Nice editorial

Riot · #1 10-20-2010, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Deflection of the question. Try and follow along. We don't need synthetics either for daily racing because horse injury rates don't matter.

FTFY.

letswastemoney · #2 10-20-2010, 11:42 PM

Although it isn't the same, synthetics plays too close to turf for me. If turf horses can invade traditional main track races like the SA Cap, HGC, and Pacific Classic and win, then why do we need a turf course? It just dilutes the turf fields if anything.

I realize not every horse that runs good on turf runs the same on synthetics (The Usual QT is the first one that comes to mind). But a lot do. It seems redundant to use 2 tracks that a lot of turf horses could interchange between so easily.

Riot · #3 10-20-2010, 11:49 PM

We're the main country for dirt racing, and we are wedded to it and refuse to change. Other countries run on a horses natural surface, turf. So it goes.

Indian Charlie · #4 10-21-2010, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

We're the main country for dirt racing, and we are wedded to it and refuse to change. Other countries run on a horses natural surface, turf. So it goes.

So, dirt isn't natural to horses?

Therefore, why bother and just run over shredded tires and condoms?

That makes sense.

Riot · #5 10-21-2010, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

So, dirt isn't natural to horses?

Therefore, why bother and just run over shredded tires and condoms?

That makes sense.

No, a manufactured track of dirt: drainage, a base, a manufactured cushion - isn't as "natural" as turf.

hockey2315 · #6 10-21-2010, 10:34 AM

Turf courses don't have drainage?

Cannon Shell · #7 10-21-2010, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

We're the main country for dirt racing, and we are wedded to it and refuse to change. Other countries run on a horses natural surface, turf. So it goes.

Why is turf referred to as 'natural' like dirt is all manufactured? When people make these kinds of statements about 'other coutntries' they seem to forget that the scope of racing is so much larger in the US and the climates so much different that racing the majority of races on the turf is totally impractical.

And the breakdown rates ion synthetic are statistically insignifigant compared to the prior surfaces (mostly because the records werent kept so comparing is difficult)

Simply using breakdown rates to say that a track is/isn't safe or is safer is folly as it ignores the vast amount of influences beyond surface that cause horses to breakdown.

Riot · #8 10-21-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Why is turf referred to as 'natural' like dirt is all manufactured?

Well, I answered this already, but self-deleted it by accident. Sorry.

Horses were designed to work on turf - hooves, legs, tendons, muscles, eyes, breathing, gut. Where do horses live on dirt?

Certainly turf courses are graded, grass types selected, drainage, divots replaced, etc. (less so with the centuries-old type tracks in Europe) But a dirt track is completely manufactured from scratch - drainage, base, and a mixture of soils (clay, loam, sand) specifically composed to a recipe (soils that may not even be local)

Quote:

When people make these kinds of statements about 'other coutntries' they seem to forget that the scope of racing is so much larger in the US and the climates so much different that racing the majority of races on the turf is totally impractical.

I'm not forgetting. It is what it is in the US. Horse racing started primarily in the upper east, was imported from England and adapted to what we have here. We even developed the speedball specialist to run on our different type of track (dirt)

Quote:

And the breakdown rates ion synthetic are statistically insignifigant compared to the prior surfaces (mostly because the records werent kept so comparing is difficult)

That's something you just made up. It is not true. Go on PubMed, there's plenty there.

Quote:

Simply using breakdown rates to say that a track is/isn't safe or is safer is folly as it ignores the vast amount of influences beyond surface that cause horses to breakdown.

I agree. That's why I hate to see, when any horse breaks down on a synthetic track, the predictable few who sarcastically say, "I thought those surfaces were supposed to be safe?"

Cannon Shell · #9 10-21-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Horses were designed to work on turf - hooves, legs, tendons, muscles, eyes, breathing, gut. Where do horses live on dirt?

Certainly turf courses are graded, grass types selected, drainage, divots replaced, etc. (less so with the centuries-old type tracks in Europe) But a dirt track is completely manufactured from scratch - drainage, base, and a mixture of soils (clay, loam, sand) specifically composed to a recipe (soils that may not even be local)

I'm not forgetting. It is what it is in the US. Horse racing started primarily in the upper east, was imported from England and adapted to what we have here. We even developed the speedball specialist to run on our different type of track (dirt)

That's something you just made up. It is not true. Go on PubMed, there's plenty there.

I agree. That's why I hate to see, when any horse breaks down on a synthetic track, the predictable few who sarcastically say, "I thought those surfaces were supposed to be safe?"

The modern thoroughbred traces from middle eastern descent. There is a whole lot more dirt than grass in the middle east.

Turf courses are completely manufactured from scratch as well.

I did not make up the fact that there has been very little to spotty record keeping in regards to breakdown information prior to current efforts. As I said there is little accurate information to compare it to therefore the findings should be viewed skeptically.

And I hate to see when a horse breaks down on a dirt surface the predictable few who sarcastically say, "See we need synthetic surfaces, these dirt tracks aren't safe!"

Riot · #10 10-21-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

The modern thoroughbred traces from middle eastern descent. There is a whole lot more dirt than grass in the middle east.

On the sire side. Not the dam. There's alot of cobblestones and English fields in there, too

Quote:

I did not make up the fact that there has been very little to spotty record keeping in regards to breakdown information prior to current efforts.

Strange you say that. There's plenty of record keeping there in the medical literature, from the 1980's to current: harness, grass, Euro, Australia, dirt, jumping.

Quote:

As I said there is little accurate information to compare it to therefore the findings should be viewed skeptically.

I find that untrue with what I have read.

Quote:

And I hate to see when a horse breaks down on a dirt surface the predictable few who sarcastically say, "See we need synthetic surfaces, these dirt tracks aren't safe!"

That's why it's best if facts, rather than emotion, contributes most to the conversation.

Danzig · #11 10-21-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

We're the main country for dirt racing, and we are wedded to it and refuse to change. Other countries run on a horses natural surface, turf. So it goes.

i think the fact that synthetic tracks have been installed means we aren't refusing to try, or to change.
however, how long does one stick with an experiment before deciding it's not working?
cali racing went into a decline, it continues to decline. the majority of horsemen have become vocal about the tracks being an issue. when the new tracks were first installed, you saw trainers ship in. that has dropped dramatically since people have decided those awt's just aren't what they want to deal with. field sizes there continue to shrink, with several days cancelled this year due to lack of entrants.

i don't see turfway changing back-in their case it seems the awt is working for them.

as for us going to all turf, turf tracks wouldn't hold up to the amount of racing we require.

Riot · #12 10-21-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the fact that synthetic tracks have been installed means we aren't refusing to try, or to change.
however, how long does one stick with an experiment before deciding it's not working?
cali racing went into a decline, it continues to decline. the majority of horsemen have become vocal about the tracks being an issue. when the new tracks were first installed, you saw trainers ship in. that has dropped dramatically since people have decided those awt's just aren't what they want to deal with. field sizes there continue to shrink, with several days cancelled this year due to lack of entrants.

i don't see turfway changing back-in their case it seems the awt is working for them.

as for us going to all turf, turf tracks wouldn't hold up to the amount of racing we require.

I agree with all you say. It would take a tremendous amount of land to install a great turf track facility in the US (a track would need multiple gallops, training areas, etc) and hold up to our use. It would be cool to see, though.

Danzig · #13 10-21-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree with all you say. It would take a tremendous amount of land to install a great turf track facility in the US (a track would need multiple gallops, training areas, etc) and hold up to our use. It would be cool to see, though.

i dont see anyone attempting that huge investment. ownership is down, expenses go up...and turf racing is an afterthought here for the most part..

Cannon Shell · #14 10-21-2010, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't see turfway changing back-in their case it seems the awt is working for them.

The track at Turfway has hardly been a huge success. The reason that you dont hear complaints about it is because pretty much no one cares about Turfway anymore.

Danzig · #15 10-22-2010, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The track at Turfway has hardly been a huge success. The reason that you dont hear complaints about it is because pretty much no one cares about Turfway anymore.

yeah, and their previous track was pretty bad wasn't it?