Arlington safety...putting it in perspective

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Racing breakdowns leading to death at AP by year:

2007 12
2006 24
2005 8

Hmm, was this really any safer? While it improved upon 2006, most of which happened early in the meet before work was done on the track, it also represents a 50% increase over racing fatalities on the 2005 dirt track.

Last year Arlington insisted over and over that the surface was safe and that the breakdowns were an aberration. The track was tested over and over and found to be flawless. They added more pre race vet inspections and more vets in general. etc, etc, etc. AP wasn't looking for a reason to spend $11 Million on a polytrack. One unfortunate year force their hand. You want to play with statistics? Look at the number of starters in '05 vs '07. I guarantee you the % percentage breakdown was less. Try reading "How to Lie With Statistics"...A quantitive case can be made for almost anything you want. Obviously there are traditionalsists who think poly is to horse racing like the DH is to baseball. Fine, but don't put out lame numbers in the face of real hard numbers...attendance, # of starters, handle, etc

[JJP]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Last year Arlington insisted over and over that the surface was safe and that the breakdowns were an aberration. The track was tested over and over and found to be flawless. They added more pre race vet inspections and more vets in general. etc, etc, etc. AP wasn't looking for a reason to spend $11 Million on a polytrack. One unfortunate year force their hand. You want to play with statistics? Look at the number of starters in '05 vs '07. I guarantee you the % percentage breakdown was less. Try reading "How to Lie With Statistics"...A quantitive case can be made for almost anything you want. Obviously there are traditionalsists who think poly is to horse racing like the DH is to baseball. Fine, but don't put out lame numbers in the face of real hard numbers...attendance, # of starters, handle, etc

The facts he posted weren't lame. Do you prefer fake dirt racing? I've been betting AP for 25 years and starting this year, will only bet their grass races. The reality is, the Chicago Tribune was on a smear campaign last year against the track and put out so much bad publicity, I'm guessing the track felt they had little choice but to do something. But in retrospect, I believe it was the wrong decision. Funny how tracks like AP and Dmr claim their handle is up, yet I've heard a number of handicappers say they won't bet AP or Dmr, or have cut back play significantly. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say they'd play a track because it was synthetic. If bunched fields of slow paced races is the future of dirt racing, the coffin is already shut on the sport.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by JJP

The facts he posted weren't lame. Do you prefer fake dirt racing? I've been betting AP for 25 years and starting this year, will only bet their grass races. The reality is, the Chicago Tribune was on a smear campaign last year against the track and put out so much bad publicity, I'm guessing the track felt they had little choice but to do something. But in retrospect, I believe it was the wrong decision. Funny how tracks like AP and Dmr claim their handle is up, yet I've heard a number of handicappers say they won't bet AP or Dmr, or have cut back play significantly. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say they'd play a track because it was synthetic. If bunched fields of slow paced races is the future of dirt racing, the coffin is already shut on the sport.

Agreed there was a ton of negative press against them LY. But do you think they are lying about attendance, # of starters, etc? You say you have bet AP for 25 years, but what about this year? There weren't bunched fields and slow paced races. And maybe "handicappers" aren't the future of horse racing. New blood is needed and I really don't think poly/cushion is going to be the death of racing.

[ArlJim78]

i'll say it, i play tracks that are synthetic, for that reason. i concentrate my play on those tracks. Arl, DelMar, SA, Holly, Keeneland, TP. I like the way it plays because they don't overwhelmingly favor a particular run style.
like gbbob said, the data on breakdowns will be more meaningful if the number of starters is included because the fields were bigger this year. not sure where to get that data.

[BillW]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

i'll say it, i play tracks that are synthetic, for that reason. i concentrate my play on those tracks. Arl, DelMar, SA, Holly, Keeneland, TP. I like the way it plays because they don't overwhelmingly favor a particular run style.
like gbbob said, the data on breakdowns will be more meaningful if the number of starters is included because the fields were bigger this year. not sure where to get that data.

7.18 last year 8.19 this year

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by BillW

7.18 last year 8.19 this year

How about '05 though...That was the year brought up earlier

Look..a lot greater horse minds than me have had a lot of intense debates here on poly and what is has done to racing. I look at it from a bigger perspective than bunched fields and potentially distorted breeding lines. Horse racing needs and wants to be considered a "major" sport. That likely won't happen again anytime soon, but what every major sport has gone through is change and evolution. DH's, artificial turfs, wild cards, domes, the BCC, , etc are all, depending on how you look at it, advancements or tragedies in their respective sports. The one thing that none of those did was cause the demise of the sport. And poly sure as hell won't cause the demise of horse racing. If Delmar was my home track, I probably wouldn't feel so positive about it, but fortunately, Arlington showed it can work and that there is a reason to look at it as a positive

[Cajungator26]

This is just my opinion (for what it's worth), but what I don't understand about the whole polytrack/cushion track/tapeta etc. is WHY spend all of that money on an artificial surface when less money could have been spent by making the DIRT safer with similar results? Look at Saratoga as an example...

[BillW]

The last 2 years were on hand - 2005 is taking a bit longer. I haven't given up yet.

[BillW]

Originally Posted by BillW

7.18 last year 8.19 this year

2005 - 7.6

Also, what percentage of horses broke down over the turf vs. dirt (or fake dirt). What about training breakdowns, which are never included? Its too broad a stroke to take, what's good and what's bad. The poly in Chicago seemed to play much differently to the one in Keeneland, which is a travesty. Im not sure who uses what surface, but the difference in Chicago races didnt LOOK that different. Now, how about a breakdown of where winners came from i.e. wire to wire, stalk, dead closer?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by BillW

2005 - 7.6

So, certainly not 50% more starters.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I'm the opposite, at least for now.

I have avoided the synthetic surface meets -- with few exceptions -- because I've felt that I do not have a handle on the newest surfaces.

Secondly, two-turn races at Del Mar, and all of the races at Keeneland, seemed to replace one bias with another (slanted towards closers). Is that acceptable to you?

you have to go with what works for you.

the routes at KEE and Dmr did favor closers, and I'm okay with it as they are limited special meets. the full meets at SA, Holly, Arl and TP on synthetics seem pretty balanced overall.

sometimes i think that people get so used to a speed bias that when they are faced with a fair track it initially appears biased.