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.