Derby Trail Forums
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   now nyra is thinking about it (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22266)

SniperSB23 05-08-2008 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiaco
Don't forget that injury was probably the result of her hitting the gate at the break, not from the surface.
yeah, I know, makes it all the more amazing.

Antitrust32 05-08-2008 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
How about we compare the safe dirt tracks with the synthetics before all these people come up with meaningless statistics to support their case? What the committee should do is for the next two years track the all weather tracks against SAR, BEL, AQU, CD, GP, FG, and OAK and see what the results show. Make it clear to those tracks that if any of their individual breakdown rates are significantly higher than the average of the synthetic tracks, AND the dirt tracks as a group come out higher in breakdowns than the synthetics that pressure will be put on those tracks to switch to synthetics. If they show that dirt is just as safe or safer, or they can show that their individual track is as safe as the synthetics on average then they are free to keep dirt with no pressure from anyone. The current crap that is being compared is completely meaningless.

I feel ya man!! I dont know how they can compare top class horses running at del mar (eventhough they had there fair share of fatalities last summer) to a place that runs broken down claimers like finger lakes or mountaineer. No **** the numbers will be different. I totally agree with the tracks you chose to compare with artifical tracks.

parsixfarms 05-08-2008 02:23 PM
The hard tracks at Saratoga last summer were not well received by many trainers due to the track super's policy of sealing the tracks each night and from what I understand were the return of some questionable maintenance practices. If you recall, there were meetings among trainers and NYRA officials about the condition of both the main and Oklahoma training tracks. I know that I spoke to our vet over Labor Day weekend last year (as he was x-raying one of our horses), and he said that he had x-rayed more ankles last summer where there was nothing "wrong" with the horse. That there was not a rash of breakdowns during the afternoon does not mean that the tracks were in good shape.

Cannon Shell 05-08-2008 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Majestic Warrior was never good to begin with and how many times have we seen a fast, high priced Baffert 2yo drop off the radar? How many breakdowns were there on the dirt at Saratoga last year? Can you name one other than the Frankel horse that broke her hip in the Ballerina? One breakdown in a 6 week meet is better than any synthetic has ever done.
To be fair there were a lot of breakdowns last year in the am at Saratoga. But I get your point.

Of course one thing that everyone is forgetting when they advocate the money should be spent on a "safer" dirt surfaces either doesnt know or understand why tracks installed them in the first place. It was not only billed as a "bias free" and safer surface but maintenance free as well. The initial cost was supposed to be covered in 3 or 4 years by having track maintenance budgets slashed. A "safer" dirt surface will still cost the same or more to maintain than a "non-safe" or current surface. The tracks were thinking bottom line, not safety, regardless of what they are saying now.

pointman 05-08-2008 02:36 PM
This is really a non-issue as NYRA can't afford to replace the tracks anyway, New York will be running on dirt for the forseeable future. This is obviously a response to the knee jerk reaction from the Derby that breakdowns have to be reduced, the type of reaction that California fell for in 2006. And to the poster who mentioned Smarty, Afleet Alex and Giacomo getting injured, I don't see how Scrappy T wiping out Afleet Alex had anything to do with the track. Giacomo was just slow. Smarty's injury was minor, they just wanted an excuse to retire him.

Cannon Shell 05-08-2008 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman
This is really a non-issue as NYRA can't afford to replace the tracks anyway, New York will be running on dirt for the forseeable future. This is obviously a response to the knee jerk reaction from the Derby that breakdowns have to be reduced, the type of reaction that California fell for in 2006. And to the poster who mentioned Smarty, Afleet Alex and Giacomo getting injured, I don't see how Scrappy T wiping out Afleet Alex had anything to do with the track. Giacomo was just slow. Smarty's injury was minor, they just wanted an excuse to retire him.
Giacomo was injured?

pointman 05-08-2008 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Giacomo was injured?
That was the same reaction I had.

Antitrust32 05-08-2008 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
To be fair there were a lot of breakdowns last year in the am at Saratoga. But I get your point.

Of course one thing that everyone is forgetting when they advocate the money should be spent on a "safer" dirt surfaces either doesnt know or understand why tracks installed them in the first place. It was not only billed as a "bias free" and safer surface but maintenance free as well. The initial cost was supposed to be covered in 3 or 4 years by having track maintenance budgets slashed. A "safer" dirt surface will still cost the same or more to maintain than a "non-safe" or current surface. The tracks were thinking bottom line, not safety, regardless of what they are saying now.

yes but it turned out the synthetic surfaces then did need to be maintained and harrowed and watered similarly to dirt tracks.

They were promoting "saving 475,000 per year on maintenance" or some bs like that. turns out not the case!

parsixfarms 05-08-2008 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman
That was the same reaction I had.
He did have an ankle chip removed after the Belmont: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horse...o-injury_x.htm

pointman 05-08-2008 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
He did have an ankle chip removed after the Belmont: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horse...o-injury_x.htm
And I just thought that he was slow . . . . :rolleyes:

sumitas 05-08-2008 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
To be fair there were a lot of breakdowns last year in the am at Saratoga. But I get your point.

Of course one thing that everyone is forgetting when they advocate the money should be spent on a "safer" dirt surfaces either doesnt know or understand why tracks installed them in the first place. It was not only billed as a "bias free" and safer surface but maintenance free as well. The initial cost was supposed to be covered in 3 or 4 years by having track maintenance budgets slashed. A "safer" dirt surface will still cost the same or more to maintain than a "non-safe" or current surface. The tracks were thinking bottom line, not safety, regardless of what they are saying now.
Maybe in England the poly tracks are somewhat maintenance free in that their wetter climate is perfectly suited to that surface. We've come to see the affect different climates have, however.

blackthroatedwind 05-08-2008 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitas
Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

One of the problems in this industry is who gets anointed as somehow knowledgable. Nothing personal against Jack Knowlton, as he seems like a nice man, but what exactly are his qualifications? Other than, of course, having been quoted by Sumitas.

Danzig 05-08-2008 07:01 PM
you mean misquoted...mr knowlton said 'maybe 25%'-sumitas gave it out as 25%. i think the maybe is important.

blackthroatedwind 05-08-2008 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
you mean misquoted...mr knowlton said 'maybe 25%'-sumitas gave it out as 25%. i think the maybe is important.

That moves Jack up.

Saying " maybe 25% " is pretty useful.

Danzig 05-08-2008 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
That moves Jack up.

Saying " maybe 25% " is pretty useful.
it could be 5%-saying maybe gets you off the hook. maybe he doesn't know what the #'s are himself....


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 AM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.