You think it is acceptable for a track to have 22 horses break down in a little over 2 months?

It seems like the surface is the problem, and this has nothing to do with what the changes they are proposing. :zz:

I could be wrong but I don't think there is anything wrong with the track. Rock-hard, sealed tracks are dangerous. It has been raining for over half the meet. The track is constantly being sealed. I think that is the main reason there have been more breakdowns this meet. I think they need to stop sealing the track. In general it is much safer for horses to run on a deep, muddy track than a rock-hard, sealed track.

I remember the old days back in the late 70s and early 80s when they used to have some of those crazy muddy tracks. I remember one day the track was listed as "heavy". I think they ran a mile in about 1:45. There were a couple of bad things about those "muddy" tracks and "heavy" tracks. There were always tons of scratches. Most of the fields were 4 and 5 horse fields. The winner would sometimes win by 20 lengths and the 2nd horse would beat the 3rd horse by 15 lengths. Some horses hated these tracks and couldn't handle them at all. Other horses would love these tracks. That was why the fields were often times so spread out.

I don't remember ever seeing a breakdown on one of those tracks. The problem was that the fans hated all the 4 and 5 horse fields and they didn't like horses winning races by 20 lengths and other horses getting beat by 40 lengths. It was bad for business. The handle was low on these days. In addition, when it rained really hard, it would take the track many days to recover. The track could get really messed up. So they solved this by sealing the track. That way the track would stay fast. Water would not get into the track. The water would just sit on top of the rock-hard track. Instead of the track being so slow, they would often times get track records on these sloppy tracks.

I always thought these sealed tracks were dangerous. I hated running horses on sealed tracks. When it was my call, I would usually scratch a horse rather than running on a sealed track. Anyway, with the disproportionate amount of rain we have had this winter in Southern California, the track has been sealed this meet far more than normal. I think that is the most likely cause of the increase in breakdowns. I think they should stop sealing the track. If you have a day when it is supposed to rain 2-3 inches and they feel that they have to seal the track, then I think they should cancel the races that day. I don't think they should race or train on a sealed track.

It may be insincere, and it may be self-serving. But are there any bad ideas in what they are proposing to do?

TSG is doing their all to make NYRA Racing Great Again. What owner in their right mind would succumb to this fabricated nonsense?

You chase the respected and highly competent superintendent out, the track gets screwed up, horses die, you spin the issue away from management errors, and lo and behold you ruin your business.

The entry box at Belmont BETTER be bloated.

Speaking of fabricated nonsense, what owner in their right mind would think that it's good to have a $1,500 vet bill on every horse every month, would think that horses need lasix, and would think that injecting ankles and using all kinds of drugs as a crutch is the best way to go? What owner in their right mind would think the status quo is fine and that we should just continue using all kinds of drugs?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that lasix caused these breakdowns. I'm simply saying that these changes were long overdue. This current crisis gives them the impetus to start making the changes that will save the sport.

I think these changes will be a huge positive in the long run. In the short run, I don't know what will happen. Some trainers are threatening to leave Southern California. I don't know if they are bluffing or not. If a few do in fact leave, it won't be a problem. But if too many leave, it will be a big problem because there will be a horse shortage, which would hurt field size. We know that small fields are very bad for business.

One quick question, You think TSG gives a flying **** about that nonsense above? Isn't the timing extremely convenient? If so why not implement such at Laurel and GP immediately? I will tell you why because they couldn't get away with it in Florida/Maryland trainers/owners have viable options.

Hi, honey its time to sell the house and move the family, is not going to be the most chosen option.

TSG moved the goalposts(clever); they have a nightmare issue in a liberal state where the government looks at racing with discern. So they manufactured a PR story to change the narrative from dead horses because THEY screwed up, too we love the pretty horses and are going to make sure we protect them.

Those winning big purses and cashing big bets?

It's hard to be wrong about everything, but you come through consistently.

:tro:

Most of what you are saying is true. I agree with almost everything you said in terms of why they are taking these actions. But I still think that these are things that need to be done to improve the sport. I think the sport has gone way downhill because of all the drugs.

March 22 does not sound like its going to be the return to racing date...

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/r...t-santa-anita/

I just received this e-mail from National Turf 5 minutes ago: "BULLETIN:

Stronach Group reaches deal with horsemen. Racing resumes at Santa Anita on Friday, Mar. 22."

I don't know any of the details. That was all it said.

Here is a little more info on the deal: "Santa Anita is now scheduled to resume racing on Friday and a planned introduction of the elimination of Lasix will begin with next year’s crop of 2-year-olds under a deal hammered out by representations of Santa Anita and the Thoroughbred Owners of California on Saturday."

http://live.drf.com/nuggets/47358-sa...xt-year-s-2yos

So they fixed the problem?

lol

just the self inflicted one

Cold, man.


So, what was done since the latest breakdown?

Which 'all the drugs'? Name the 'drugs'. Horses receive far LESS 'drugs' than ever before.

California is using the controlled THERAPUETIC MEDICATION protocols of NUMP and has what is considered the best testing in the country.

If you're anti-Lasix, fine.. say that. But there's nothing in these 'actions' in terms of the MEDICATIONS that 'improves the sport'. In fact, they put horses at greater risk, to say nothing of the unintended consequences.

Ok, two things can be right at the same time. First, perhaps therapeutic meds are less prevalent now than at any other point. Second, cheating is as pervasive as ever and not to acknowledge such is as silly as suggesting horses are on LESS "drugs." Conflating therapeutic drugs which at their core have positive benefit and efficacy with drugs that have no place in the sport is ridiculous.

Conflating the therapeutics AND especially Lasix with illegal drugs is EXACTLY what they're doing Fred. That's the whole point.