UNION-TRIBUNE STANDS UP FOR DEL MAR
An editorial in today’s San Diego Union-Tribune lauds Del Mar’s dedication to its synthetic track despite Santa Anita’s likely return to dirt. They touted studies from California’s equine medical director and the Equibase Company that show the benefits of synthetic track in regards to horse fatalities.
Click here for the rest of the editorial from the San Diego Union-Tribune
Then come back to the Paulick Report and let us know what you think
Tags: bradford cummings, Del Mar, equibase, Paulick Report, San Diego Union-Tribune, santa anita, synthetic track
January 25th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Del Mar is the only track left that still feeds their media well. What are they going to say? I think it’s a good thing they stand up for their track. Less horses are getting hurt in Del Mar because 30% of them have left the State.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Ha Ha Ha…Thats a good one. Twisted numbers and P.R. to defend a poor decision.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Too bad Doug O’Neil and Lava Man’s owners made a hasty decision in retiring Lava Man again….Lava Man LOVES the dirt track and he really did okay for a first time showing in tough competition/stakes race for his first race back after such a long layoff…not to mention the distance for his first race should have been shorter. He honestly looked quite good early on in the race, but lacked the late kick because of not being in tip top condition for such a race. Can’t wait to have at least one CA track back on dirt. Dirt tracks, if well established and maintained, are no more unsafe than any other race track; but they must be kept in top notch condition. Perhaps the dirt track at SA will bring Lava Man back once more?? Hope so.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Another day and another Del Mar spin job with the help of the San Diego Union. What a surprise!
If you love the game and want California racing restored to a place of prominence instead of ridicule, let Del Mar and the San Diego Union know how you feel about the propaganda. Every time the usual suspects open their mouths another thousand Horseplayers say goodbye to California Racing.
If you love California racing trust your instincts and your heart. Don’t believe the special interest spin.
The spin doctors at Del Mar and their buddies at the San Diego Union who refuse to ask tough questions continue to mislead the public.
So let me help you San Diego Union because you are misleading the public on behalf of Del Mar again and here’s why:
1. It is misleading and reckless for spin doctors like Rick Arthur to compare the worst three years of the Del Mar dirt surface with decades old bases to a synthetic surface with new material and new bases. What is it that the San Diego Union doesn’t get about that?
2. It is misleading and reckless to not acknowledge that the synthetic material at Del Mar has worn out from weather, usage, and maintenance. In fact Del Mar 2007 was nothing like Del Mar 2009. If you don’t believe me ask Bill Casner of Winstar Farms was quoted in this article from the North County Times during the Del Mar meet.
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.”
What is it that the brass at Del Mar, Rick Arthur, or the San Diego Union don’t understand about that?
By the way the North County Times is a friend of Horseplayers and a friend of the public. The San Diego Union should be ashamed of their complicity in spinning the public. The San Diego Union appears to be a marketing arm of the Del Mar Racetrack.
Thanks for nothing again,
Andy
January 25th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Again, and I know that I sound like a broken record, but neither of the studies sited by the UT have been held up to peer review.
Personally I don’t care what racing patrons want. I’m more concerned with the horses and getting good science to protect them. IF (i’d underline it if I could) the CHRB was willing to look at the issue correctly and have the due diligence to look at racing surfaces with objectivity instead of knee jerk reactions to pressure for either side of the question, we might get a conclusive answer. That would cost money which the state doesn’t have.
January 25th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
amen trosin. no offense to gamblers, but, surface need #1 a horse thing. as such, i’d personally hesitate calling statistics propogranda. can we look at the stats “before” reaching conclusions?
January 25th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
This industry needs to start using common sense and be willing to secure appropriate accident prevention even if it’s expensive and results in less racing at least initially. It must stop using “scientific” brews concocted by spin-doctors some with squeletons in their closets, as a smoke-screen for its dirty business. Greedy and ruthless people break and kill the most race horses not racing surfaces.
January 25th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/2010/01/santa-anita-has-lost-13.html
Excerpt:
“(Earnhardt) loves running in California, and Indian Blessing, if they had dirt, she would have run another year,” Baffert said. “But being that there is synthetic here, she hates it so I retired her. She was sound and everything, and she could have run. We like going to New York, but we’d rather run at Del Mar and it made a lot of these (owners) just sick when they changed it.”
Excerpt:
Del Mar is in the same boat, according to the man who’s trained three Kentucky Derby winners and has a bevy of contenders in his barn this year.
“They’re stuck there, and they’re so hard-headed,” Baffert said. “I would hope Del Mar will do something down there, but I don’t know. Or at least make it like Hollywood. If they could make it like Hollywood, it wouldn’t be bad.”
January 25th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Back when the mandate for synthetic surfaces first came to public knowledge I had already heard rumblings that Del Mar was looking into synthetic surfaces. Del Mar had a bad reputation for excessive fatalities and injuries to horses, so I thought maybe this was their answer and if it were mandated, maybe they could get some help financially installing the surface. Instead of switching surfaces I think Del Mar should have upped it’s maintainance care of the Del Mar racing surface year round. Think about it, there are only horses there using the track about 3 months of the year, so it is not surprising that the surfaces there seemed to have a lot of injuries associated with it when the majority of time the surfaces are not worked and maintained for training or racing.
As for all the different types of synthetic surfaces, the same can be said about all the turf and dirt surfaces. Every track has there own little set of nuances that the trainers and handicappers have to learn and deal with.
January 26th, 2010 at 4:22 am
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 26th, 2010 at 7:45 am
let’s not drift away from facts here….again. Dirt and sythetics should have very little to do with handicapping, carry overs or skewed statistics. What is not in the equation here is the fact that the California horse herd has diminished steadily and significantly over a 25 year period. The increasing dominance of cheap claiming horses propped up by a steady injection of (legal) drugs and those with questionable pedigree seriously skew the stats. Major injuries are most prone in the claming ranks and not in the allowances and stakes ranks, even though they compete at a faster gate. Claiming horses, of necessity, demand more maintenance; more medicaments; more external patching applications on a daily basis and race more times than those being raced and utilized to perfect the breed. The racetracks on the other hand have utilized wagering gimmicks and larger cheaper fields to fuel their handles. This policy places (and attracts) the utilization of a cheaper and more fragile horse herd that races more often. The recent stupidity quoted by many, that claiming races out handle “no price” races is a fallacy defined by exotics. And it has lost the (meaning) definition of why we race. Any owner will tell you that they would rather see the “good” horse race once than their bad ones 10 times. Why don’t we get it ? Why don’t we stop this senseless race to the precipice? Unfortunately,that which we debate most of all is least understood and contains less expertise than is available by the participants!
January 26th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Good for Darrell Vienna!
http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/01/26/artificial-promises-by-darrell-vienna.aspx
Excerpt:
Purveyors of synthetic racing surfaces soon appeared like snake oil salesmen extolling the virtues of their remarkable products. Representatives of the surfaces eventually installed in Southern California claimed their products required “low to no” maintenance and minimal watering. More importantly, they pitched their products as being consistent, safer, and proven to reduce injuries.
Excerpt:
With each passing meet the synthetics began to lose luster. Horses began presenting new types of injuries. Hind leg lamenesses increased. Soft tissue injuries began to occur with alarming frequency.
Excerpt:
The opinions of apologists have been widely disseminated. They would have us believe synthetic surfaces reduce the rate of catastrophic race injuries. If the underlying data regarding injuries are accurate and the analysis is proper, the best that can be said is that concomitant with the introduction of synthetics, some tracks have reported fewer injuries of a specific type. A causal connection between synthetic surfaces and a reduced rate of catastrophic injury has yet to be established.