injuries on old CA dirt (in whatever condition it was) vs. deaths/injuries on new CA synthetics proves nothing.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:09 am
Garrett Redmond,
Great comments! Tapeta has also worked well at Golden Gate Fields in Northern California where we get quite a few warm days and also considerably more rain than the tracks in Southern California experience. It has been pouring here in the SF Bay Area all week and I can assure you that when racing resumes tomorrow the track and the racing will be virtually unaffected by the deluge. Whenever a big storm hits my friends and I marvel at how well the track handles rain. It’s a marvel and certainly provides a dramatically safer surface to run on than a muddy track. As a serious handicapper I can honestly say that I have no issues with Tapeta.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:40 am
Get good sand, like the stuff they use in South America, and don’t put wood in it; that is what they did in CA and that is why their previous dirt tracks were awful. WOOD PRODUCTS.
Go ask the trainers who have been around 40+ years and they will tell you. Those are the guys who know, not the recent graduates from the Equine Industry Program.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:57 am
Trappeddownthe rail - Where have you found lifetime average start numbers? I’m looking and can’t find them. Various articles say the number of lifetime starts in America is declining, but no one seems to offer comparable numbers for other countries. I’m curious about the numbers, and it doesn’t seem fair to base an argument on numbers one doesn’t have.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:46 am
I’m a new, young (23 years old) horse owner. I’ve been involved in 3 partnerships out of Southern California. All 3 horses have been retired due to soft tissue injuries on Southern California tracks (Del Mar and Santa Anita, specifically).
I’m new to ownership and have already vowed never to run a horse in the Southern Cal circuit until they’re back on dirt.
January 21st, 2010 at 4:40 am
Hollywood Park was the first in California to install a synthetic surface, Cushion Track, and had no drainage problem with heavy rain during two racing days in December…One unanswered long-range health question may be how the toxic materials in synthetics will affect the respiratory systems of horses and humans alike spending much time on them…Handicappers playing closers in Pro-Ride races during the Breeders’ Cup last year had two field days. Speed fizzled consistently both days. There was a pattern.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:32 am
Anyone who reads Jeremy Plonk’s daily analysis of the races at Keeneland (available for free at http://www.keeneland.com) understands that Polytrack races can be accurately handicapped. There are some unique patterns and indices that a horseplayer should include in their arsenal when approaching artificial surfaces but excellent results can be had when a person is willing to learn the nuances and apply them.
From a horseman’s standpoint, there is no doubt in my mind that a good artificial surface is safer for horses. Many years ago, when Hollywood Park raced on dirt, I quit watching replays at night because I couldn’t take the breakdowns. Now, they are the exception, and racing is much more enjoyable.
The beauty of Polytrack in my opinion is the drainage system. So Santa Anita’s issues could have been eliminated by choosing wisely instead of cutting costs and corners with a surface that is obviously inferior.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:53 am
http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/01/santa-anita-has-lost-13.html
Excerpt:
“It’s sort of sad for California that the most beautiful track in America … the surface is just a disaster,” trainer Bob Baffert said. “It’s too bad it’s gone this far. It should have been taken out a long time ago. They have to take it out now. That track is an abomination there. I just hope they talk with some trainers (for input), and I hope they bring in some engineers and do it right this time.”
It’s funny, but one of the arguments in favor of synthetics before they were put in was that they would attract more top trainers and more of the marquee horses. Wrong. Trainers the likes of D. Wayne Lukas and Nick Zito have never liked them, and Todd Pletcher, who maintained a sizable stable here a couple of winters ago, now wants virtually nothing to do with them.
Excerpt:
Baffert admits that he, along with many other trainers, were pro-synthetics when they were first installed. But the tide has now turned. If you took a poll of Santa Anita trainers today, at least 75 to 80 percent were probably dancing in their barns when word came that Pro-Ride has about three months to live.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:21 am
In general, synthetic surfaces are likely safer. The problem is that the claiming horses are raced until the are not competitive or until they are seriously injured. The horses that run on synthetics will last longer but they will eventually have the same cruel fate as those that train and race on dirt. As anyone who has worked on the backside of a second or third tier track where the trainers are scraping by to pay the feed man can tell you, the culture accepts the fact that the horses are expendable. That is why the sport, except for the really big days, is shunned by the average middle class sports enthusiast.
The old Keeneland dirt track was a death trap. I can remember of many instances where parents would be hustling their crying children away after gruesome breakdowns right in front of the grandstand. There are people who care about the horses, but most hard core gamblers don’t.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:20 am
Horses or Horseplayers? Honestly, if one has to even ask that question the whole premise becomes ludicrous….without the former, there is no latter.
It is in the best interest of all those players in the industry to protect the welfare of the horses. How to do that becomes the problem. And based on efforts and results, it’s a pretty sad situation.
The surface issue is nothing more than one more serious symptom of the overall malaise of industry decision makers.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:36 am
Jude Feld says Jerremy Plonk says……………………….
C’mon Jude. Do you think Mr. Plonk has any financial interest in promoting Polytrack and their Polycapping database? Connect the dots. Touts like chaos because they believe more people will pay them for their information. The truth is that nobody gives you a map to the gold mine. Hell nobody even sells you a map to a gold mine unless there ain’t no gold in it.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:52 am
Re: line #46 >>>C.E CHEESE says…
i agree 100%
January 21st, 2010 at 10:10 am
Mr. Levy:
With all due respect, if something comes around that didn’t exsist 40 years ago because the trainers from then that are still in the now makes it bad or wrong?
January 21st, 2010 at 11:13 am
It’s really taking a “cheap shot” to blame the horseplayers’ complaints for the decision to go back to dirt, just as much as it was a crazy rush to judgement to mandate & force unproven synthetic surfaces at the California tracks.
First of all, all of this “synthetics is safer” hype came out of a time when high profile breakdowns on dirt cast racing in a negative light. Synthetic surfaces were strictly designed to prevent off-track conditions and preserve racedays. Safety was just an easier “sell” and the “safety” question is still a rather undecided issue right now.
What I want is ALL of the raw data on breakdowns, hind leg injuries, soft tissue injuries, respiratory effects, and age, breeding, training method data for the studies that say synthetics are “safer.”
The real problem they don’t want to address: Breeding & weaker boned bloodlines. Also, not every 2 year old needs to start in its 2 year old year. The horses have to dictate their maturity based upon bone growth and natural muscle development.
I still believe we would also have sounder horses if they were racing more on the turf and less on flat, fast dirt (and synthetics.) This means less sprints and more distance races. This unnatural affection for speed & a horse running full speed for 5 to 7 furlongs seems to be as detrimental. And they wonder why horses have bleeding issues that they “solve” with Lasix.
A combination of factors cause breakdowns and without taking all of this into consideration, no real conclusion can be gleaned from the synthetic surface research.
I find the whole “synthetics is safer data bunk” because it is being put forth by people with vested interests in not truly changing breeding or current medication, training & racing distance issues. It’s a business decision… and they have to prop up their own business decisions to operate as a free market entity without a glance to what really makes a perfect race horse.
Someone please explain to me WHY horses in Australia and several other countries can stay sound while often racing weekly? Is it because they have some magic protection from the racing gods, or is it because they breed better horses, use less meds, run more on turf at longer distances, etc.? They all often do this without benefit of any synthetic surfaces at their major tracks. They race on good old grass, often soggy, heavy grass.
I am appalled at how idiot people can be when accepting all of this oversimplified data of “x number of breakdowns per 10000 starts on dirt v synthetics,” without ever asking the really tough questions regarding training methods, drug use
and breeding. It is this same idiot thinking that keeps the sport on the decline. Blame it on the horseplayer… it’s easier than actually admitting that they were wrong about drugs or overbreeding and ill-breeding the thoroughbred for mass profit.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:23 am
Go Paula!
You would think someone would ask some tougher questions of the people telling us what’s best for us.
You would think someone would scrutinize the statistics they throw out to make their case.
I’m not holding my breath.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:38 am
The “rave reviews” at Meydan?? Just who is going to publickly criticize the Sheikh in his own country & on his track where tjey are planning to race this meet? To accept a press release’s accounts of the track is laughable.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:44 am
Go Paula again.
The guys in Dubai were the last suckers in the world with deep pockets and now they’re busted. Hyping a surface that hasn’t been used yet is another tactic of the “synthetic geeks” who love to tell us what’s best for us.
Keep going Paula!
January 21st, 2010 at 12:50 pm
#48 Young Owner:
Do you know what happened to your three “retired” horses?
Were they sent to an accredited rescue facility along with rehab $$ and pension for one year? (All rescues are struggling with lack of funds and the number of horses at-risk of being sent to slaughter)
Were they adopted as pasture companions or with successful rehabilitation, potential riding horses? If so, are you or other syndicate members able to visit them and make sure that they are recovering well from their career ending injuries?
or
Were these three injured horses sent to “a good home” which can mean being taken to a kill-auction or directly to a feedlot then perhaps trucked to slaughter to Canada or even worse Mexico in a double decker cattle truck?
All horses “retired” after suffering season or career ending injuries should be tracked by the industry to know the truth, do something about it.
Horses that fail to recover from their on-track injuries and die, are euthanized or sent to slaughter should be counted as racing fatalities even if some injuries are not life-threatening.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Young Owner: Surfaces are not responsible for everything.
How much did you pay for your three horses? Were they claimers? How old were they and how much racing did they do? What were their conformation flaws? Who was your trainer? Who was your farrier?
You may have lost those three horses to injuries no matter where you raced them.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Well said PP. I look forward to “young owner”’s reply.
I had to rewrite the bottom of my previous message:
Horses that fail to recover from on-track injuries and die or are euthanized off-track or sent to slaughter, should be counted as racing fatalities even if certain injuries –in particular soft-tissue injuries– are diagnosed as non life-threatening before horses leave the track.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:16 pm
And the Safety-Integrity implementation and data collections ACROSS America is where?
For God’s Sake…NTRA still officially does not take a stand against paid for selling to human consumption horse slaughter of our athletes That’s a no-brainer. How do you think they’ll handle corrupt breeding, sales and racing practices?…much less racing surface safety and standardization.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:26 pm
@ Young Owner
Race them on the dirt and they’ll get some ‘hard tissue’ (bone) injuries instead!
January 21st, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Im also 23 and owned pieces of around 10 horses. Some have raced on synthetics and some on dirt. If horses are managed right they will stay sound for a long time on any surface. Ive had horses bow tendons on dirt and bone chips on synthetic.
The horse population is absolutely decimated in California, even when the dirt surface was at its “worst” there were at least races with 7 horses in them. Now they can barely card 7 races with an average of 7 horses in each race. When California needed a change they went with a change in the surface. Something needs to change so they are going to change the surface again. How about a change in the way the CHRB is run?
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:14 am
a couple o’ things:
1) as a journalist, we have to distrust anecdotal evidence. a trainer who has lost a few horses on synthetic surfaces, or who has gone on an extended cold streak on the poly, isn’t an authority. a bettor who loudly says he can’t figure out synthetics isn’t a spokesman.
2) as a fan, we need to make tracks safer. to the gentleman who argued the press parroted dr. arthur: his study of 80,492 races in the years prior to california’s switch to synthetics revealed a break-down rate of 3.09 per 1,000 starters. in the 52,266 race since, the break-down rate has been reduced to 1.68 per 1,000 starters. for every racing fan to not celebrate this reduction is ludicrous. and for paula, who says that “really tough questions” need to be asked “regarding training methods, drug use and breeding,” i’d agree. but there has been no change in the last decade–pre- and -post synthetics–in california regarding these points, which would lead me to think that the reduction can be attributed to synthetics.
almost none of my friends are racing fans. and a good 50 percent of the time, when i mention i write about racing, i get ‘animal abuse’ arguments. if you think a decline in fatalities can be shrugged off in favor of the handicapper, you better thing again. i’ve haven’t met bob hess, but he seems like a helluva nice guy and a very good horseman. but if the argument comes down to the safety of our horses vs. appeasing the guys who currently (an important modifier) bet on us, we have to take a hard look at ourselves.
3) as a handicapper, someone who drops $500 or so a day when he bets (which, clearly, ain’t in the league of the big boys), if you are totally baffled by synthetics, you’re probably not a particularly good handicapper. i don’t mean this as a total slight, but let’s face it, when you’re handicapping the aqueduct inner track and can toss 3/4 of the field because they won’t be 1-2-3 at the first call, you don’t have to be all that astute. just because you bet (or used to) $10,00 a day on a 3-5 shot whom my grandmother could pick, doesn’t make you a good handicapper. it just means you have the means to produce a profit on an obvious choice. you can be replaced.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:38 am
one other thing: stop calling dirt tracks a natural surface. when you can provide evidence that ancestroal horses galloped on groomed, sand- and loam-based tracks, you can call it natural.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 am
Ray’s article is a sad commentary on horseracing. It appears that there was little or no science or engineering involved in the selection of the Cal track installations other than a trip around the world with jockeys. How do veterinarians play such a major role in track bases and surfaces? What qualifications beyond veterinary medicine extends into physics and engineering? The costly problems involved in this dilemma continue to unfold and appear about to be duplicated. There are a great many lessons to be gleaned from this fiasco and more stories to be told. Decisions to run multi million dollar champions and top yearling purchases will remain questionable, further deteriorating the confidence of a once proud and predictable industry. Are we so stinted and insular that we can’t grasp the scope of knowledge demanded to be incorporated here to save horses and jockeys? This is serious business and demands serious research by qualified individuals. It is not about gimmicks and claimers!
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 am
I’m all for anything that helps protect the horse. The biggest problem I see going forward is that no will be looking to install artificial surfaces in at least the near future now. How long are the companies that produce them going to devote resources to it or even stay in business (assuming this is a big part of their business)?
But lets not be hypocritical here. If we are concerned about the safety of the horse, illegal and even legal drugs are probably the biggest cause of horses breaking down. Drugs that mask pain like snail and cobra venom and their knockoffs, the practice of blocking horses, bute, etc. all contribute to deaths we see in North America on track today, no matter what the surface is.
January 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
I still think it is incredible that no one even considers looking at tracks in different parts of the world that might just be better and safer. As I stated earlier, look at Palermo in Buenos Aires. It is, by far, the best and safest dirt surface that I have ever seen.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:17 pm
This is 2010: if a good synthetic kills less horses - which it probably does - then it’s hard to justify not using it. I’m amazed that there isn’t more comment from owners to the effect that they would, on balance, rather that their “investment” be wrecked slower rather than quicker.
We should keep a few simple facts in mind:
[1] Betting is not a philanthropic occupation, whether or not you consider it a vice, and it should be ancillary to this sport rather than dominating it. Bettors -as a group - appear to be incapable of rational thought processes, which is why we never DQ in England - apparently no-one, ever, has ever backed a horse which got promoted!
[2] There will still be the same number of winners every day, and about one in three favourites will win whether you run on feather beds, through treacle or on ice.
[3] Owners put vastly more into racing than do bettors, and a very great deal of what the betting industry does generate is spent servicing its own requirements rather than those of owners and horses.
[4] the comments about “no slide” in the artificial surface are perfectly correct. But why are the trainers not shoeing European style, or going bare foot, in order to avoid the hind end problems? An eel couldn’t slip on it so why shoe for traction?
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
3] Owners put vastly more into racing than do bettors, and a very great deal of what the betting industry does generate is spent servicing its own requirements rather than those of owners and horses.
*******************************************
Since bettors and gamblers of slots not only pay for all the purses but also the track operations as well, I think that statement is not a truth.
Although, most owners do lose more than what they receive, the bettors lose more than the owners year after year.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Maury,
And this is just a wild guess… you are more of a bettor than an owner, right?
Actually you make my point to some extent; until there was OTB over there, betting shops over here, racecourses, and so purses, were all funded by admission fees.
Bettors had to pay to get in, and until those who were going to profit from the OTB started blowing in Government ears, they did pay to get in.
I don’t know how no-one over there had the wit to realise that once people could bet more or less at home they wouldn’t go to the races. A child of three shouldn’t have bought the nhe notion that the regulars all keep turning up and a whole new customer base appears too. As for over here - they say - a well known owner, peer of the realm and member of the Jockey Club, was in very poor shape with leading bookmaker William Hill and steered the betting shop legislation through the Jockey Club and through Parliament so as to alleviate his own difficulties. We were promised travelling allowances for runners and all sorts but predictably once the legislation was in place that didn’t last long. Another in the same position had effectively scuppered proposals for a Tote monoploly some years earlier.
I accept that betting is a pivotal part of this sport, I just don’t see how reversing the synthetics “because bettors don’t like them” makes sense: surely it makes more sense to attempt to re-educate the bettors?
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:36 pm
I want to address Richard (post 4) when he says health and safety is paramount. I want to say that for me and many bettors, the health of their bankroll is paramount. Not that players care less about horse safety, but the number one thing i care about is my own bankroll and my ability to invest money on horse races going forward.
To stick this on the players is unfair. We all care about horses, no one wishes any ill on any horse, but the bettors and the owners/trainers should be kept in 2 seperate categories. Its up to the people inside the game to make sure horses are safe and its up to the bettors to do what’s right for their families also.
As far as Del Mar producing statistics that show less injuries on their surface, well, that’s the same as the tobacco companies showing statistics that smoking isn’t bad for you.
I want to address Fravel’s comments about people not liking the tracks because they are ‘different’. Mr Fravel, this is not true, let me explain to you why large pari mutuel investors dont’ like polytrack. The reason polytrack is a cancer for bettors is pace scenarios. If you can’t effectively handicap how fast the early pace is going to be in any particular race, you have no shot to win in the long run. You need to know how fast the pace is going to be because you have to know if you want to wager on speed horses or closing horses. With Polytrack, too many riders ‘manipulate’ established form. Do you know how much money i’ve lost beacuse one or two ’speed horses’ were no where near the lead ? This type of race riding completely messed up my calculations and rendered my bets useless.
Unless you own dozens of horses in high profile stables and can get trainer gossip on which speed horses were ‘taking back’ you had no shot to beat polytrack.
Cushion at Hollywood is different because it plays more like real dirt and there is not this hard ‘grabbing’ by riders of speed horses. Del Mar can care about horse welfare AND horse players by having made the decision to install cushion track instead of polytrack.
I echo the sentiments of a few here that Tapeta is a great surface to handicap. There are biases that favor speed and then there are biases that favor closers…this is what the serious players wants, they want change in bias so their notes can be effective going forward. I have made good money in the last month at Golden gate by just knowing which days favored closers and which days favored speed.
As far as Bob Hess’s comment that most players prefer to play speed, i don’t think that its a speed vs closers issue. Its a jockeys grabbing vs a jockeys NOT grabbing issue. If there are speed horses on paper, a smart horseplayer is going to assume a duel will develop and bet on a closer. But, with polytrack, that duel doesn’t develop and you’re left totally guessing which horse will be loose and which other speds are going to get stiffed. If you are a player who blindly plays speed and you get in a duel and lose, you didn’t do your homework.
As a player, i just want the riders to ride each horse according to their current running styles and i’ll be ok. I’ve seen severe pace manipulation on Polytrack more than any other synthetic surface and pace manipulation destroys any sound analysis, which is what most big bettors rely on.