Arlington safety...putting it in perspective

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

If we could somehow manage to have a debate about the safety of polytrack AND the 2004 Belmont Stakes at the same time, we would really have achieved the most tiresome debate possible.

i'd think the most tiresome debate would be 'who's the best horse since...?'

with artificial surfaces still being fairly new, and with happenings such as baffert and zayat at del mar, breakdowns at presque isle, cancellations at the 'all weather track' at turfway, this debate will continue for some time.

[JJP]

What isn't mentioned is that AP had a prolonged bias from 2004 thru June 2006 (dead rail). Last year, when they worked on the track, whether they realized it or not, they got rid of the bias until late August. And the breakdown rate slowed considerably. The only problem was they couldn't pinpoint what the problem was, but they did fix it.

Also, do those average number of starters pertain to all races or just the Poly races? The turf races at AP invariably get big fields.

[brianwspencer]

Well maybe some people are turning away from synthetics and only betting turf races after 25 years of playing every race, but others are loving it.

I'm not a huge bettor, but I put about three times as much money into Arlington's pools this year as I ever have in any previous year. I know there are other people who felt the same way. Bigger fields and fairly run races are a pretty big attraction for me.

[cmorioles]

I'm not really trying to say that polytrack isn't safer. However, the stats I posted are AT LEAST as relevant as the stuff the pro polytrack crowd started promoting after about 1 week of the first meet. This continued until the last few months when they didn't really favor the "poly is the cure all" argument anymore.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not really trying to say that polytrack isn't safer. However, the stats I posted are AT LEAST as relevant as the stuff the pro polytrack crowd started promoting after about 1 week of the first meet. This continued until the last few months when they didn't really favor the "poly is the cure all" argument anymore.

now i'm confused, what is your point then?

i've never run across a person spouting "poly is a cure all" however there have been many that come out with a "poly is the death of racing" mantra.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

now i'm confused, what is your point then?

i've never run across a person spouting "poly is a cure all" however there have been many that come out with a "poly is the death of racing" mantra.

It is funny you should mention that.
I have been thinking about buying a parrot and teaching it to say:
"Poly is a cure all" instead of the more traditional, "Polly wants a cracker."

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

now i'm confused, what is your point then?

i've never run across a person spouting "poly is a cure all" however there have been many that come out with a "poly is the death of racing" mantra.

Oh please. I'm not saying your typical racing fan was, though certainly some were and that includes at this board.

Every single "story" that was fed to the press was hailing the safety and the incredible downturn in breakdowns at the polytracks when this stuff first came out. It was hailed as the savior of racing, a godsend. There was zero balance in the reporting. Now, there is just zero reporting.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not really trying to say that polytrack isn't safer. However, the stats I posted are AT LEAST as relevant as the stuff the pro polytrack crowd started promoting after about 1 week of the first meet. This continued until the last few months when they didn't really favor the "poly is the cure all" argument anymore.

thing is, it was sold as safer. but, if they have the same amount of loss overall, regardless of injury type, than it isn't safer. they need to keep track of all this--ARE there more soft tissue injuries? more hind end? virtually eliminating catastrophic breakdowns is to be applauded, but are they actually losing horses to other types of injuries? also, i saw that a study is commencing about breathing in the artificial fibers. what if they find that there is an adverse affect on the respiratory systems?

certainly we all want what is best for the horses, regardless of turf, dirt, or some sort of artificial surface.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not really trying to say that polytrack isn't safer. However, the stats I posted are AT LEAST as relevant as the stuff the pro polytrack crowd started promoting after about 1 week of the first meet. This continued until the last few months when they didn't really favor the "poly is the cure all" argument anymore.

Your stats are not really that revealing because they are just three plain numbers that are completely without context or reasoning. Just 3 seemingly random numbers.
Now if you would take the time to examine the conditions of the horses who broke down and incorporated that data into the mix we would have a better idea of what the original numbers mean.
If 10 out of the 12 breakdowns this year were big dropdowns in class (25k to 5k for example) then those would have to be considered suspicous and taken in that context. On the same note the previous years breakdowns should be analyzed also. To use such a small sample size and count breakdowns in obvious negative situations and horses in Stakes or allowance races as the same is misleading.

Now I remember this discussion coming up in August and after reviewing the horses who had not finished one week, 2 were big drops, one was a cheap horse with rapidly deteoritating form, and one was reported to have had a heart attack. What most of you dont understand and the few of you that should refuse to acknowledge is that many horses who breakdown were put into that position by the human connections and were probably doomed eventually regardless of surface. The propaganda put out by the tracks making this stuff seem so much safer than dirt has led to many owners sending sore horses to run over these tracks as though they would heal thier brokedown legs. The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.

Thank you, Chuck!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Thank you, Chuck!

It is really sad but true.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your stats are not really that revealing because they are just three plain numbers that are completely without context or reasoning. Just 3 seemingly random numbers.
Now if you would take the time to examine the conditions of the horses who broke down and incorporated that data into the mix we would have a better idea of what the original numbers mean.
If 10 out of the 12 breakdowns this year were big dropdowns in class (25k to 5k for example) then those would have to be considered suspicous and taken in that context. On the same note the previous years breakdowns should be analyzed also. To use such a small sample size and count breakdowns in obvious negative situations and horses in Stakes or allowance races as the same is misleading.

Now I remember this discussion coming up in August and after reviewing the horses who had not finished one week, 2 were big drops, one was a cheap horse with rapidly deteoritating form, and one was reported to have had a heart attack. What most of you dont understand and the few of you that should refuse to acknowledge is that many horses who breakdown were put into that position by the human connections and were probably doomed eventually regardless of surface. The propaganda put out by the tracks making this stuff seem so much safer than dirt has led to many owners sending sore horses to run over these tracks as though they would heal thier brokedown legs. The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.

Cannon,

I agree, but this was my point. Isn't this the exact same kind of statistics that were used to show that either "polytrack is great" or "we need polytrack"! They were meaningless when "pro" poly just as they are meaningless when "anti" poly. The difference is hardly anyone was willing to acknowledge that point last year, but suddenly when it goes against the safety line everyone can see the flaws.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Cannon,

I agree, but this was my point. Isn't this the exact same kind of statistics that were used to show that either "polytrack is great" or "we need polytrack"! They were meaningless when "pro" poly just as they are meaningless when "anti" poly. The difference is hardly anyone was willing to acknowledge that point last year, but suddenly when it goes against the safety line everyone can see the flaws.

Bingo. I haven't heard anyone say how many of the breakdowns at AP in 2006 were from big class dropdowns. Certainly, the Chicago Tribune never mentioned it. So I guess its ok to mention only the breakdowns if you are pro-synth. Part of the blame for the one sided media coverage must go to TVG. Simon Bray and Frank Lyons kept droning on and on how wonderful it is......"just like European racing....the field canters toward the quarter pole, then everyone starts trying". To Carruthers credit, I haven't heard him throwing bouquets toward the Polytrack crowd.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Cannon,

I agree, but this was my point. Isn't this the exact same kind of statistics that were used to show that either "polytrack is great" or "we need polytrack"! They were meaningless when "pro" poly just as they are meaningless when "anti" poly. The difference is hardly anyone was willing to acknowledge that point last year, but suddenly when it goes against the safety line everyone can see the flaws.

Understood but what difference does it really make?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your stats are not really that revealing because they are just three plain numbers that are completely without context or reasoning. Just 3 seemingly random numbers.
Now if you would take the time to examine the conditions of the horses who broke down and incorporated that data into the mix we would have a better idea of what the original numbers mean.
If 10 out of the 12 breakdowns this year were big dropdowns in class (25k to 5k for example) then those would have to be considered suspicous and taken in that context. On the same note the previous years breakdowns should be analyzed also. To use such a small sample size and count breakdowns in obvious negative situations and horses in Stakes or allowance races as the same is misleading.

Now I remember this discussion coming up in August and after reviewing the horses who had not finished one week, 2 were big drops, one was a cheap horse with rapidly deteoritating form, and one was reported to have had a heart attack. What most of you dont understand and the few of you that should refuse to acknowledge is that many horses who breakdown were put into that position by the human connections and were probably doomed eventually regardless of surface. The propaganda put out by the tracks making this stuff seem so much safer than dirt has led to many owners sending sore horses to run over these tracks as though they would heal thier brokedown legs. The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.

so, where does that leave us? the horses that are well handled--will they be better off, while those that are poorly handled are worse off? or should we completely ignore the 'poly is safer' mantra? if so, then why the move to an artificial surface? is it better over all, or did it have more to do with keeping full fields regardless of weather? how many of these tracks that made the change needed to, and how many are better then they were before? how many are worse?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, where does that leave us? the horses that are well handled--will they be better off, while those that are poorly handled are worse off? or should we completely ignore the 'poly is safer' mantra? if so, then why the move to an artificial surface? is it better over all, or did it have more to do with keeping full fields regardless of weather? how many of these tracks that made the change needed to, and how many are better then they were before? how many are worse?

Bottom line is that if it helps tracks bottom lines then they will stay. The fact is that they are here and you must adapt or move on. Personally I had my doubts about the validity of the track being maintenance free (sounds like an infomercial at 3 am) but thought and still think that the individual horses conformational faults wont be changed by any surface. Maybe an artificial surface can lessen the effects of the faults but they are still there and will eventually catch up to the horse regardless of Poly, Tapeta, Dirt, Turf, etc...

It is obvious that the propaganda (or selling points) were not entirely correct but constantly harping on it really does nobody any benefit. It is NOT going to be replaced anytime soon at the tracks that have it and may continue to spread as long as track that have it continue to do well financially.

As for the complaints that the surfaces are not uniform or play differently, use that to your advantage or bet something else. It is not like all dirt or turf courses play alike so why should synthetic surfaces be any different?


The sad thing about the whole situation is that so many have taken sides and made this issue probably more important than it really should be. The most important thread going now is the one about the dirtbag AZ politicians and the attempt to make us criminals. If this crap spreads than we will have more to worry about than polytrack or dirt.