o.k.. but how would going back to dirt be stupid?

Clearly you didn't read the part where the results stated it's almost twice as likely for deaths to occur on dirt as it is on synthetic surfaces?

Going back to dirt would be like stepping back in time.

A synthetic surface provides the greatest good for the greatest number. Let's face it, America has it's own 'world' championships for horses on dirt. Why should there be another world championship meeting held on dirt when the surface only suits a small percentage of horses around the world?

Maybe Tapeta isn't the surface to use, but there are other synthetic surfaces, which do a fantastic job around the globe.

The injuries, which are caused purely because of dirt quickly get forgotten about to protect the American industry - the faster someone acts the better. Dirt tracks are in place for one reason and one reason only. They are easy to maintain, and track managers have become lazy.

Dirt racing will soon be a thing of the past hopefully, and the whole industry would benefit.

Well, to each their own I guess. I suppose we will just have to disagree on that part. I hate that plastic stuff. I am so glad that Keeneland / Del Mar have finally decided to go back to it and hope Turfway will soon follow.

That will never happen.

You support more deaths on the track?

Wow.

Oh it will, and all of this PETA stuff has probably sped that process up. The number of fatalities on dirt rises each year, this isn't going in noticed. The number of fatalities on synthetic surfaces is at an all time low.

The tracks are safe, and when maintained they can match the biases of any track on any given day. They can play the same as dirt, just without the need to put horses through the pain and suffering of running on a death trap.

....... Just sayin

:rolleyes:

Okay first off? Regarding your response to Laura?

Stop it. Just stop.

Capisce?

This is not who you are so please don't act like it is...like it's so comfortable for you to be a complete and utter ******* and to someone so nice.

Okay?

Second... the part that is a response to me?

I'll tell you what has happened and all that will happen.

Middle aged white men will defecate mountains of words and will busy themselves congratulating each other on said piles. There will maybe be two or three original thoughts which will become fodder for the voracious, untalented mini-mass of those affected with me-too-ism.

It is the big audition... their chance to be listened to. Hooray!

Do you have a brother? Can I borrow yours cause everyone and their brother is or has yet to write letters to editors, blogs, etc.

Ideas and objectives will be put forth and then the amalgamated thing... this conglomeration... will be pulverized and begin to break itself apart as if a gigantic amoeba.

After all this is said and done the real stuff happens. Enough with the words, it's time for action!

... and you know what that will be, don't you?

Close your eyes and what do you see?

Riiiight because that is the way it is. Nothing gets done. There is handwringing and pontificating... statements are made about what is right and what is wrong BUT, the end result (save Mr. Zayat pulling his horses) is a big, fat nothing.

You Sir are wrong because you assume that the number of fatalities is of the utmost importance here.

While it is an issue I think you are generous in your assumption.

Good for PETA in that they did bring attention to things that need to be looked at. I support them at times, being a part of the campaigns to alleviate the suffering of certain groups of animals... and I also stand against them when they use bullying tactics or are hypocrites (which they are and can be some of the time).

The problem isn't PETA and I will not get into a great debate about synthetic vs dirt as I am much more comfortable reading opinions of people who know much more than I (but your matching biases part was intriguing).

The problem is things need to be done so much so that it is overwhelming and the easy way out aka nada will continue to be the preferred route.

Sorry,

I got bored reading that. You could have simply written "I don't agree".

The fact of the matter is, dirt racing is facing the fight of it's life, and this will only develop further. As more and more infuential parties part their ways with dirt racing. Dirt racing and drugs go hand in hand with American racing - the two items which are hated amongst the racing scene around the world. It's only a matter of time before the American product is neglected by the rest of the world, that is already happening.

As racing "fans" it saddens me to see so many people want to save the dirt, and applaud tracks for bringing it back just because it's easier to play the races on. Lets face it, what are the other reasons? 'History' wears thin after so long, and if it's history you want, the races should be all on turf.

The facts state that dirt racing is dangerous, not only to horses but jockeys too. It isn't just the amount of deaths, it's the tendon injuries and bone concussion (of which there are many vet studies) and the drugs which are used to cover these injuries in an attempt to keep these horses sound on a surface, which isn't fit to make sand castles with. Over five times as many break downs on dirt than any other durface. The infections and the soreness it generates on the horses heels and fetlock joints, and once again the drugs which then have to mask that.

When well maintained, a synthetic surface is as good as anything and can be made as close to dirt racing as physically possible without the harshness of the surface. Track managers in the states didn't want the work load that comes with an artificial surface. It has to be harrowed, it has to be worked, and depending on the weather the way it has to be harrowed changes. The times I watched races on artificial surfaces in America I rarely saw any of this maintenance happening. Laziness can lead to problems in any form of life, and this is no different.

While the rest of the world is trying to improve their racing product, and introduce it to new markets and bring themselves into the 21st century, America is yet again turning a blind eye to facts and figures and bowing down to what is likely to make the tracks more money, taking a step back rather than a step forward.

I wouldnt expect you to understand, however. Your attitude is very one dimensional.

Laura has applauded tracks are bringing back dirt. That saddens me, for what reason does she wish this to happen?

That's my only question.

No it isn't because my point is that, after all the talking, nothing will change.

You like plastic/rubber.. To each their own.. Your entitled to your preference as am I to mine. I guess I'm just a traditionalist and prefer to handicap races on dirt/ turf rather than on plastic/rubber.

Why are you not voicing your opinion in these threads?

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...t=53226&page=3

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53565

I've been thinking about this post of yours and just want to make a couple of points.

First off Alan Aitken is a well-known and very respected writer. I doubt he has any agenda.

What gives them the right? Seriously?

... and I'm wondering about these figures of yours. Where they're from.

Not saying they are or aren't accurate but if you're going to post something like this you should back it up and provide a link.

Here is a article from DRF's Matt Hagarty from back in March of 2013.

http://www.drf.com/news/fatality-rat...ks-report-says

I think one needs to take into consideration the number of races for the comparison of dirt to Poly. Do these numbers factor in non starters or just the horses in a race?

Thought I would add this newest one...

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53628