Polydeaths in England
 

Looks like it's not so safe after all. Who heard of this in the States before the headlong rush to install poly? All we ever heard was "they've been using it in England and it's proven to be so much safer than dirt". Yeah right -- here's the story:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/...nth/article.do

Todko

You are on top of your game my friend. Shame this stuff is being touted as a fair and safe racing surface. Maybe all the clowns that got rich over here selling this crap can make a few more bucks ripping it out. morons

Guys you have it all wrong, this stuff is the greatest invention since the wheel!! Or maybe since asbestos, I get them mixed up sometimes.

The article does not jump to the conclusion that you have.

"It's probably a combination of average horses, very tightly handicapped, all going round together, all trying to race on the same bit of ground."

"Yesterday was the course's 98th meeting of the year, a record for a British track. Whether this hectic schedule was undermining safety was being asked last night."

If you narrowly focus on any short period of time,(five horses killed in one month) the data is likely to lead to possible false conclusions.

And could dirt incidents not be attributed to the same thing?
Oh wait I forgot, when its on dirt its the dirts fault!!!
When its on poly its because horse was sore, tightly handicapped, dog ate my homework, aberration, aliens came down and caused it from a glowing spaceship, etc.

Jim, I think the conclusion is the track isnt what its cracked up to be. Its not a surface that requires no grooming, and its not as safe as initially believed. Let the dominos fall

And that is the point.
The way its been marketed and the medai has jumped to help the marketers is incredible.
Its not all what its been marketed as, a blind man could see that.
Bottom line is that the tracks that have held off will have the last laugh.
Stronach is pretty smart, he coulda had it put in in time for this upcoming meet at SA, but he didnt. Wonder why?

yes, the same applies to dirt. you should look at data samples over long periods of time when making judgements about either surface. In other words the data should be taken in a scientific way.

Jim you and I are on the SAME page on this one!!!
I also think that data should be reported the same way, objectively.
Wonder what the data is on dirt tracks with safe cushions and sand based surfaces that is harrowed deeper instead of sealed or packed down tight?
You won't read about that!! Because noone is on the take to pump that up.
Not a lotta money in dirt, you know?
Horse broke down in Hong Kong on turf this weekend. maybe we should ban that too huh? Thats gotta be next on the agenda, green polytrack.

Polytrack will save this sport, Marty Collins and Beasley said so

What was it cracked up to be? I think that is the common misconception.
Where was it written that synthetic tracks meant the end of all injuries to horses? I don't think that claim was ever made.

You might think that is the conclusion, however it wasn't the conclusion of the local british officials in this story. Of course they have to look at the track, that will never change with any surface. why? because no matter what surface horses run on it is inherently dangerous to them and there will be breakdowns and injuries. The whole idea is to try to minimize these occurences. No one should take any particular story about the breakdown of a horse on a synthetic track as direct evidence that they are not safer than dirt tracks.

Jim, this track is supposed to require nothing. Its supposed to sit there, look pretty, and maintain its composition with no care. The tracks are falling apart, horses are breaking down, and they have removed 3 inches of Turfways top. They have also sent a team of guys to the track to try to figure out how to stop the clumping, freezing, etc. That seems like a lot of work for a track that required no care as a major selling point. Needless to say horses are breaking down with a steady frequency this month at Woodbine, and Turfway. Now we get this information from Todko about the track having problems in England. You dont think we rushed into the installation of this surface?

Here is a challenge for everyone here....go and do some research on the number of breakdowns and fatalities this track had from Sept of 2002 to Sept of 2004. Then compare it to the number of breakdowns and fatalities that occurred from Sept 2004 to present. Then look at the numbers closely and then make your conclusion. The numbers are public and can be found with a little work. I think you will be surprised (I know I was).

Now, someone please show me that the marketing of this "material" states that is will prevent breakdowns and fatalities. If you can find this, please let me know. From my understanding, it states that it is safer and will significantly reduce breakdowns and fatalities.

Its obviously working very well here the last couple weeks. They are taking a sample from a very small amount of tracks. Get this poly down everywhere and there will be no difference. These poor sore horses will breakdown anywhere, doesnt make a difference. This surface has nothing to do with the horse, it has to do with money. Keeneland making money, and other tracks making money. You think these tracks care about the HORSES, thats almost laughable. It was never about the horses, never will be, they would run them over pavement if it would increase handle.

Dude when you admitted that your friend supposedly owns Turfway, after claiming for two years that you had no connection to anyone there, you labeled yourself a flat out liar and your opinions on this are confirmed shill like.
Oh yeah, and you actually called Martin Collins, Marty. LOL!!!!! Yep no interest here.

Yet another lie. Oracle, show me where I said my friend owns Turfway. You constantly lie. Seriously, how do you live with yourself. Again, do some research before you speak. You might be surprised like I was.

How does anyone get information that is not public? They typically no someone close to the situation. That is how I know. Just because you know someone who is close to the situation doesnt mean that you have a vested interest. If you want to call caring about the well-being of a freind as vested interest, then I guess I have one because I want my friend and his company to succeed.
Those are you words. Explain how I lied please.
Shill, games over, exposed.

Or was ole Marty the friend you referred to. Perhaps i was confused.

His company meaning the one he work for. Duh, anyone knew that.

Your response was in reference to a question about Marty, as you call him, so I assumed you meant Marty. You then denied it was marty, and inferred something else.
Now its Marty?
Its hard to keep track with you. Truly it is.

In addition any person with some sense knows that a single person doesnt own Turfway. You are so laughable it isnt funny. Yeah, one person owns Turfway--YEP. Again, do some research.

What makes a difference if it Marty or Martin, or Rick or Richard? What does that prove little boy? It means I used Marty instead of Martine--lol. You are grasping here.

I know No one person owns Turfway. Just pointing out the many holes in your cover story. The cloak and dagger thing gets old, and has been.

So who exactly was this friend you referred to and what is company?(This question to a guy who has admitted he has a jar of polytrack in his house, wink wink).

So whose the guy in the post and whats his company. remember you did tell us that you have a jar of polytrack at your house. LOL!!!

I guess we can call you Columbo. Or maybe you need a life and not sit around and play Clue all night. I am done with you on this issue. I know where u stand and you know where I stand.

I know you have been denying having a connection with poly for two years and I baited you into admitting yesterday that you do, and have been furious with me since. Too bad, too sad, I'm glad, you're mad!!!

Regardless of any of our connetions the amount of recent breakdowns over polytrack has been staggering. The more poly we lay, the more we will realize its not the answer. It may raise handle initially, but everyone will tire of it (no pun intended). Its like a girlfriend, shes great for a few months then you find out why she didnt have a boyfriend when she met you.

Yeah I'm tired of these poly breakdowns, its was so much better to have the breakdowns on dirt.

Jim, What does your last post have to do with anything? The point of the Polytrack is to limit breakdowns, and to provide a safe racing surface. If you think Woodbine, and Turfway, expected to have horses coming back sore and breaking down you are mistaken my friend. There are major problems with both of those surfaces. Guys are scratching because of foot bruising out in Socal, whats so revolutionary about a bruised foot, a broken right front leg, or horses coming back with filling and sore? The only thing revolutional about Polytrack is the kickback, its higher and harder than ever.

I'm simply triying to understand your point. Let me just ask a final question.
Are you convinced that the synthetic surfaces cause more breakdowns and soreness and are less safe for horses than dirt?

I think you are the one in fact who is mistaken if you think people at Woodbine and Turfway believed that the change would result in the end of soreness and breakdowns.

You say there are problems with those surfaces, and for sure there are. But its not as if there are not the same and probably more problems with dirt.

Synthetic racing surfaces are probably the worst racing surfaces... except for all other racing surfaces.

Well okay guys, bid, todko, i tried to warn you about jumping to conclusions. It seems that according to a story in the Racing Post titled "Professionals united in support of Wolverhampton track ", the track is not seen as the culprit for the recent spate of breakdowns.

http://www.racingpost.co.uk/news/home.sd
The site requires you to register. Here are a couple quotes.

"Before racing, HRA inspector of courses Nicky Carlisle conducted an inspection of the surface, initially declaring himself "satisfied but cautious".
He was later confident enough to condemn a "knee-jerk reaction"

"It was not helpful how some reacted, but the most logical conclusion for now is that nothing has changed here, and that spate of incidents is a result of bad luck."

senior jockey "McKeown said: "There is no problem over the track and the surface. The problem is 7lb claimers."

and finally;
"Of the five fatalities, only Money For Fun’s remains unexplained. Two of the others were caused by heart attacks, while another two came as a result of injuries sustained during falls caused by interference. "



So of the five breakdowns that made the headlines, only one came from an unknown cause, the others were explained by factors having nothing to do with the surface.

Please read the article and then read the knee jerk reactionary posts made on this thread. For the life of me I cannot understand why some are going to such lengths to distort this issue..

I think there is also the overall argument that there is too much racing on the track and that maintenance isnt what it should be!

it would be nice if one could read thru a thread, and not find it cluttered with other garbage.

thanks to those who posted other info clarifying the issues with the track.

i think that poly may turn out no better than dirt. i think many of these tracks were due a change, and for whatever reason decided to go to poly. one thing it will bring about is fuller fields involving turf when it has to move to the main track.
BUT i think the line of bs involving this type of track was just that. it's been billed as being all-weather, when in fact cold temperatures are causing problems. of course dirt doesn't handle icy cold either. not as maintenance free as what was presented, kickback is an issue.

i think there was a rush to it. i think everyone knows that dirt tracks have to be re-furbished every so often. i know that some dirt tracks seem to be just fine regarding safety.

i think this poly was sold as a cure-all. it's not.

Yes that did seem to be a big concern, I believe I read that they have completed the most race dates in the history of UK tracks.

Also from reading the article it sounds as if the configuration of the track, tight turns, etc, i'm not sure, make it actually very narrow in terms of where you need to have your horse and therefore this was the reason for some of the interferences. Also I think young inexperienced riders were being looked at as another cause.

Honestly I don't know a lot about this place, mainly just what I read in a couple articles.

i think you and I are saying the same thing.

to me its, whatever the benefits or shortcomings are for polytrack, lets not exagerate them one way or the other. as they say "just the facts maam"

I agree basically with everything you have said. The good argument, and the typical self-aggrandizing by others has obscured this, is that Polytrack was falsely billed, and defended, as being safe where dirt was not. These same arguments, which I believe, from Wolverhampton could have been made concerning the breakdowns at Del Mar last summer. Yet, of course, the Hari Polytracknas used that as more ammo for their arsenel. Those same horses would have broken down on Polytrack. The simple fact is the jury was still out last year on whether or not this surface is safer just as it is now. Ultimately, if it is used as just another mask by this screwed up industry to continue to ignore the real problems, it will do way more harm than good in the long run.

The problem is that once again the desires and concerns of the bettors, the ones who pay the bills, were completely ignored. We fuel the game yet have no say. When our biggest ally, Andy Beyer, attempts to voice our concerns he is met by the usual " you're only thinking about yourself, and not the horses, like we are " BS. These people, whomever they are, need to realize that we have more than a right to " think about ourselves ", just as the owners have a right to think about themselves when retiring horses early, as we pay the bills. Wouldn't it have been nice if these synthetic tracks had not been insidiously forcefed upon us and instead had received a better wait-and-see approach as many bettors would have encouraged?

ArlJim, I completely agree with you and Deb on this one as well.
Its been fraudulently marketed as a cure all in so many different ways.
Its not the existence of it or possible uses of it that I oppose, just the bull**** used to sell it.
The problem is that those who buy into it cannot easily, or ever, decide they made a mistake and take it out. A total and complete reconfiguation and resurfacing and cushioning of Gulf cost 5 million bucks. This stuff is upwards of TEN MILLION to install. Once a track makes this huge expenditure its gonna be hard pressed toever take it out, its like the roach motel, you can check in but never check out. To be this makes it almost a permanent decision once the choice is made. Not enough facts or data is in to move to this stuff on a broad and sweeping range.
because no tracks have the room to install synthetic and keep dirt, it is INDEED a dirt replacemnet surface and I see no way it could be called anything but. Has any track installed this stuff and kept dirt racing yet? Of course not.
In an ideal world they could experiment with it by installing a new course with synthetic and keeping dirt but noone has done this.
The severe way in which trainers are being asked not to speak out against it, or if they don't like it to just leave is wrong as well. Tracks have such big investments in it after they install it that they don't wanna hear, see, or speak any evil about it.
Horses will always break down as they are now on Turf, dirt, or synthetic. I'd think that first trying to make dirt tracks safer with better cushions, deeper harrowing, and safer top layers would make more sense at a fraction of the price and many trainers have wondered aloud why this can't be.
Noone seemed to care for years about whether the tracks were safe or not and they could have adressed the issue had they chosen to at a fraction of the price.
My firm theory is that these huge contracts and bdiing processes work no different than they do in any other business in the real world. You get in a few guys ears and tell them if they help steer the contract to you, that maybe a big job or Christmas present awaits them in a Swiss ban account.
Why else would everyone rush to spend 10-12 mill when in the past the same guys wouldn't spend one mill to just resurface the track? Call me cynical, but I think this is allabout lining people's pockets. the rest they make up as they go along.

Amen Blackthroat. The jury is still out which amazes me why so many tracks are installing the surface. A trial period would've been a good idea before so many tracks jumped to it. Secondly, I totally agree on the comment about the bettors. As a horse owner and horse player, and fan of racing I have several issues with poly. First of all, I am for safer conditions for horses. It better be alot safer for that amount of money though. As a bettor watching the Keeneland meet I was so turned off by the laughable results and manner in which the races were being run that it was the first time I didn't go to a meet since I've been in the sport. Lastly, I believe poly will render the results of some of the most historic and important races as irrelevant. Why do I care who wins the Bluegrass Stakes this year when I'm handicapping for the Derby? Maybe I'm wrong on this and if so feel free to help me out, but the Breeder's Cup preps on poly lost all relevance to me and I feel the same about the upcoming Derby preps. Anyway, I could write a book on my poly thoughts so I digress.

Rose be very careful, the synthetic track secret police are on their way to your house as we speak. Stay calm, and get to your car. If you are being followed, drive to the nearest police station and begin beeping your horn when you get in front of it. Now make sure you have your story straight, these people are very well skilled manipulators and liars and could sell a ketchup popsicle to a women wearing a white dress. Godspeed to you.