Why no talk about the breakdowns at Santa Anita this weekend?

[parsixfarms]

These threads are annoying. Every time a horse breaks down, we don't need someone with an obvious agenda to use some horse's tragic demise as evidence that his/her opinion on synthetics v. dirt is somehow legitimized(especially when the statement as to Belmont having no breakdowns on Saturday was factually inaccurate).

Personally, I prefer that all racing be conducted over safe dirt surfaces. But I consistently fail to understand why the "Poly haters" deny/forget the carnage that befell tracks like Del Mar and Arlington before they installed Polytrack. These surface switches didn't just happen in a vacuum, after all.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

These threads are annoying. Every time a horse breaks down, we don't need someone with an obvious agenda to use some horse's tragic demise as evidence that his/her opinion on synthetics v. dirt is somehow legitimized(especially when the statement as to Belmont having no breakdowns on Saturday was factually inaccurate).

Personally, I prefer that all racing be conducted over safe dirt surfaces. But I consistently fail to understand why the "Poly haters" deny/forget the carnage that befell tracks like Del Mar and Arlington before they installed Polytrack. These surface switches didn't just happen in a vacuum, after all.

I agree..

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

These threads are annoying. Every time a horse breaks down, we don't need someone with an obvious agenda to use some horse's tragic demise as evidence that his/her opinion on synthetics v. dirt is somehow legitimized(especially when the statement as to Belmont having no breakdowns on Saturday was factually inaccurate).

Personally, I prefer that all racing be conducted over safe dirt surfaces. But I consistently fail to understand why the "Poly haters" deny/forget the carnage that befell tracks like Del Mar and Arlington before they installed Polytrack. These surface switches didn't just happen in a vacuum, after all.

I bring it up because this is the surface, in a months time, that will be host to the breeders cup. I believe that owners and trainers from around the world have their eye on this meet and to see a 3/5 shot in a 200k race ( not some 5k claimer) snap their leg coming down the stretch it brings into question if owner and trainers will take the chance on going on this surface.
Remember this was the "cure all" for breakdowns and now seems to be doing more harm than good.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by kgar311

I bring it up because this is the surface, in a months time, that will be host to the breeders cup. I believe that owners and trainers from around the world have their eye on this meet and to see a 3/5 shot in a 200k race ( not some 5k claimer) snap their leg coming down the stretch it brings into question if owner and trainers will take the chance on going on this surface.
Remember this was the "cure all" for breakdowns and now seems to be doing more harm than good.

The 3/5 shot was trained by Mitchell. His horses breaking down is hardly a shocking occurrence on any surface. Not to mention the 3/5 shot did not "snap" his leg as he bowed a tendon. Your argument may have some validity but hyperbole and inaccuracies dont help.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The 3/5 shot was trained by Mitchell. His horses breaking down is hardly a shocking occurrence on any surface. Not to mention the 3/5 shot did not "snap" his leg as he bowed a tendon. Your argument may have some validity but hyperbole and inaccuracies dont help.

Bowed tendon? wow hmmm do we believe everything we read? Ive never seen a horse pull up like that for a bowed tendon.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Bowed tendon? wow hmmm do we believe everything we read? Ive never seen a horse pull up like that for a bowed tendon.

Well Mitchell would have no problem lying, however it is hard to hide the injury in front of thousands of people including the state vet. And are you able to accurately tell what injury a horse has sustained when pulled up? If so you and Riot and Dionne Warwick should start the Physic Friends Network, equine division.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Well Mitchell would have no problem lying, however it is hard to hide the injury in front of thousands of people including the state vet. And are you able to accurately tell what injury a horse has sustained when pulled up? If so you and Riot and Dionne Warwick should start the Physic Friends Network, equine division.

Don't include me in your little "I imagine she said that, but she really didn't" fantasy attacks.

[TitanSooner]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Bowed tendon? wow hmmm do we believe everything we read? Ive never seen a horse pull up like that for a bowed tendon.

How are you glossing over the fact, which Chuck mentioned, that 2 horses broke down at Belmont on Saturday (which you first said never happened) ??

Should we stop running on mud too? Give it a rest.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Bowed tendon? wow hmmm do we believe everything we read? Ive never seen a horse pull up like that for a bowed tendon.

The horse certainly did not look like he broke a leg. It's usually not too hard to tell when a horse breaks a leg. When they break a leg, they usually can't put any weight on the leg.

This horse (Grazen) actually bowed both tendons.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The horse certainly did not look like he broke a leg. It's usually not too hard to tell when a horse breaks a leg. When they break a leg, they usually can't put any weight on the leg.

This horse (Grazen) actually bowed both tendons.

So I ask again, isnt the softer, cushioned, poly surface suppose to prevent this kind of stuff?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by kgar311

So I ask again, isnt the softer, cushioned, poly surface suppose to prevent this kind of stuff?

It has nothing to do with if it's softer or not. It's how the horse's hoof interacts with it versus dirt.

And you can run an unsound horse on a bed of feathers and it will still break down.

No one claimed that it would eliminate injuries. You make it sound like there was a money back guarantee or something. I hate poly a little less than most here, but am not blind to it's issues. But to call it out as the sole reason a horse breaks down is not correct.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kgar311

So I ask again, isnt the softer, cushioned, poly surface suppose to prevent this kind of stuff?

The synthetic surfaces out here in California have not lived up to expectation. They have had a lot of problems with the synthetics here. The track at Del Mar was terrible this meet. Every trainer I talked to was having problems at Del Mar. The track at Hollywood this past meet was not good either. They did some work on the track at Hollywood in late August or early September and everyone seems happy with it right now. I'm hopeful that the track at Hollywood stays safe when the meet starts in November.

I've heard mixed things about Santa Anita at the present time. I guess it's all relative. They say that the track is much better right now than it was a couple of months ago. A couple of months ago, they actually had to close the track for about a week in August. They were getting a ton of soft-tissue injuries. They did a lot of work on the track in August and it is better now but it's still not great. Hollywood is much better than Santa Anita right now.

In hindsight, I wish they didn't put in the synthetics here. Don't get me wrong, they needed to do something. The tracks were really bad here at the time and they needed to do something. They should have probably just forced each tracks to put in a new base. Most of these tracks had a base that was 40 or 50 years old. There were holes in the bases of the tracks. You will obviously have an uneven surface if you have holes in the base. They could have just put in a new base at each track and then put whatever surface they wanted on top. That is what they probably should have done.

Even though they have had major problems with the synthetics out here, that doesn't mean that synthetics are all bad. I think the track at Arlington has been a huge success. I believe field sizes have gone way up. The horses are staying much sounder and there are fewer breakdowns. I haven't seen the actual numbers but that is what I have heard. Cannon Shell would probably have more info on the numbers.

So to answer your question, there are supposed to be fewer injuries on synthetic but I don't think it has really worked in California. It has worked in other places. I'm not really sure why. Some people believe that the track crews out here simply do not know how to maintain the synthetics. The maintenance of a synthetic track is totally different from the maintenance of a dirt track.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by kgar311

I bring it up because this is the surface, in a months time, that will be host to the breeders cup. I believe that owners and trainers from around the world have their eye on this meet and to see a 3/5 shot in a 200k race ( not some 5k claimer) snap their leg coming down the stretch it brings into question if owner and trainers will take the chance on going on this surface.
Remember this was the "cure all" for breakdowns and now seems to be doing more harm than good.

Just for the record, Grazen suffered a tendon injury that was reported as non-life threatening. He didn't "snap" off a leg, as you suggest.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by kgar311

I bring it up because this is the surface, in a months time, that will be host to the breeders cup. I believe that owners and trainers from around the world have their eye on this meet and to see a 3/5 shot in a 200k race ( not some 5k claimer) snap their leg coming down the stretch it brings into question if owner and trainers will take the chance on going on this surface.
Remember this was the "cure all" for breakdowns and now seems to be doing more harm than good.

First, you might review some pretty grim Breeder's Cup days of the past on a variety of dirt surfaces.

Secondly, no, these surfaces were NEVER touted as the "cure all" for breakdowns. They were put forth as decreasing the number of catastrophic breakdowns. Which, to date, they do.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Which, to date, they do.

Sure they do...really helped at Delmar.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Sure they do...really helped at Delmar.

Let's post the numbers over the past few years (again).

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Let's post the numbers over the past few years (again).

There really are no accurate numbers, because they weren't kept.

Synthetics are no more or less dangerous than dirt. If the dirt tracks were repaired from the ground up, they would have been much safer than the old, worn out 100 year old dirt tracks. That is just common sense.

Racing thought they were buying an easy fix, but they found out it isn't true. Some people profited off of the fears of others...what else is new?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

There really are no accurate numbers, because they weren't kept.

Exactly

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

These threads are annoying. Every time a horse breaks down, we don't need someone with an obvious agenda to use some horse's tragic demise as evidence that his/her opinion on synthetics v. dirt is somehow legitimized(especially when the statement as to Belmont having no breakdowns on Saturday was factually inaccurate).

Personally, I prefer that all racing be conducted over safe dirt surfaces. But I consistently fail to understand why the "Poly haters" deny/forget the carnage that befell tracks like Del Mar and Arlington before they installed Polytrack. These surface switches didn't just happen in a vacuum, after all.

Almost as annoying as iditotic horse of the year threads