Arlington safety...putting it in perspective

[The Bid]

BUMP

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Its not wrong, but dont say that too loud.

Surprisingly DRF reported Latin Rhythms breaking down and now Drill Down

How sad, both nice horses. Apparently as noted in the DRF column the track didnt handle the rain. Hows that for an all weather surface. We are talking about TWP handling below freezing and snow and this track cant even handle a little rain, PUHLEASE

Latin Rhythms broke down at Hollywood Park.

[ArlJim78]

from the drf article, a quote from Michael Baze who was riding Drill Down.

"He was real relaxed," Baze said. "He just took a bad step at the quarter pole."

and Drill Down's trainer;

"You're always hearing things about the racetrack, but I can't say the track is bad," Machowsky said. "It's just one of those things, and it's a tough one to choke down."

[The Bid]

I know where they broke down, both over life saving surfaces.

Jim, heres a few others since you are into the quotes

Trainer Jack Carava had several main-track workouts scheduled for Monday morning, but made a last-minute decision to move his works to the dirt training track.

"It just didn't feel right," he said about the Cushion Track. "I know what they had to do [Sunday] to this track to get it to dry out."


"It's a work in progress, and I think they haven't got the point where they have it right yet," he said.

Vienna will work horses on the training track instead.

Cushion Track is billed as an all-weather surface, but when Magna track-surface consultant Ted Malloy was asked how the surface handled the approximate half-inch of weekend rain, he answered, "Not very well." Malloy said it will improve with revised maintenance procedures.

To me, and anyone else with a brain, it seems like they dont know what they are doing. The track obviously DIDNT handle the rain, but I guess we can spin it however wed like. Fact is 2 very nice horses had catastrophic breakdowns over an all weather synthetic surface devised to save lives and handle rain.

[VOL JACK]

Your making me look forward to Keeneland. The prez of Kee, Nich Nicholson, proclaimed the racetrack was "the star of the meet". If he says so it must be true because track management is never wrong.

[sumitas]

it is extremely disappointing to read there are problems handling the rain when that is supposed to be a huge plus for poly. very disappointing the way the SA poly is performing, no question.

[JJP]

Remember back 2 years ago, when Turfway rolled out its new Polytrack? The reasoning made sense; the track runs during brutal winters and the feeling was, there would be less cancellations. Nobody said a word about it being safer before that TP meet started. By the end of the winter meet, we heard all kinds of talk about fewer breakdowns; IMO, TP is the ONLY track that should've installed synthetic.

So what do the "deep thinkers" that control California racing do? They hear this, and mandate all non-fair tracks in California put this junk in. These people likely have never experienced a Midwestern winter, and had no idea how much sand and chemicals were added to the old TP track in the winter, when the track did have a problem w/cancellations and more breakdowns. Seeing what happened at TP and applying it to SoCal was extremely flawed logic. As for Keeneland, being a part owner in Polytrack, it was no surprise they put it in; they wanted to shed the image of being a rail biased racetrack. They did that.....only now their once proud track has become a laughingstock. All they needed to do was reconfigure the track, which they did. After only 12 years of playing Keeneland, I can give up their 6 weeks a year and not even miss it.

Those of us who followed racing in the late 80s remember what was said about the Equitrack at Remington, which also had been used in the UK.....the wave of the future. Within a few years, it was ripped out; the so-called all-weather surface clearly was unable to handle the heat of the Oklahoma summers.

[sumitas]

there were some problems with Woodbine as well but apparently that has been resolved. so with the exception of SA, the all weather is on balance a success this time around, at this point in time.

[The Bid]

Woodbine will freeze this winter as well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not really trying to say that polytrack isn't safer. However, the stats I posted are AT LEAST as relevant as the stuff the pro polytrack crowd started promoting after about 1 week of the first meet. This continued until the last few months when they didn't really favor the "poly is the cure all" argument anymore.

Your stats are not really that revealing because they are just three plain numbers that are completely without context or reasoning. Just 3 seemingly random numbers.
Now if you would take the time to examine the conditions of the horses who broke down and incorporated that data into the mix we would have a better idea of what the original numbers mean.
If 10 out of the 12 breakdowns this year were big dropdowns in class (25k to 5k for example) then those would have to be considered suspicous and taken in that context. On the same note the previous years breakdowns should be analyzed also. To use such a small sample size and count breakdowns in obvious negative situations and horses in Stakes or allowance races as the same is misleading.

Now I remember this discussion coming up in August and after reviewing the horses who had not finished one week, 2 were big drops, one was a cheap horse with rapidly deteoritating form, and one was reported to have had a heart attack. What most of you dont understand and the few of you that should refuse to acknowledge is that many horses who breakdown were put into that position by the human connections and were probably doomed eventually regardless of surface. The propaganda put out by the tracks making this stuff seem so much safer than dirt has led to many owners sending sore horses to run over these tracks as though they would heal thier brokedown legs. The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.

Thank you, Chuck!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Thank you, Chuck!

It is really sad but true.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is really sad but true.

I agree.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your stats are not really that revealing because they are just three plain numbers that are completely without context or reasoning. Just 3 seemingly random numbers.
Now if you would take the time to examine the conditions of the horses who broke down and incorporated that data into the mix we would have a better idea of what the original numbers mean.
If 10 out of the 12 breakdowns this year were big dropdowns in class (25k to 5k for example) then those would have to be considered suspicous and taken in that context. On the same note the previous years breakdowns should be analyzed also. To use such a small sample size and count breakdowns in obvious negative situations and horses in Stakes or allowance races as the same is misleading.

Now I remember this discussion coming up in August and after reviewing the horses who had not finished one week, 2 were big drops, one was a cheap horse with rapidly deteoritating form, and one was reported to have had a heart attack. What most of you dont understand and the few of you that should refuse to acknowledge is that many horses who breakdown were put into that position by the human connections and were probably doomed eventually regardless of surface. The propaganda put out by the tracks making this stuff seem so much safer than dirt has led to many owners sending sore horses to run over these tracks as though they would heal thier brokedown legs. The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.

Cannon,

I agree, but this was my point. Isn't this the exact same kind of statistics that were used to show that either "polytrack is great" or "we need polytrack"! They were meaningless when "pro" poly just as they are meaningless when "anti" poly. The difference is hardly anyone was willing to acknowledge that point last year, but suddenly when it goes against the safety line everyone can see the flaws.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Cannon,

I agree, but this was my point. Isn't this the exact same kind of statistics that were used to show that either "polytrack is great" or "we need polytrack"! They were meaningless when "pro" poly just as they are meaningless when "anti" poly. The difference is hardly anyone was willing to acknowledge that point last year, but suddenly when it goes against the safety line everyone can see the flaws.

Bingo. I haven't heard anyone say how many of the breakdowns at AP in 2006 were from big class dropdowns. Certainly, the Chicago Tribune never mentioned it. So I guess its ok to mention only the breakdowns if you are pro-synth. Part of the blame for the one sided media coverage must go to TVG. Simon Bray and Frank Lyons kept droning on and on how wonderful it is......"just like European racing....the field canters toward the quarter pole, then everyone starts trying". To Carruthers credit, I haven't heard him throwing bouquets toward the Polytrack crowd.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your stats are not really that revealing because they are just three plain numbers that are completely without context or reasoning. Just 3 seemingly random numbers.
Now if you would take the time to examine the conditions of the horses who broke down and incorporated that data into the mix we would have a better idea of what the original numbers mean.
If 10 out of the 12 breakdowns this year were big dropdowns in class (25k to 5k for example) then those would have to be considered suspicous and taken in that context. On the same note the previous years breakdowns should be analyzed also. To use such a small sample size and count breakdowns in obvious negative situations and horses in Stakes or allowance races as the same is misleading.

Now I remember this discussion coming up in August and after reviewing the horses who had not finished one week, 2 were big drops, one was a cheap horse with rapidly deteoritating form, and one was reported to have had a heart attack. What most of you dont understand and the few of you that should refuse to acknowledge is that many horses who breakdown were put into that position by the human connections and were probably doomed eventually regardless of surface. The propaganda put out by the tracks making this stuff seem so much safer than dirt has led to many owners sending sore horses to run over these tracks as though they would heal thier brokedown legs. The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.

so, where does that leave us? the horses that are well handled--will they be better off, while those that are poorly handled are worse off? or should we completely ignore the 'poly is safer' mantra? if so, then why the move to an artificial surface? is it better over all, or did it have more to do with keeping full fields regardless of weather? how many of these tracks that made the change needed to, and how many are better then they were before? how many are worse?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, where does that leave us? the horses that are well handled--will they be better off, while those that are poorly handled are worse off? or should we completely ignore the 'poly is safer' mantra? if so, then why the move to an artificial surface? is it better over all, or did it have more to do with keeping full fields regardless of weather? how many of these tracks that made the change needed to, and how many are better then they were before? how many are worse?

Bottom line is that if it helps tracks bottom lines then they will stay. The fact is that they are here and you must adapt or move on. Personally I had my doubts about the validity of the track being maintenance free (sounds like an infomercial at 3 am) but thought and still think that the individual horses conformational faults wont be changed by any surface. Maybe an artificial surface can lessen the effects of the faults but they are still there and will eventually catch up to the horse regardless of Poly, Tapeta, Dirt, Turf, etc...

It is obvious that the propaganda (or selling points) were not entirely correct but constantly harping on it really does nobody any benefit. It is NOT going to be replaced anytime soon at the tracks that have it and may continue to spread as long as track that have it continue to do well financially.

As for the complaints that the surfaces are not uniform or play differently, use that to your advantage or bet something else. It is not like all dirt or turf courses play alike so why should synthetic surfaces be any different?


The sad thing about the whole situation is that so many have taken sides and made this issue probably more important than it really should be. The most important thread going now is the one about the dirtbag AZ politicians and the attempt to make us criminals. If this crap spreads than we will have more to worry about than polytrack or dirt.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Cannon,

I agree, but this was my point. Isn't this the exact same kind of statistics that were used to show that either "polytrack is great" or "we need polytrack"! They were meaningless when "pro" poly just as they are meaningless when "anti" poly. The difference is hardly anyone was willing to acknowledge that point last year, but suddenly when it goes against the safety line everyone can see the flaws.

Understood but what difference does it really make?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Bottom line is that if it helps tracks bottom lines then they will stay. The fact is that they are here and you must adapt or move on. Personally I had my doubts about the validity of the track being maintenance free (sounds like an infomercial at 3 am) but thought and still think that the individual horses conformational faults wont be changed by any surface. Maybe an artificial surface can lessen the effects of the faults but they are still there and will eventually catch up to the horse regardless of Poly, Tapeta, Dirt, Turf, etc...

It is obvious that the propaganda (or selling points) were not entirely correct but constantly harping on it really does nobody any benefit. It is NOT going to be replaced anytime soon at the tracks that have it and may continue to spread as long as track that have it continue to do well financially.

As for the complaints that the surfaces are not uniform or play differently, use that to your advantage or bet something else. It is not like all dirt or turf courses play alike so why should synthetic surfaces be any different?


The sad thing about the whole situation is that so many have taken sides and made this issue probably more important than it really should be. The most important thread going now is the one about the dirtbag AZ politicians and the attempt to make us criminals. If this crap spreads than we will have more to worry about than polytrack or dirt.

thanks.
as for the change in surface, humans are VERY resistant to change. this is yet another example of that. i thought all along that a GOOD, well maintained surface is the answer, and dirt quite often fits the bill. i think polys biggest sell point was the maintenance free, followed by the 'all weather' description. but safety was the easy way to sell it to the masses.
i agree that a poorly conformed horse, or sore horse, will not find a surface to his liking regardless. then it behooves the trainer to take care of the horse, and hopefully use some tough love to explain to the owner why the horse needs a break.