Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Bid
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/nat...d-meeting.aspx
In this article Beasley says the weather played a factor. Why would the weather play a factor on an all weather track?
Rupe, the one stat that was mind boggling to me was Golden Gate a few weeks ago. They had a 6 day stretch where 12 horses were eased, 7 were vanned off lame, and 5 were euthanized on track.
|
Just because more horses got hurt at Keeneland this meet as compared to last meet on their polytrack, that hardly means that injuries are up overall. All the data shows exactly the opposite.
Your argument about Keeneland is absurd. I'll give you an analogy. Let's say there is a brunette who gets asked out on 1 or 2 dates a week. Then she dyes her hair blond and starts getting asked out on 15 dates a week. Then the following week, she only gets asked out on 8 dates. Would you say that the blond hair doesn't work? Her numbers have gotten worse. Of course not. You would say the opposite.
Just because there have been more breakdowns at this meet than then at the prior polytrack meet at Keeneland, that doesn't mean anything. What matters is whether there are more injuries now as compared to when they had regular dirt at Keeneland.
At Keeneland, Hollywood, and Arlington the number of breakdowns has gone way down since they put in the synthetic surface. Injuries have gone way down, horses are staying much sounder, and the field sizes have gone way up. Those are the facts.
With regard to Santa Anita, I totally agree with you. They botched the job. The track at Santa Anita is a nightmare but that doesn't mean that all synthetic surfaces are bad.