Praying for Cash retired
 

...and YES, he broke down over the Polytrack at Keeneland. No, he never went down in front of the public like many career ending-injuries that will be had on Polytrack, but he still broke down bad enough to never run again - and many others do everyday.

So, is Polytrack STILL a better track now just because it hides the grotesque breakdowns on the track from the public unlik dirt? the truth is that there are and will still be horrible injuries on Polytrack, but is it good enough from an image-standpoint to our sport if they don't go down on the track? Is that the REAL reason we embraced this stuff?

he survived it didn't he?

I think thats the problem with how "breakdowns" are being sold to the public on this stuff.
Thats two garded stakes horses in a week whose careers are over now(Noble Stella) after working on poly. WOuld they have broken on dirt? probably.
But the breakdown stat being pumped here by poly propagandists is strictly tragic brteakdowns, menaing put down on the track.
They don't keep stats for carrer ending injuries so long as the horse has a pulse.
This is the biggest myth and crock ever attempted to be perpetuated on the American racing public.
Sorry to hear this talented colt won't be running anymore.

I am neither for or against polytrack, my point was simply that had this horse been injured on the dirt he may not have survived. I think, that he did survive, is a benefit.

Do they keep stats for career ending injuries on the dirt? I would be interested in comparing those two numbers.

I do believe that a synthetic surface is safer than SOME dirt surfaces. However, I would have much rather seen tracks trying to tweak their dirt surfaces to make them safer rather than just embracing synthetic surfaces. Like the good dirt surfaces, synthetic surfaces aren't going to prevent all breakdowns. I do believe they they prevent a lot of breakdowns or the breakdowns from being so grotesque or fatal though. I need to see more to make a decision on how safe that I think the synthetic surfaces are compared to a good dirt surface. I would imagine that they are about the same.

With that being said, I definitely think that polytrack has purposes on tracks that need an all-weather surface, tracks that have had an unimaginable number of breakdowns who have tried tweaking their dirt surface, or for training purposes. Otherwise, KEEP IT OUT OF THE INDUSTRY!!!

I think that the stuff is still too new to make overly drastic opinions on it in ANY DIRECTION as of yet, but I believe that they are selling this stuff as "safer" and I don't think it is any safer than a well cushioned dirt track. JMO...

I have showed on the stuff for YEARS and my jumper did NOT like it at all. While it isn't as hard on a horse's legs impactually, it IS harder on them in the standpoint that it takes more effort to pick the legs up out of it. That was my experience with the stuff.

I'm not even a horse lover but if we are replacing catastrophic breakdowns with career ending injuries where the horse survives for a life after racing I think that is a huge positive. I do agree that they should release seperate numbers for catastrophic breakdowns and career ending injuries to make the comparisons of how much safer polytrack is than dirt.

Most of my horses have done wonderful over the stuff. They get a ton of bounce off of it. Well, most of the horses that I have ridden are incredibly scopy anyway...

I don't think that it is any harder for them to pick their legs up out of than a dirt ring unless they have the ring incredibly deep with the stuff (I've actually ridden in a horribly deep dirt ring before, but not a horribly deep sand/rubber mixed ring). My horses bounce over it. At the big shows up here, that is not the case. The surfaces in the rings are always incredible. Otherwise, show management would have a lot of mad riders and trainers.

And you're saying he wouldn't have had he broken down on the dirt? wWho knows? The only thing I'm trying to point out is that Polytrack is still breaking down horses, and yes, I'm sure the concussion isn't as bad and there will be less horses go down on the track - BUT you also have to remember that we're talking about a horse with a future as a stallion here.....What about the other 95% of horses that are cliamers and break down on Polytrack that are geldings or not good enough to breed? Where do they go?....Yeah, they may not die on the track, but MANY of them will go to slaughterhouses eventually anyway.

The bottomline is that horses are still breaking down regularly....who cares aboyt image of how and where they break down?...Most are dead soon anyway because most are too cheap to take care of if they have no revenue potential - and thats just the plain truth....

So what we have esentialy done with the implementation of Polytrack is percievably cleaned-up our public opinion by the lack of breakdowns ON THE TRACK, and for that we have to trade the entire way we breed horses and taint the entire tradition of our game?

...thats a trade I bet 90% of horse fans who understand the entire sport would not agree to make - But the deal with the devil is unfortunately in process :mad:

In my opinion it is a huge balance issue with the horses....when you are running on a surface with the boyancy and give to it as Polytrack has in relation to dirt, it screws with the entire balance of what horses are used to - and for many - what they were bred for and what their bio-mechanics were genetically tailored to.....

The people who own Noble Stella and Praying for Cash certainly care that their horses just suffered career ending injuries and can still be bred rather than dying on the track. Also, every career ending injury to a horse with breeding value does not necessarily mean it would be a career ending injury to horses without breeding value.

So you are saying they WOULD have definately died on a dirt track? ....Can you also tell me what the Pick 6 numbers are going to be today at Keeneland while you're at it? :rolleyes:

Um, no, you implied that with:

"So, is Polytrack STILL a better track now just because it hides the grotesque breakdowns on the track from the public unlik dirt?"

I have no clue whether or not the injury would have even occured on dirt. I thought you were making the argument that we are no better off with horses suffering career ending injuries on polytrack than if they broke down grotesquely in front of fans on the dirt which I completely disagree with.

Again, it is far too early in the career of Polytrack to come up with definitive numbers on breakdowns, the fact of the matter as it stands right now is there have been an ENORMOUS amount of career/catastrophic breakdowns on the current dirt surfaces, of that there is no denying. The mere fact something, ANYTHING, is being done to alleviate this trajedy should be applauded. I say lets let the next few years determine the safety to the horses and riders. The races will still be run, gamblers will still lay bets and the games will continue no worse for wear, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I will say that anyone who actually knows horses intimately, ie.. actually is hands on owners, riders etc... will tell you to a person that there is no way you can deny the surface is easier on a horses legs, now whether that translates to better racing in the afternoons is the question.

The bottomline is that horses are still breaking down....all variables of where and how many are yet to be seen - but they are still UNSAFE on the Polytrack as they are on everything that runs. But now, we have screwd with the breed and tradition of our game because of pure specualtion that horses will be healthier on Polytrack. How much healthier? How will we know for sure? What are other risks with soft tissue injuries and the synthetic crap that jockeys and horses are breathing out there on a daily basis?...Will that constant intake of synthetic and unnatural substance affect a mare's long-term ability to be a producer in some way?...Who knows? - NOBODY!

So why take the risks and unknowns with this shiat if Polytrack is still indeed breaking dow horses?

I am - and it is actually harder on horse's soft tissue, which is just as crucial to their ability to stay healthy enough to be racehorses than bone conditions and injuries sustained by concussion on dirt....

Oh, there is no doubt about that. It definitely screws with their balance. It just happens that all of the horses that I have ridden have been positively affected by that type of surface. Of course, they are jumpers where boyancy and scope are very important. You want their weight back on their hind end, and really lifting their shoulders up so that you can adjust their stride easier and so that they can easily get their front end up over a jump. I can see where boyancy would totally **** with a racehorse's balance, striding, and overall movement who was not used to running on that type of surface or who wasn't built to run on that type of surface. A lot of racehorses are built slightly downhill because they are still maturing and their hind end grows faster than their front end. Boyancy would hinder these horses. I even believe that a synthetic surface may even prolong the susupension phase in their strides on some of these horses.

I would say this is a better arguement if we knew for a fact that Praying for Cash trained and raced exclusively on Polytrack, the fact of the matter is he didn't. I don't think it's been determined the Polytrack caused the breakdown, same with Noble Stella, she trained for years on dirt, it is probably a case for both of them that the injuries just came to the surface with time, certainly not immediately upon setting foot on Polytrack.

I completely disagree,the concussion on soft tissues and joints is completely different, it is absorbed much more readily by the entire body, thats why the horses legs are not swelling and stocking up after running on it, they are bouncing over it as opposed to pounding their legs on the dirt.
I respect your knowledge and opinion, but I completely disagree.

who cares about public perception? do you know anything about marketing joel...I'm certain that you do since you are an authority on every other aspect of horse racing...do you not think that those who market the game and attempt on a daily basis to bring in new fans care about the way catstrophic breakdowns are portayed in the media? Whatever the end result with cheap claimers you have got to have your head up your @ss if you don't think the front office cares about the difference between what happened to this horse (who sustained a survivable injury) and say, what happened to Go for Wand.
And without the influx of new fans and bettors (who will adapt to the surface) you will eventually have no breeding industry. So ye,s maintaining a favorable public image is paramount to the survival of the sport, and if that means poly track you should get used to it.

And I completely disagree with you. :D

I would submit to all that there have been an insufficient number of races to draw conclusions about the safty of artificial surfaces. We'll know soon enough.

This post is hilarious... by the way, how is Elvis doing? :D

This horse ran on hard tracks at Gulfstream Park and wnet all up and down the eastern sea-board without any problems running his arse off in races like the Haskell at Monmouth - and yet in his first start over the Polytrack he breaks down and is done.......hmmmmmm....safer? :eek:

And I respectfully with you.

wasn't it also his first start for his new trainer?

This is exactly my point, you don't think racing on those hard tracks can just as easily have caused wear and tear and just became the proverbial straw? If he ran on nothing but Poly than you have a point, the fact is he hardly did at all.

I agree with you Larhage. I'm shaking my head thinking about it because I can't figure out how it would be better for concussion, yet worse for soft tissue. I've never had any problem with any one of my horses over the stuff. I can't think of a logical explanation. Although Cunningham Racing is extremely knowledgeable, so I'll give him a chance to explain himself. There is probably something that I am missing...

I still am a traditionalist though, and don't advocate polytrack except in those extreme circumstances and for training tracks.

It's funny that you made my point exactly...yes, I have a marketing degree, actually, and I worked in the marketing dept. at Churchill Downs Inc. for a couple of years, and as a marketing guy I would say that making outcomes of races less predictable and more phony, building champions with inferior pedigrees that like to run on rubber, ruining the tradition of our game and the classic bloodlines, and running the core customer away by telling him that all of the handicappingt tools that he acquired over a lifetime ar now all irrelvant and you have to re-learn how to play this game - I would say those are MARKETING NIGHTMARES...

You made my point exactly...the game has traded a public image nightmare on one facet for 10 public image nightmares on other levels...

Yeah, and Kelly Breen is twice the horseman that Todd Pletcher is, right? :rolleyes:

It's kind of like swimming in a way...

Swimming is very good for people (and animals) that have had an impactual injury, but the water resistance is tougher on soft tissue. I really don't know how to put it into words, but I disagree with your thought on it...

The fact is that he was fine before he ran on Polytrack....now he's retired

Well, I am basing it on my experience and don't see how in the world you could correlate training over polytrack to a swimming pool. If anything, synthetic surfaces create less resistance than dirt surfaces because of the boyancy factor. It creates less resistance to my animals anyway. Horses bounce over it, which is why so many TBs who are talented on the dirt have problems running over it.

The more a horse slips, runs off balance, and the track breaks away from him - the more prone he will miss step or over step in ways that cause soft tissue injuries.....Also, I have talked to more than few trainers who wintered at Turfway Park this past winter who came back to CD in the spring and told me that while they had less injuries with horses up front, they incurred far more injuries with horses rear ends.....pulled stifles, pulled backs, etc....you know hat happenes to a horse when his pusher is sore? He ver compensates on the front end when he runs and the over-compensation causes front-end problems to follow....

better or worse...makes no difference...they have different styles of training which can result in different outcomes for their horses...I am not saying TP broke down the horse...because that argument would make about as much sense as your argument that he broke down the first time he ran on poly, as though he wouldn't have on dirt...they are both stupid.

And because it's so buoyant, they don't hit the ground as hard, correct? What do you think happens to horses who are USED to hitting the ground hard? They will still use JUST AS MUCH effort to pick their feet up and because of that, it causes more soft injury injuries. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Cunningham on this one.

Here's the definition for buoyant (in case you were wondering why I compared the surface to swimming):

buoyant
–adjective

1. tending to float in a fluid.
2. capable of keeping a body afloat, as a liquid.
3. not easily depressed; cheerful.
4. cheering or invigorating.

yeah, you are right, ones with no vlaue will be put down anyway.:rolleyes: