Exactly.

Here's an interesting stat. "In 1960, before permissive medications became legal, the average american racehorse ran 11.3 times in a year. By 2005, that number had plummeted to just 6.4 starts per year."

The track cushion at major circuits is deeper today than it has ever been. Does anyone really believe this is so because dirt tracks are unsafe? Horses have been racing on dirt tracks for a long time. Who ought to be held accountable for this trend?

I don't know---it's just a little bit disconcerting to me when I hear "the welfair of the horse" being trumpeted by those most responsible for this trend....and used against bettors and racing fans who have every right to believe this artifical surface movement is moving way too fast.

When I heard an artifical surface was going in at Turfway, I thought it was excellent news. I don't like the way it's been shoved down our throats though. It would have been far more prudent to start off using the surface at cheap-to-mid level tracks in weather sensative parts of the country...and let all sides study them for a few years.

Two years ago, did anyone really think EVERY major track in Southern and Northern California would have an artificial surface?

This often stated fact actually is misused in the whole context of horses and their soundness as it relates to medication. The fact that the pool of horses almost doubled between 1960 and 1980 is the real reason that the starts per horse per year dropped so dramatically. If you take into consideration that since the mid eighties 2 year olds have been campaigned much lighter, you can understand how this could pull down the avg starts further. One stat that is almost never quoted is the fact that field size has remained pretty constant during the entire era from 1960 despite a stretch during the 80's where there were a signifigant rise in the number of races run. The truth is that field size has dropped from an average of 9 horses per race in 1960 to a little over 8 per race now. I personally believe that if you eliminated 2 year olds entirely from the mix and only compared the avg starts for 3 year olds and up the difference would be much less.

Of course you can just continue to use one flawed stat that props up a weak argument that most of the industry believes. Of course this is the same industry that thought that OTB's and exotic wagers would not work.

Well the artificial I am most familiar with is cushion track,and I think one of the positives to racing on it is it's fairness (front,back,inside,outside.)I am not gunna tell ya I was great at cappin' on it,but wasn't cuz it was unfair to the front,back ,inside, outside.Sure,they didn't understand how to maintain it properly,and they created some bias by f'n it up on certain days,but still it was the most fair racing I have seen in 25 years.People will get better at cappin' on it.Of course it was hard to win betting on horses running on a new surface.We have been through the worst part,and now have some horses with records on it.What I am looking forward to is the field sizes(that is crucial to SOCAL RACING.)

Ateam: I think Kasept should send you to 08 BCC as the official on-the-spot reporter, as judged by your spectacular Toga musings!:D

Thanks Tim! Another blog is coming soon. On what, I can't yet say, but hopefully it'll be as fun as the last few.