Another fine deflection.

So, dirt isn't natural to horses?

Therefore, why bother and just run over shredded tires and condoms?

That makes sense.

Yeah, she's never answered a question honestly and completely lacks integrity when trying to defend her POV.

Why is turf referred to as 'natural' like dirt is all manufactured? When people make these kinds of statements about 'other coutntries' they seem to forget that the scope of racing is so much larger in the US and the climates so much different that racing the majority of races on the turf is totally impractical.

And the breakdown rates ion synthetic are statistically insignifigant compared to the prior surfaces (mostly because the records werent kept so comparing is difficult)

Simply using breakdown rates to say that a track is/isn't safe or is safer is folly as it ignores the vast amount of influences beyond surface that cause horses to breakdown.

i think the fact that synthetic tracks have been installed means we aren't refusing to try, or to change.
however, how long does one stick with an experiment before deciding it's not working?
cali racing went into a decline, it continues to decline. the majority of horsemen have become vocal about the tracks being an issue. when the new tracks were first installed, you saw trainers ship in. that has dropped dramatically since people have decided those awt's just aren't what they want to deal with. field sizes there continue to shrink, with several days cancelled this year due to lack of entrants.

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

as for us going to all turf, turf tracks wouldn't hold up to the amount of racing we require.

"Be impeccable with your word. Speak with integrity."

My comments were not related in any way to the article. I was purely responding to the questions/comments of Riot.

Deflection of what? Spit it out. I addressed G1's run on synthetic.

No, a manufactured track of dirt: drainage, a base, a manufactured cushion - isn't as "natural" as turf.

Not evident, but nice try.

Turf courses don't have drainage?

You're a smart guy, figure it out. I'm not wasting anymore time on disingenuous posters.

Nice straw man. Isn't working.

I think that's why many dismiss any surface other than dirt out of hand. The above is what we are used to, the racing we in America know.

Keep spinning dude.

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.

Consistent hysterics.

Yeah, "hysterical". Sure :D

Well, I answered this already, but self-deleted it by accident. Sorry.

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)

:zz: 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?"

As I said (in my posts at the time, which I haven't time to go looking for), if the tracks had spent more time and effort and maintaining their dirt courses, the drive for synthetics would have gone nowhere. Instead of which, they took their dirt for granted and let it get hard and uneven, leading to the injury problems that fueled the chorus for replacement with synthetics out west.

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.

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

Pass the popcorn.

:zz: 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.

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 ;)

Right on cue with a deflection.

:tro:

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

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

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.

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..

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.

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!"

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

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.

Whatever you say bro.

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.

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.

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.

Cannon.

Quit wasting your time with Riot.

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