Derby Trail Forums - Turfway

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Turfway - Poly (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16576)

Quote:

As far as "hard" data, quantifiable, I think that will be slow to come. Plus, getting data on soft-tissue injuries is going to be tough, and to be able to attribute these injuries to the poly/synthetic/etc. surface is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible.

The current track study being conducted will give exactly that type of information.

oh poly,poly
saving the horses for sure
killing bettors more

The surface at Turfway is so forgiving that it is hard to detect soft tissue injuries in your horses. So a horse could train and race for weeks before the soft tissue injury is detected. By then the injury is far worse than it was in the beginning and there is not much you can do about it but give your horse more time off. Last year one of our horses was training beautifully. We sent him down to Mountaineer to race and the jockey was warming the horse up and then decided that he wasnt going to ride the horse because the horse wasnt "acting right." It turned out that the horse had a bruise on his foot that looked like it was 2 to 3 weeks old than we had no idea about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disrespectnfool

oh poly,poly
saving the horses for sure
killing bettors more

I"ll take the horses over the bettors any day.

The different historical dirt tracks (and turf tracks) have long had individual characteristics known by handicappers. Some known for being deep and tiring (and more predisposing to things like muscle pulls and strains, back pain, etc); some hard, concrete-like (more predisposing to bone injury/catastrophic breakdown, bruises). Some have always favored stalkers/closers, some are well-known front-end-winning speed highways. That's nothing new, and it's always been a part of handicapping.

So the extreme fuss over the various synthetic surfaces still surprises me. It's just another surface, guys. It's no more "chaotic" than the last two weeks of Saratoga were, to my eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree with that you are saying. I would just like to see the surface at Turfway be a little better. I think it is worse now than it was at the beginning of Poly at Turfway.

I think all handicappers want is some degree of predictability that they can utilize.

That has always taken some time from opening day of a meet (and each morning with some meets) for historical tracks, and it will take time for the synthetics to settle in, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

The current track study being conducted will give exactly that type of information.

For the reasons I mentioned, and others, do you really think this information is going to be conclusive. One meet? One year? Without the variables, changes that can and weren't made in the track surface. I agree with you that the information is needed. I am just concerned that too many people are too hesitant to start making changes, tweaking, etc.

I would have liked to see track management have people assessing, reviewing, and being a lot more proactive once these tracks were installed. I don't like hearing track management say "We aren't making any changes whatsoever until the meet is over" or something to that effect.

Eric

Quote:

For the reasons I mentioned, and others, do you really think this information is going to be conclusive. One meet? One year?

Quote:

I would have liked to see track management have people assessing, reviewing, and being a lot more proactive once these tracks were installed. I don't like hearing track management say "We aren't making any changes whatsoever until the meet is over" or something to that effect.

I hear you. But I see their side, in that if I have a new product I purchased, and the manufacturer is telling me, based upon their previous experience with other installations, it's best to let things settle down to see what's really there, THEN tweek, I'd suspect I'd go with that recommendation, too.

Great point and I respect the dedication of those submitting and compiling the data. Thanks to all and keep up the good work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I think so, ELA, because it will be an ongoing, continuous thing over the years, so enough data will be accumulated to give some definitive answers and show some true trends. I agree with you that "one track, one year" type of thing wouldn't give us good answers.

What I am talking about is Dr. Mary Scollay's track injury reporting system that started in 2007. Most tracks are participating, it will independently quantify the type of injury, outcome, weather, track surface, age/type/condition horse, field size, veterinary care, etc. (lots of variables). One early article on it is here in The Blood-Horse, there are more recent if you search for them:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleind...e.asp?id=39138

I hear you. But I see their side, in that if I have a new product I purchased, and the manufacturer is telling me, based upon their previous experience with other installations, it's best to let things settle down to see what's really there, THEN tweek, I'd suspect I'd go with that recommendation, too.

I agree with you -- ongoing, larger samplings, etc. Dr. Scollay's project is a good one. As far as a library of inuries -- let's say the equivalent of an equine MIB (sans the medications, treatments, etc.), I don't know if that's going to fly.

As far as the track management's perspective, I am not sure that some of these decisions are being made with that much imput from the manufacturer(s). If it is, I would want to know that these people have been on site, inspecting, seeing, experiencing the actual track conditions, changes, etc.

Excellent points.

Eric