Art Wilson: Cali perspective (with Shirreffs, Stute)
 

http://www2.whittierdailynews.com/sports/ci_9200513

John Shirreffs, a harsh critic of the synthetic surfaces, claims the reduction in catastrophic breakdowns during the afternoons is more than offset by the casualties during morning workouts. "And the horses that get hurt in the morning are the promising young horses," he said.

Said Melvin Stute: "I've had nine horses put down in 40 years, and five of them have been since the synthetics."

Are the # starters/race stats holding up this year vs last in California or at Keeneland? I'd be surprised. To me, the proof is in the betting. I read a few days ago that Keeneland's average daily all-sources handle was down 12%. Santa Anita was down. Aqueduct was up 3-4% and had purse increases. Oaklawn was up as well. Of the bigger dirt meets, only Gulfstream was down (The Stronach Effect?).

Maybe it was the weather (or maybe '07 had more big carryover days) but when Keeneland Spring is down double digits, that says a lot.

Finally, Keeneland's percentage of winning favorites on the main track for the meet was 24% which is far below average and lower than the 29% of 2007. In spring of 2006 - the last year of dirt - the percentage of winning favorites on the main was 34%. I'm no big chalk fan but to me that means the surface is increasingly unpredictable. And when bettors move from playing Keeneland to Aqueduct in April, that says a lot too.

Hollywood's winning favorite % looks about right and I think they've had good weather so far. But if there is any weather involved, the synthetics are unpredictably unplayable and not just for the days or days after it rains.

A Jockey Clubs report showed fatalities for synthetics are down vs dirt .... 1.5/per 1,000 starts for synthetics vs 2.0/per 1,000 starts for dirt. That's certainly a good thing But like the article said, who knows how many are going down in training?

http://www.kentucky.com/232/story/396504.html

those are some damn tough races to handicap at Keeneland, I don't care what the surface is. 12 horse fields of quality horses? I like the challenge but the handle going down indicates not everyone does.

I would was true and complete records of all injuries to be used. Lets face it, unless a horse crashed to the track, is he counted. Many horses finish races every day, walk back and then are foiund later to be seriously hurt. Are they counted? Trainers are not required to report injuries and if hurt horses are shipped out via private carrier, no one has to know why.

Dr. Mary Scolay's injury reporting system is the reference point for that question. But frankly, since those 'out of view' injuries/fatalities weren't being reported previously anyway, they wouldn't impact the study now if they continued to go unreported...

Horses that bow tendons are rarely vanned off

These are observations without a valid statistical sample to substantiate their personal conclusions.

It's called the Sumitas method.

OOOOOOOOOO

It's called legitimate scientific data. You all and Shirreffs prefer the old Greek method of who yells the loudest is right.

WRONG

I was at the Wood Memorial and War Pass, Spring at Last and Tater Tutt all got hurt. More may have. None of them were vanned off and I doubt that any of them would show up on an injury report.

Sumitas has some nice "observations" of his own

Really? So you're saying that John Shirreffs is famous for shouting down those with differing opinions? That's the way you think he's approached this discussion?

Steve, you have no basis to ask those questions of Sumitas unless you can find a scientist like Jack Knowlton to say that Shirreffs is maybe wrong.

THESE ARE TRAINERS WITH REAL HORSES... Mel Stute is saying that he's had as many horses break down in 2 years as he did in the previous 38. Shirreffs is saying his young horses are getting hurt. What other kind of observation is necessary from their perspective?

Honestly.. your approach to this makes any conversation impossible and virtually worthless. I won't bother with another response. Everyone else was tired of the nonsense from you and now I am as well.

In some ways yes. And Moss as well in Cali has brought his peresonal track bias to the soap box level as well...imo.

I'd like to thank the new thoughtful menbers of the board for sharing their insights. The vast majority on this board are not interested in discussion, just shouting down and ridiculing those they disagree with. Kind of like Moss and Shirriffs.

His bias is backed up by millions upons millions sopent in the business. He's earned the right to express the opinion he's formulated.

Absolutely, but I caution that those are only his opinions. NOT based in fact or any meaningful data he can produce.

You have no idea what you're talking about in reference to Jerry Moss and John Shirreffs. NONE.

They've been opposed to the Cali intiative on synths all along. But Moss has consistently been outvoted, thankfully, by the CHRB.