Byk, what are the chances you can ask him about it? Or if need be, if I am avalaible, I will call and ask him about it?

Will definitely be talking to Hammer about it this week. It's frequently something Ron Charles (SA President) would address publicly though, and he's very comfortable coming on the air as well...

The 10 horse I needed to win the last race yesterday didn't look that great at the end of that race either(course I noticed later that Pedroza was looking down at the horse's legs after the horse ran well at HWD last time.) Guess trainer Jorge Gut-y-error-ass didn't have that under control(or was hoping to get sold.) I think HWD'S cushion track has worked out pretty well, and it's the most dirt-like of the synthetics. Wish they would have used that from the beginning, but they freaked out about it getting hot at Anita. So, they used some different formula Cushion track. From then until now it's been problematic. The fall meet was o.k. (with Pro-Ride,) but I still think the original cushion track at HWD is better. If you can get a clear lead in a sprint, then you have a very good chance to win. If you are part of a contested lead(at all) in a sprint, then seems like you aren't gunna win. It's weird. I prefer the original version Cushion Track. No, I do not prefer the dirt track Anita had. You couldn't win very many sprints from anywhere that was more than a couple lengths off. Just like the Malibu won by Frankel/Prado. Sit close-big advantage.

Cool, thanks SB

Hey, can you also please talk to Rick Arthur, to see if horses are indeed scoping differently?

( I don't understand that, if it's true, as ProRide is huge particles compared to dirt)

It's disheartening to see the number of injuries over the new surface . Maybe Steve can shed some light on this matter .

Do the horses that are coming back and scoping this residue in their lungs concern you at all?

Yes . However, the primary issue is the breakdowns or immediate injuries after running over the track .

So the horses that are scoping this residue in their lungs after working and racing on this surface are secondary to the breakdowns or other injuries?? Interesting concept.

I heard today on the TV that they have not had a training breakdown in 3 months with tons of works, any chance this just could be random bad luck? Even Bobby Frankel likes the track and Frankel does not like much when it comes to surfaces.

I have been pleasently surprised, the track is much better for the player then it was during oak tree.

a bit short-sighted, don't you think?

There does appear to be some good things to build on . Santa Anita is running tests on the surface . http://thoroughbredtimes.com/nationa...-Pro-Ride.aspx

Horses break down on and off the track everyday. Some days are worse than others.
For several years experts have said for example that Saratoga is a very safe dirt track. Consider this experts: Many horses racing at the Spa a young and fresh reulting in fewer injuries. Yes, this is a dirt track and similar to others around the country.
Consider factors like meds, lightly raced, lightly worked and trainers playing "protect" it seems there is more to consider than just surfaces.

I'm not sure why you're selling this mysterious "residue" being found post-race in the airways as a necessarily significant, or even unexpected, development. Horses (particularly those in behind other horses for the better part of a race) scope with particles of the track surface (dirt or otherwise) in their airways on a regular basis.

One of the problems with discussing things like breakdowns and track surfaces is that there are so many factors that affect these things that the reality is that you just cant make an accurate judgement unless you are actually training or riding over the surface. Track officials wouldnt know the difference between a safe track and a dirt path, The trackman usually is overly defensive. The trainers and sometimes vets of horses who brokedown can be critical to pass the blame away from them. Some jockeys have a good opinion but the majority wouldnt know the difference. It is all a matter of opinion except in extreme cases. Counting the number of breakdowns or lack of breakdowns is not really that accurate since there are many, many other issues involved. The game was better off before people knew about medication issues(although most of what is 'known' is wrong) or payed any attention to breakdowns. Not because either was acceptable but because neither is easily understood or explained away. The public will never be satisfied that the game is clean or that tracks are safe.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/48670.htm

So first hind toe grabs were bad but now they are good? This whole thing makes my head hurt....

they seem as 'with it' as the bc folks.....seem to recall that woodbine banned, and then re-allowed, toe grabs.

The myth of those dangerous toe grabs.

i'm beginning to really wonder just how much the powers that be at these tracks really know about anything.

They dont know much but really dont know a thing about horses. The study that is used as the gold standard in banning toe grabs is old and flawed. The funny thing is that supposedly the main evil of toe grabs is that it stops the natural slide of a horses foot when it strikes the ground. Yet we are told that synthetic tracks are safer however they also prohibit the natural slide of the horses foot. Call me crazy but toe grabs didnt seem to be a big problem for horses at anytime in history yet when we banned them we have seen virtually no change in breakdown rates and in some places an increase. (though most breakdown numbers are statistically irrelevant)