Santa Anita = Dirt (Starting with Winter Meet)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Here's another study from 2008, showing 2.02 fatalities per 1,000 starts on dirt to the microscopic 1.47 fatalities per 1,000 starts on synthetic. Hardly a huge difference.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-ratio-changes

No, statistically that is a huge difference.

The point is that Honu was right: there were plenty of dead and injured horses on SA old dirt track. Whether the various synthetics were right to use (the weather there is so different from where the synths are used in the rest of the world), or whether the track should have been torn up and redone from the base upwards, with that cushion retained - we'll see how the new dirt track is. And the new cushion.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, statistically that is a huge difference.

The point is that Honu was right: there were plenty of dead and injured horses on SA old dirt track. Whether the various synthetics were right to use (the weather there is so different from where the synths are used in the rest of the world), or whether the track should have been torn up and redone from the base upwards, with that cushion retained - we'll see how the new dirt track is. And the new cushion.

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

[Honu]

I retract all my previous statements. I dont really give a *uck what they do with the track. March on.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ateamstupid]

You don't get it. The onus is on the synthetic lovers to prove that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt. Because that was the synthetics' one main selling point, and there's no conclusive study that says they've done their job. There was a radical change to the racing landscape made, ostensibly to improve safety, and unless you can prove to me that that's happened, you lose your "we love synthetics because we care about horseys" argument. You've posted eight times in the last two hours and still don't have one statistic saying that synthetic = safer, and I'm the one making generalized statements?

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You don't get it. The onus is on the synthetic lovers to prove that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt. Because that was the synthetics' one main selling point, and there's no conclusive study that says they've done their job. There was a radical change to the racing landscape made, ostensibly to improve safety, and unless you can prove to me that that's happened, you lose your "we love synthetics because we care about horseys" argument. You've posted eight times in the last two hours and still don't have one statistic saying that synthetic = safer, and I'm the one making generalized statements?

+1

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You don't get it. The onus is on the synthetic lovers to prove that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt. Because that was the synthetics' one main selling point, and there's no conclusive study that says they've done their job. There was a radical change to the racing landscape made, ostensibly to improve safety, and unless you can prove to me that that's happened, you lose your "we love synthetics because we care about horseys" argument. You've posted eight times in the last two hours and still don't have one statistic saying that synthetic = safer, and I'm the one making generalized statements?

You don't get it. There is no one "conclusive study", and there never will (can) be. You are the one pulling up tiny soundbites from news stories to try and prove your point.

You also don't get that I haven't been posting on here trying to "prove" synthetics are safer.

I am not the one looking for an argument on the safety of synthetics, you apparently are.

I'll go back to my second post about SA going back to dirt: "Terrific".

[SCUDSBROTHER]

No More Pro Candy Ride?