|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
05-08-2008, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think status quo is gonna cut it. NY needs a dramatic move forward in horse racing and the time is now. An industry leader opportunity is here.
To expand. Intuitvely speaking. The industry in the USA is suffering. Therefore an opportunity exists to capture a large portion of capital looking to invest in the sport. Massive investment is needed in NY to solidify a position of leadership in this sport now. The competition is weak and now is the time for NY to move comprehensively forward, imo. Last edited by sumitas : 05-08-2008 at 02:56 AM. 
|
|
#2
05-08-2008, 07:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it's pretty obvious on here that most New Yorkers don't like the synthetics.They are indeed a safer surface(despite the crap you will read from nuts that make as much sense as Turks denying the Armenian Genocide.) Of course,if trainers think they can get away with running horses that have bad problems,then the stats may not show them to be safer.I don't think the majority of New Yorkers care about safer surfaces though,and they have enough horses so that they don't need to switch (to be able to have their horses get back to racing quicker.) Doesn't seem to be a lack of New York breds.They seem to be a pretty hearty bunch.Just keep telling everyone that break-downs are all random,and people are stupid enough they will keep believing it.Repeat a lie enough,and people are stupid enough they will believe you. Doesn't matter how hard that track was Saturday,it's random right?I wonder just how many are gunna come out of that day's races with little random problems.How many lil chips are going to randomly appear? When you hear about this or that injury to Big Brown,just remember that hard fast track Saturday.The chances of that horse running in the Preakness and Belmont without coming up with an injury .......are not good.Smarty,Alex,Giacomo etc. etc. All random injuries,right?
Last edited by SCUDSBROTHER : 05-08-2008 at 07:15 AM.
|
|
#3
05-08-2008, 07:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It is nice you break out the convenient "trainers are running unfit horses" to explain synthetic breakdowns. We all know that never happens on dirt. Thanks for the post Mr. Dickinson. Try a paragraph break and maybe a space or two after punctuation. 
|
|
#4
05-08-2008, 07:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Relax..
This entire thing was a non-starter. If anyone read the article in the Sschnectady Gazette, it was obvious that John Lee only mentioned that surface issues would be one of the topics at the July Task Force on Retired Race Horses meeting... The thing sniowballed from there with the AP article.
T-U with further explanation... Synthetic track not goal for Saratoga NYRA studying the issue but says nothing is in the works http://timesunion.com:80/AspStories/...sdate=5/8/2008
__________________
All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upward on the miseries or credulities of mankind. ~ Joseph Conrad A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. ~ Thomas Paine Don't let anyone tell you that your dreams can't come true. They are only afraid that theirs won't and yours will. ~ Robert Evans The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ~ George Orwell, 1984.
|
|
#5
05-08-2008, 07:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
different tracks suit different horses, due to differences in running styles, correct? and a horse who feels uncomfortable on a certain surface won't run the same way, or the correct way for him, thus possibly incurring an injury...so, if you take a horse who can move well over dirt, and run him on synthetic, and he detests it and doesn't have the correct action to run over that surface, isn't he at an increased risk for injury? jocks and trainers have conceded that different horses run over it differently-and we all know some like it, and some don't-so how can a blanket statement be made that this surface is 'safer'. seems a horse would be safest where most comfortable, and AWT is not what makes all horses most comfortable.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#6
05-08-2008, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Amen to that. No offense, SCUDS, but honestly I would like to read your posts, even though I completely disagree with you on this issue, but because of the lack of spacing I personally find it impossible. I don't think I'm alone.
__________________
Just more nebulous nonsense from BBB Last edited by blackthroatedwind : 05-08-2008 at 11:54 AM.
|
|
#8
05-08-2008, 12:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you think high-profile breakdown after high-profile breakdown is going to occur with no consequence, you are kidding yourselves. Of course the problem is ultimately the breed, which has been more screwed up than many of AKC dog breeds, and drugs, but those require hard solutions (indeed, the first would take several horse generations to reverse, even if the will to do so existed, which it doesn't--it has been 30+ years in the making). But running the horses over a chopped up trampoline is a quick, partial fix. It will happen, and horseplayers will adjust. They continue to bet notwithstanding widespread cheating and doping--and they will bet the synthetic tracks when there is really no other choice. So far the changeover has been haphazard and badly researched in advance, but now that it has happened in SoCal and other places, NYRA and the others can learn from them. I seriously doubt there will be a North American Grade I race run on dirt by 2015.
|
|
#9
05-08-2008, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In ten years this could easily be synthetic tracks:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2008-...rf-cover_N.htm
|
|
#10
05-08-2008, 02:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
Hybrid Mode
