Nice editorial

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Riot

Deflection of what? Grade 1's run on synthetic in other countries? Other countries run primarily turf - what does that question show except nothing? .

That's not quite completely true. In Argentina and Chile, many of the major races are run on what they call 'sand' tracks; before 1978, it was 'all the major races' in Argentina.

And by the say, nobody runs for 'grade 1' races but British hurdlers and 'chasers. They run in 'Group 1' (Gruppo 1, etc.). The theory behind determining group and graded races is very different.

[Dahoss]

Finally the match up we've all been waiting for....Pedigree Ann vs. Riot.

Pass the popcorn.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Finally the match up we've all been waiting for....Pedigree Ann vs. Riot.

Pass the popcorn.

Really? What argument is there? She pointed out some countries that run big races on sand. That goes to your question. She and I agree on the dirt track base thing.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Riot

Really? What argument is there?

I must have missed saying there was an arguement. Could you point me to where I said that?

I was looking forward to two know it all blowhards strutting their stuff. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I must have missed saying there was an arguement. Could you point me to where I said that?

I was looking forward to two know it all blowhards strutting their stuff. I'm sure I'm not alone.

We on Derby Trail have listened to you for so long, nice of you to give others a chance

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Riot

We on Derby Trail have listened to you for so long, nice of you to give others a chance

Right on cue with a deflection.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

And by the say, nobody runs for 'grade 1' races but British hurdlers and 'chasers. They run in 'Group 1' (Gruppo 1, etc.). The theory behind determining group and graded races is very different.

this was a perfect response to a Riot post. Great job.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Right on cue with a deflection.

That's not a deflection, that's a comment right back at you. Try to keep up

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this was a perfect response to a Riot post. Great job.

Except Riot didn't bring that up. It was Hoss who brought up Grade 1's (actually he initially called them elite races) run on synthetic.

I'm sure nobody here minds Ann pointing out they are correctly called Group races. I don't.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree with all you say. It would take a tremendous amount of land to install a great turf track facility in the US (a track would need multiple gallops, training areas, etc) and hold up to our use. It would be cool to see, though.

i dont see anyone attempting that huge investment. ownership is down, expenses go up...and turf racing is an afterthought here for the most part..

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't see turfway changing back-in their case it seems the awt is working for them.

The track at Turfway has hardly been a huge success. The reason that you dont hear complaints about it is because pretty much no one cares about Turfway anymore.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Horses were designed to work on turf - hooves, legs, tendons, muscles, eyes, breathing, gut. Where do horses live on dirt?

Certainly turf courses are graded, grass types selected, drainage, divots replaced, etc. (less so with the centuries-old type tracks in Europe) But a dirt track is completely manufactured from scratch - drainage, base, and a mixture of soils (clay, loam, sand) specifically composed to a recipe (soils that may not even be local)



I'm not forgetting. It is what it is in the US. Horse racing started primarily in the upper east, was imported from England and adapted to what we have here. We even developed the speedball specialist to run on our different type of track (dirt)



That's something you just made up. It is not true. Go on PubMed, there's plenty there.



I agree. That's why I hate to see, when any horse breaks down on a synthetic track, the predictable few who sarcastically say, "I thought those surfaces were supposed to be safe?"

The modern thoroughbred traces from middle eastern descent. There is a whole lot more dirt than grass in the middle east.

Turf courses are completely manufactured from scratch as well.

I did not make up the fact that there has been very little to spotty record keeping in regards to breakdown information prior to current efforts. As I said there is little accurate information to compare it to therefore the findings should be viewed skeptically.

And I hate to see when a horse breaks down on a dirt surface the predictable few who sarcastically say, "See we need synthetic surfaces, these dirt tracks aren't safe!"

[Riot]

The modern thoroughbred traces from middle eastern descent. There is a whole lot more dirt than grass in the middle east.

On the sire side. Not the dam. There's alot of cobblestones and English fields in there, too

I did not make up the fact that there has been very little to spotty record keeping in regards to breakdown information prior to current efforts.

Strange you say that. There's plenty of record keeping there in the medical literature, from the 1980's to current: harness, grass, Euro, Australia, dirt, jumping.

As I said there is little accurate information to compare it to therefore the findings should be viewed skeptically.

I find that untrue with what I have read.

And I hate to see when a horse breaks down on a dirt surface the predictable few who sarcastically say, "See we need synthetic surfaces, these dirt tracks aren't safe!"

That's why it's best if facts, rather than emotion, contributes most to the conversation.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's not a deflection, that's a comment right back at you. Try to keep up

Whatever you say bro.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

On the sire side. Not the dam. There's alot of cobblestones and English fields in there, too



Strange you say that. There's plenty of record keeping there in the medical literature, from the 1980's to current: harness, grass, Euro, Australia, dirt, jumping.



I find that untrue with what I have read.



That's why it's best if facts, rather than emotion, contributes most to the conversation.

The thoroughbred descends from middle eastern stallions. There is a lot of dirt in the middle east. It's pretty simple.

What does records from Harness racing, grass racing, European racing, Australia or jumping have to do with the lack of breakdown stats from American dirt tracks?

And since the jockey club's Equine Injury database is only 2 years old and still doesnt have cooperation from all tracks I find it hard to believe that there is a whole lot of accurate data from prior years.

And the initial findings of the databank is there is little to no statistical variance between breakdown rates on different surfaces.

[Riot]

The thoroughbred descends from middle eastern stallions. There is a lot of dirt in the middle east. It's pretty simple.

Sure. If you ignore that the breed wasn't developed in the middle east, but developed after the three Arabian sires were imported, and was developed primarily in England from fairly common mares. Pretty simple that Arabian sands were never involved. Let alone dirt.

What does records from Harness racing, grass racing, European racing, Australia or jumping have to do with the lack of breakdown stats from American dirt tracks?

There's breakdown stats on American tracks. For example, how about the NY tracks in the 1980's? Compare America to Europe, to Australia. Flat to hurdles. Harness. Lots of good info.

And since the jockey club's Equine Injury database is only 2 years old and still doesnt have cooperation from all tracks I find it hard to believe that there is a whole lot of accurate data from prior years.

Current data has zero bearing on what was available before it existed. As I said, go read the multiple scientific studies on PubMed. You know they are there. They've been mentioned before. And mentioned multiple times when artificial surfaces first were discussed. In fact, those stats contributed to the development of artificial surfaces.

And the initial findings of the databank is there is little to no statistical variance between breakdown rates on different surfaces.

As someone who is knowledgable of the concept of "statistical significance", you know that one final quarter affecting a years data doesn't give you much of that, does it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sure. If you ignore that the breed wasn't developed in the middle east, but developed after the three Arabian sires were imported, and was developed primarily in England from fairly common mares. Pretty simple that Arabian sands were never involved. Let alone dirt.



There's breakdown stats on American tracks. For example, how about the NY tracks in the 1980's? Compare America to Europe, to Australia. Flat to hurdles. Harness. Lots of good info.



Current data has zero bearing on what was available before it existed. As I said, go read the multiple scientific studies on PubMed. You know they are there. They've been mentioned before. And mentioned multiple times when artificial surfaces first were discussed. In fact, those stats contributed to the development of artificial surfaces.



As someone who is knowledgable of the concept of "statistical significance", you know that one final quarter affecting a years data doesn't give you much of that, does it?

Dirt is no less natural to horses than grass.

The breakdown stats were a mess until they started tracking and keeping them them recently. The whole point of establishing the databank was that there was nobody accurately doing it before. And comparing different breeds or countries especially with incomplete data is a gigantic waste of time.

You cant use the stats to say that synthetic tracks are safer then discount the same stats saying that they aren't. I know the entire process is seriously flawed and pretty much discount the entire thing. Synthetic surfaces are not better or worse in my experience in training on them. They create a lot of different issues and there are many problems that are unique to synthetics.

[Riot]

The breakdown stats were a mess until they started tracking and keeping them them recently. The whole point of establishing the databank was that there was nobody accurately doing it before. And comparing different breeds or countries especially with incomplete data is a gigantic waste of time.

The stats I'm talking about are peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Sorry to see you call all that research, "a gigantic waste of time", especially as you admit you've not looked at any of it.

You cant use the stats to say that synthetic tracks are safer then discount the same stats saying that they aren't.

I didn't say that - I said that's not been proven statistically significant yet. It may, over time.

I know the entire process is seriously flawed and pretty much discount the entire thing.

Out of hand. Very well. Okay.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The stats I'm talking about are peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Sorry to see you call all that research, "a gigantic waste of time", especially as you admit you've not looked at any of it.



I didn't say that - I said that's not been proven statistically significant yet. It may, over time.



Out of hand. Very well. Okay.

Peer reviewed scientific study sounds really important until you realize that the reporting of breakdowns and/or injuries has not been done on a whole scale, organized manner until 2 years ago. So all those genius scientists must have had magic wands to interpret data that was incomplete at best and misleading at worst.

Comparing trotters and thoroughbred turf horses seems like an apples and oranges argument.

It also may not over time. It is all just speculation as are most of the conclusions that have been reached so far. So saying that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt tracks is not backed by valid numbers.

Useless is useless.

[Indian Charlie]

Cannon.

Quit wasting your time with Riot.

Riot is incapable of conceding even the smallest point when clearly wrong.