now thats a low blow.. what a whore..

[cmorioles]

Seriously, how could any journalist even think of writing this article. Why not just write that OPEC is calling for everyone to buy gas guzzlers?

Renowned trainer my ass.

[hockey2315]

Ya- I thought he retired as a trainer to focus on peddling crapeta?

I can't believe they let him give his little sales pitch at last year's horseplayer expo. . .

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Seriously, how could any journalist even think of writing this article. Why not just write that OPEC is calling for everyone to buy gas guzzlers?

Renowned trainer my ass.

It is hack journalism, that's how. Very few racing writers, and I'd make that none, save some of the DRF, Bloodhorse and TTimes writers, actually earn a living from their writings. The ESPN "Contributors" like Plonk certainly fall into the hack category. He's just doing what I assume is a free gig to get his junk ass tout sheet on the ESPN site.

Way too much phony "press" in the internet/cable world doing what they can to get any piece of pie. Being a decent reporter has nothing to do with it.

The same goes for Dickinson, only triple.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

For the most part,racing fans don't give a **** about the safety of these tracks.Just be honest about that.You look ridiculous when you try to say dirt is as safe.If you want to say dirt is easier to cap,then just do it.Please stop with the whole "dirt is just as safe " crap.You people aren't stupid.Don't act that way."Some horses race better on dirt than on synthetic," or " synthetic is hard to cap."Any of that is fine,but you look stupid when you say dirt is as safe.If you could take the same horses and race them on the same dirt and synthetic,then you would see synthetic is safer. Yes,they are gunna run some very borderline horses on the synthetic,and they will break down.Trainers know it's safer,and some think they can get away with stuff they know they can't get away with on dirt.I think Eight B would be alive and well if that race had been on a synthetic,but I don't think people care enough about horses to make the switch.Simple as that.So,we will continue to read that "it's random," and no break-down is anybody's fault(always just a normal part of the game.)If you're so addicted to dirt,then you damn sure better get more concerned with the conditions that make dirt racing safer.Churchill loves those fast hard tracks on big days,and nobody is going to change that.So expect more of the same.

[Danzig]

i think your post, and your blanket statement that anyone who thinks dirt is safe is stupid or doesn't care is absolutely asinine.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think your post, and your blanket statement that anyone who thinks dirt is safe is stupid or doesn't care is absolutely asinine.

That's my opinion.It's obvious dirt isn't as safe.Only self-centered people would keep repeating that it's as safe.If you put the animals 1st,then you'd be for getting them on the safest surface possible.Fact is people don't care about these horses enough to do what's best for them.They care about watching them run in traditional races on dirt.I understand that.It's what you grew up with etc.,but it's not the safest way for the horses to race.Hell,you shoot hot metal into animals(and enjoy it,)honey,so you're the last person I would listen to when it comes to safety for animals.

[Danzig]

how is it putting an animal first when a trainer runs a horse who is 'off' on synthetic, as it's so safe..and then the horse breaks down?

if arlingtons numbers are similar now (as i read on here earelier) as they were when they had dirt, how is the surface safer? well, the first answer you get is that trainers are running unsound horses-would those horses run if the surface hadn't changed? maybe not. maybe the trainer would have waited. so how is this situation any better for horses?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

how is it putting an animal first when a trainer runs a horse who is 'off' on synthetic, as it's so safe..and then the horse breaks down?

if arlingtons numbers are similar now (as i read on here earelier) as they were when they had dirt, how is the surface safer? well, the first answer you get is that trainers are running unsound horses-would those horses run if the surface hadn't changed? maybe not. maybe the trainer would have waited. so how is this situation any better for horses?

I am not going to try to make sense of anything that happens in Chicago.I don't think they are going to be very careful with Illinois bred horses...PERIOD!!........I do know we have had much fewer horses breaking down on the synthetic in SOCAL.We were having 5 and 6 horses fields in most races out here at one point.So,don't tell me dirt is better for the horses.They come right back to race on synthetic,and they couldn't do that nearly as quickly on dirt.It put us in the position where we didn't have enough horses to race unless we went to synthetic.Stronach wanted to put dirt back in at Anita,but the majority of trainers here favor the synthetic(and so he is leaning towards synthetic.)Over n' over again,you are going to see that when trainers get to use the synthetics like the cushion track,then the majority will favor it over dirt.Their horses have less injuries over it,and can race more often.Most fans just ignore that.They want to keep studying to see what's safer,but the trainers are already making it obvious which they think is safer.People just ignore the obvious,though. I guess they think the majority of trainers out here are wrong about what's best for their animals....I don't think that.