Santa Anita gets 2008 Breeders Cup

[SCUDSBROTHER]

We just ran the B.C. on an incredibly biased track,and most everybody still didn't seem to mind much.You pathetic losers just read the lady say her horses' legs hold up better on it,but you want them to run on the more dangerous surface(a surface that they can't seem to ever get fair on B.C. Day, anyways.) EITHER YOU GIVE A SHT ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THESE HORSES ,OR YA JUST DON'T.We actually have no choice out here,we get pathetic field sizes if we were to just keep running on dirt.That's just a fact.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Joey,I gotta better chance of going out for dollar day this Saturday than I do of going to B.C. 2008. I WENT TO THE 1ST ONE AT HOLLYWOOD PARK.I don't care much about it anymore.People get their horses ready for their one shot to win a B.C. race,and the track is so far out of whack that only half the field(front,back,outside,or inside) has a chance to win.That is pathetic.

[whodey17]

Turf horses dont necessarily run well on Poly. Look at Wait A While. Then you also have some horses who can run on dirt and Poly. Look at Street Sense and Quay. Then you could also use Hard Spun as an example as well. The reason why bettors like Keeneland is because of the payoffs that are happening over there. Also, I like the races. I dont care how fast they run the quarter in, and then they sprint home. I think that is more exciting than watching a horse go to the lead and stay there (so called merry-go-round race) like Sinister Minister. The only problem I have is that it will be less than a year since the track surface will be put down. Other than that, it will be a success.

[Danzig]

i do wonder one thing....

how does the graded stakes committee justify refusing grade one status to new races, due to not being run under the same conditions for two years (since they're new) but all graded races now on poly, rather than dirt, remain at their current status--but turf moved to dirt due to weather loses its status for that race?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by whodey17

Turf horses dont necessarily run well on Poly. Look at Wait A While.

Yes, and look at the horses who beat Wait A While.....

Do you realize that the top three finishers in the Commonwealth all exited one-mile races on the turf?

Wait A While, had far and away the best dirt form of anyone in her race last Saturday.

Hollywood Park's Cushion track surface isn't much better than the hideious polytrack at KEE. To me, that's not the same horse racing I grew up with and have been a fan of for all my life.

I can understand using the surface in the North-East, at cheaper tracks that are sensative to weather....from what I've seen so far, it doesn't belong anywhere else in my personal opinion.

But hey, the interests of the horseman/commerical breeders always trump what the fans and the betting public want.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

But hey, the interests of the horseman/commerical breeders always trump what the fans and the betting public want.

Don't the interests of the horses matter at all. What you seem to be saying is that certain segments of "the betting public" are more concerned with their pocketbook and their subjective enjoyment of the races than the welfare of the horse - and the safety of the horses should be relegated below the "wants" of the bettors.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Don't the interests of the horses matter at all. What you seem to be saying is that certain segments of "the betting public" are more concerned with their pocketbook and their subjective enjoyment of the races than the welfare of the horse - and the safety of the horses should be relegated below the "wants" of the bettors.

What drives me nuts is that everyone automatically assumes "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good" when it comes to horses' health. And while, yes, it's proven that artificial surfaces are easier on the horses, I don't see a ton of breakdowns in NY racing, and I think it's because the dirt tracks are much deeper than they are anywhere else. I just feel that any track that has a lot of injuries or breakdowns goes "Oh, that's it, we've gotta get polytrack" and takes the easy way out rather than actually using some brainpower and figuring out how to improve the dirt surface.

The bottom line is that, like it or not, the betting public's needs and wants come before the horses' safety. I'm sorry, you might not like hearing it, but it's the cold reality of a gambling-driven sport. If everyone suddenly stopped betting polytrack races, the tracks would have to either figure out a way to make it play more like dirt, or rip it up all together. Do I think it should be that way? Ideally, no. Am I advocating ripping up all polytrack? No. But if you think the wave of tracks moving to artificial surfaces isn't partly or wholly influenced by the fact that people still bet Turfway and Keeneland when they switched, I think you're delusional.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What drives me nuts is that everyone automatically assumes "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good" when it comes to horses' health. And while, yes, it's proven that artificial surfaces are easier on the horses, I don't see a ton of breakdowns in NY racing, and I think it's because the dirt tracks are much deeper than they are anywhere else. I just feel that any track that has a lot of injuries or breakdowns goes "Oh, that's it, we've gotta get polytrack" and takes the easy way out rather than actually using some brainpower and figuring out how to improve the dirt surface.

The bottom line is that, like it or not, the betting public's needs and wants come before the horses' safety. I'm sorry, you might not like hearing it, but it's the cold reality of a gambling-driven sport. If everyone suddenly stopped betting polytrack races, the tracks would have to either figure out a way to make it play more like dirt, or rip it up all together. Do I think it should be that way? Ideally, no. Am I advocating ripping up all polytrack? No. But if you think the wave of tracks moving to artificial surfaces isn't partly or wholly influenced by the fact that people still bet Turfway and Keeneland when they switched, I think you're delusional.

JOEY,how many more times we gunna have to see the hype -build up to the B.C., and then see the track is whack? I am over these biased dirt tracks on B.C. day.On that one day,I want it to be an unbiased track...o.k.? If the Artificial tracks are 'biased" against certain horses,atleast you know that going into the day.You don't have to wait until 3-4 races in.Even if ya see the bias 3-4 races in,people are gunna tell ya there ain't a bias.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What drives me nuts is that everyone automatically assumes "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good" when it comes to horses' health. And while, yes, it's proven that artificial surfaces are easier on the horses, I don't see a ton of breakdowns in NY racing, and I think it's because the dirt tracks are much deeper than they are anywhere else. I just feel that any track that has a lot of injuries or breakdowns goes "Oh, that's it, we've gotta get polytrack" and takes the easy way out rather than actually using some brainpower and figuring out how to improve the dirt surface.

The bottom line is that, like it or not, the betting public's needs and wants come before the horses' safety. I'm sorry, you might not like hearing it, but it's the cold reality of a gambling-driven sport. If everyone suddenly stopped betting polytrack races, the tracks would have to either figure out a way to make it play more like dirt, or rip it up all together. Do I think it should be that way? Ideally, no. Am I advocating ripping up all polytrack? No. But if you think the wave of tracks moving to artificial surfaces isn't partly or wholly influenced by the fact that people still bet Turfway and Keeneland when they switched, I think you're delusional.

The issue is not necessarily "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good," but rather Polytrack is better when it comes to the horses' health, which you concede. As for breakdowns, keep in mind that what you see in the afternoon is only a portion of the problem. I've experienced more injuries in the morning with our horses than any injuries in the afternoon, and the majority of horsemen attest to the fact that the horses do better over synthetic surfaces.

As for the second bolded portion of your post, I admire your honesty, no matter how wrong-headed and uncaring for the horse that I think the statement is. At the end of the day, the market is speaking about whether it likes the racing - and both Keeneland and Hollywood have seen dramatic increases in handle, despite the number of people I hear saying that they are "boycotting" racing over these surfaces.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What drives me nuts is that everyone automatically assumes "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good" when it comes to horses' health. And while, yes, it's proven that artificial surfaces are easier on the horses, I don't see a ton of breakdowns in NY racing, and I think it's because the dirt tracks are much deeper than they are anywhere else. I just feel that any track that has a lot of injuries or breakdowns goes "Oh, that's it, we've gotta get polytrack" and takes the easy way out rather than actually using some brainpower and figuring out how to improve the dirt surface.

The bottom line is that, like it or not, the betting public's needs and wants come before the horses' safety. I'm sorry, you might not like hearing it, but it's the cold reality of a gambling-driven sport. If everyone suddenly stopped betting polytrack races, the tracks would have to either figure out a way to make it play more like dirt, or rip it up all together. Do I think it should be that way? Ideally, no. Am I advocating ripping up all polytrack? No. But if you think the wave of tracks moving to artificial surfaces isn't partly or wholly influenced by the fact that people still bet Turfway and Keeneland when they switched, I think you're delusional.

Why does , Because its always been done this way =Thats the way it should stay and Change = everyone is going to stop betting ?
How do you know what the stats for breakdowns are at any given racetrack? How do you know how many horses are turned out that dont break down on the track but come back bad at the barn ? You dont , you dont run your hand down horses legs every morning , you dont see the diffirence in the horses legs that train on traditional dirt surface compared to the horses that train on cushion track.
You say betters dont care about horse safety , but I bet they care when fields are reduced to 5 horses and there is only a small margin between odds.
To be honest I dont care if you ever bet another race in your life , because there will always be one more person standing in line at the window or betting from home. Dont fool yourself into believing that me making a living depends on your dollar , because it doesnt , I get paid a wage and my boss gets paid by the head and the people he trains for have more money to blow on horses than they will ever be able to spend before they die. They are not soley in this game for winning purses , they are also in it for the sport and the bragging rights, they all have breeding farms and sell horses and stand them at stud.
So dont bet any artificial surfaces , do what you think is best for you, but when the Hollywood meet starts I want you to prove to me that Cushion track doesnt play fair.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Don't the interests of the horses matter at all. What you seem to be saying is that certain segments of "the betting public" are more concerned with their pocketbook and their subjective enjoyment of the races than the welfare of the horse - and the safety of the horses should be relegated below the "wants" of the bettors.

If the horseman really cared about the welfare of the horse---perhaps they would stop over-medicating them.

If the commerical breeders really cared about the welfare of the horses---perhaps they'd put more emphasis on breeding for soundness.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If the horseman really cared about the welfare of the horse---perhaps they would stop over-medicating them.

If the commerical breeders really cared about the welfare of the horses---perhaps they'd put more emphasis on breeding for soundness.

Those are separate questions. I agree that these are legitimate issues, but they do not mean that we should disregard the positive impact that Polytrack that has upon the horses' welfare.