Shapiro resigns as CHRB head
 

Surprise move..

PRIVMAN/DRF: http://www.drf.com/news/article/100554.html

I wish he had done this before he led the charge to destroy racing in Cali.

Amen.

did i miss the destruction of racing in california?

Yes, if you have not noticed they run on synthetic turf.
Which has elimanated all injuries to horses.:rolleyes:

you're kidding.

when did that happen?

don't the people in charge realize that would inevitably lead to the destruction of racing in california?

One of the great leaders in this sport . He has left very big shoes to fill .

I dont know how he has led the demise of horse racing in Cali. , is it because he mandated synthetic racing surfaces? This is all I know , there were alot more horses being hauled off the track in the ambulance than there are now , in saying this Im not saying that its the complete solution to the problem of Cali. having alot of horses that were breaking down on Santa Anitas old surface, but the synthetic does seem to help with how hard trainers drill the horses here , I truly think that Cali has to be # 1 or 2 in being the over training capital of the world. Dilligence is what is needed , on the part of trainers and owners and whoever fills his space Im hoping is on the side of the horses.

For sure Honu . Racing is so disjointed and dysfunctional . It's a disgrace it's taking so slow to clean up the sport as a whole . Shapiro lead the way in Cali and the rest of the states don't seem interested .

I think it's troubling the way he departed . I'm not optimistic that Cali racing will move forward .

I dont know how he can stepdown without being beheaded for the awful job hes done. Mandating crappy surfaces, selling a batch of ****, then walking away when the surface is about to get bad again. Word on the street is the track flooded again yesterday morning due to a heavy rain. He stepped down just in time, I dont blame him. Hes a coward, and a buffoon.

Cal racing has was bad anyhow, he just gave the final death blow

Maybe that Ben Warren fella will be the new head honcho out there . He seems to be pretty representative of the reactionary right wing of the horse racing industry .

Has the feel of a health issue.....I would tread lightly here. The guy may have led a movement for synthetic tracks too prematurely but it would seem he had the best interests of the horses and racing driving that decision. The guy made a mistake IMO may we all be so fortunate to avoid never making them.

It's not a mistake. Not here. We had 5-horse-field cards regularly. That was crap. Wasn't gunna work. If we had more horses here, then we could of kept running on dirt. We need horses to race more often here than in other places in the country. You have a lot of horses in New York and Kentucky. We don't have enough. We would have a lot less running if we had kept dirt. People have short memories. I was playing New York racing in 2004-2005-early 2006. It's not because I am that good at it. It's because the cards out here were so short field.

When you lose racing days as they have lost in California, or when you have big stables leave for Fairgrounds, big owners leave for NY, its a mistake. When the surface is subpar and people leave California to run on dirt how can that be right

Got a-holes that can't change. That's always a constant. You just heard an exercise rider say it's safer, and you ignore her. So, your mind is closed. So be it. We've tried dirt out here, and ran out of horses to run. So, I have no clue why you want to go back to 4 and 5 horse field racing out here. You keep ignoring the fact we don't have enough horses. Industry out here survives on being the king of the pick 6 carryover. If we kept running on dirt, we would of lost that (hard to get carryovers running 4-5 horses a race.) We ain't going back to it. All you dirt race fans play somewhere else. We had dirt, and it didn't work . Not with this few of horses, and the breed being so damn fragile.

There are a lot of things that have changed since there were fuller fields in California and dirt is not one of them. I don't know about you, but when I observe a changing situation and want to pinpoint potential causes, I'm more likely to consider factors which have changed during and/or somewhat before the trend in question than factors which didn't.

.......^bullsht master(:tro: )...If you aren't a doctor, lawyer, corporate C.E.O., or Wallstreet banker, then you may have missed your calling.

The main thing is the breed is very fragile, because of speed breeding etc. Whatever the reason, it isn't gunna change quickly(and maybe not at all.) What you're basically saying is if you have a bleeding arm, then fix what caused it (instead of 1st putting a tourniquet on the arm.) The only way I can see them being able to race on dirt out here is to race 9 or 10 months a year(instead of 12.)

Statistics show us that the decline in starts by US thoroughbreds dates back to the early 1960s and continues, fairly steadily, to today.

You would blame this on year-round racing. (Never mind that major winter-racing had been in existence since the 1930s, a time when there was significant racing into November in Maryland - and yes, stables shipped from circuit to circuit with regularity.) You would blame this on dirt racing. (Never mind that dirt racing has been standard in the US since the first half of the 1800s and until the 1950s, few US tracks had turf courses.) You would blame this on breeding for precocious and speedy horses. (Never mind that trends toward precocity and speed are nearly 200 years old; from the 1880s through the early 1970s, many of the richest races of the year in the US were for 2YOs and until the latter years, most were at sprint distances.) You would blame this on unsound bloodstock. (Never mind that there have always been unsound individuals, some of which proved to be prominent pedigree influences.)

Since none of these factors were emerging or increasing at the time the problem began, I cannot even reasonably correlate them, let alone argue a cause-and-effect relationship. How do you? Since there are numerous things which actually have changed in the last 50 years, why not consider whether some of them might possibly have something to do with the situation?

We can go on forever about this, and in the end, the fact is we don't have enough horses to race year round on dirt out here(unless you want mainly 4 and 5 horse fields with a couple full fields of maiden claimers mixed in.) Why do you think they switched to it in the 1st place? Just like change for the sake of change?

but i believe in the last few years, many left cali and their racing due to the new laws involving workmens comp, etc. no doubt less owners/trainers/stables also contributed to smaller fields. adding new tracks elsewhere would also peel away horses.
look for small fields again-the foal crops will be dropping the next few years due to current economic conditions. but then again, more horses will remain in racing rather than rush to a seldom-used breeding shed, so perhaps it will balance itself out.