Santa Anita = Dirt (Starting with Winter Meet)

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Honu

So they did something and now they are screaming again because they cant find the winners circle and that horses are having injuries where they are laid up instead of breaking their legs off which is cheaper I guess in the long run, just put em down and get a new one.

I'm gonna guess you don't have statistical proof of this.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I'm gonna guess you don't have statistical proof of this.

The pro-synth rhetoric is either the horsemen complaining can't win or the handicappers can't figure out synthetics.

NT

[Riot]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The pro-synth rhetoric is either the horsemen complaining can't win or the handicappers can't figure out synthetics.

NT

Or the safety and welfare of the horse.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Riot

Or the safety and welfare of the horse.

Right, unless you actually, you know, read the study you're referencing.

The conclusions presented by Dr. Parkin included:

The incidence of fatality for the one-year period was not significantly different for dirt, synthetic and turf racing surfaces, or condition of the dirt and turf racing surfaces

[The Indomitable DrugS]

^

Forget the Paddock - you're needed as a voice of reason in the Sports section.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

^

Forget the Paddock - you're needed as a voice of reason in the Sports section.

When you stop your quest to become the Nascar of that room, I'll get right on it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Right, unless you actually, you know, read the study you're referencing.

I didn't reference "a study". What are you talking about?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't reference "a study". What are you talking about?

One of the references you linked to included this study: http://www.jockeyclub.com/mediaCenter.asp?story=434

It says there's no significant difference in fatalities between dirt and synthetic tracks. What's hard to understand about that?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

One of the references you linked to included this study: http://www.jockeyclub.com/mediaCenter.asp?story=434

It says there's no significant difference in fatalities between dirt and synthetic tracks. What's hard to understand about that?

I just posted those links for those that want the information, not as "support" of any particular view. Glad you at least used them.

Secondly, you might consider more than one years fatality-only data (injuries count, too)

[Riot]

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/su...asp?section=41

2010 Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit reference page

Below are links to downloadable files for each of the public sessions held at the summit. Each video file size is between 150 - 275 MB. Download time depends on your computer’s speed and Internet connection.

To save the files on your local machine, right click the link and select "Save Link As."

Opening Session and Racetrack Surfaces Panel - Video

* Presentation Slides Ed Bowen, Introduction
* Dr. Peterson, Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory
* Dr. Stover, Injuries and Racing Surfaces

Updates from RMTC, NTRA, TSC, and EID - Video

Presentation Slides
* Dr. Scot Waterman, Racing Medication and Testing Consortium
* Mike Ziegler, NTRA Saftey and Integrity Alliance
* Dr. Larry Bramlage, Thoroughbred Safety Committee
* Dr. Mary Scollay, EID Introduction
* Dr. Tim Parkin, Equine Injury Database

Racing Equipment and Safety Panel - Video

Presentation Slides
* Nich Nicholson, Keeneland Association
* Dr. Edward Hall, University of Kentucky

Racetrack Environment and Safe Training Practices Panel - Video

Transitioning Thoroughbreds to Second Careers Panel - Video

Work Group Objectives - Video
Presentation Slides - Group presentations

Implementation Panel - Video
Presentation Slides - Panel presentation

The third Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit, held in Lexington, Ky., on June 28 and 29, concluded with the development of objectives in four areas and a discussion of implementation strategies to improve conditions in various facets of the Thoroughbred industry.

The four areas were Racing Equipment and Safety; Racetrack Environment and Training Practices; Education, Licensing and Continuing Education; and Transitioning Thoroughbreds to Second Careers.

The summit, which was coordinated and underwritten by Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation and The Jockey Club, and hosted by Keeneland, was held all day Monday and Tuesday morning.

Monday’s morning session included a panel discussion on Racetrack Surfaces, moderated by Ed Bowen, and updates on the following medication and safety initiatives: the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, by executive director Dr. Scot Waterman; the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance, by executive director Mike Ziegler; and the Thoroughbred Safety Committee, by committee member Dr. Larry Bramlage. Dr. Tim Parkin, an epidemiologist with the University of Glasgow, and Dr. Mary Scollay, equine medical director for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, provided an update and statistics from one year of data in the Equine Injury Database to conclude the morning session.

Monday’s afternoon session was composed of panel discussions on Racing Equipment and Safety, moderated by Dr. Mick Peterson, executive director, Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory; Racetrack Environment and Safe Training Practices, moderated by Dr. Rick Arthur, equine medical director, California Horse Racing Board; and Transitioning Thoroughbred Racehorses to Second Careers, moderated by Mike Ziegler.

The summit concluded with a panel discussion concerning implementation of safety and soundness recommendations, moderated by Jim Gagliano, president and chief operating officer of The Jockey Club.

[Riot]

http://www.jockeyclub.com/initiatives.asp

The Equine Injury DatabaseTM is the Thoroughbred industry’s first national database of racing injuries. Launched by The Jockey Club in July 2008, the Equine Injury Database seeks to:

* identify the frequency, types and outcome of racing injuries using a standardized format that will generate valid statistics
* identify markers for horses at increased risk of injury
* serve as a data source for research directed at improving safety and preventing injuries

The Equine Injury Database is funded entirely by The Jockey Club, through its commercial subsidiaries InCompass Solutions Inc. and The Jockey Club Technology Services Inc., as a service to the industry.

The software module that enables racetracks, racing organizations and training centers to participate in the program is provided free of charge through the InCompass Race Track Operations (RTO) system, which is installed at every racetrack in North America.

Click here for a list of racetracks participating in the Equine Injury Database.

The database was first proposed at the Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit in October 2006 and its launch in July 2008 followed a 13-month pilot program whereby more than 3,000 injury reports were received and recorded.

The following are links to press releases concerning the Equine Injury Database.

* Equine Injury Database Statistics Discussed at Third Welfare and Safety
of the Racehorse Summit, June 28, 2010
* Equine Injury Database Statistic Released by The Jockey Club, March 23, 2010
* The Jockey Club Announces Launch of Equine Injury Database, July 22, 2008

[Honu]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I'm gonna guess you don't have statistical proof of this.

I know what Ive seen, I think the number for the last year we had a dirt track at Del Mar was something like 21 dead horses at the meet and this year it is something like 3, not including the heart attack of Tuscan Evening.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Honu

I know what Ive seen

Sweet, well there's no statistical evidence that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt ones, meaning they failed miserably at their one purpose while diluting the game in numerous other ways. So you might understand why some people would be happy to see real dirt come back.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Sweet, well there's no statistical evidence that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt ones, meaning they failed miserably at their one purpose while diluting the game in numerous other ways.

Ah. I see. Well, if you actually read what you are referencing, you will note the different results over time. Rather than quoting only one year's initial data.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Riot

Ah. I see. Well, if you actually read what you are referencing, you will note the different results over time. Rather than quoting only one year's initial data.

So go ahead and show me the stats that say synthetic tracks are significantly safer than dirt tracks. I'm still waiting.

[ateamstupid]

Here's another study from 2008, showing 2.02 fatalities per 1,000 starts on dirt to the microscopic 1.47 fatalities per 1,000 starts on synthetic. Hardly a huge difference.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-ratio-changes

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Here's another study from 2008, showing 2.02 fatalities per 1,000 starts on dirt to the microscopic 1.47 fatalities per 1,000 starts on synthetic. Hardly a huge difference.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-ratio-changes

No, statistically that is a huge difference.

The point is that Honu was right: there were plenty of dead and injured horses on SA old dirt track. Whether the various synthetics were right to use (the weather there is so different from where the synths are used in the rest of the world), or whether the track should have been torn up and redone from the base upwards, with that cushion retained - we'll see how the new dirt track is. And the new cushion.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Sweet, well there's no statistical evidence that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt ones, meaning they failed miserably at their one purpose while diluting the game in numerous other ways. So you might understand why some people would be happy to see real dirt come back.

I would say the synthetic tracks in California are safer than what we had before, but that's not saying much. The tracks we had before were terrible. They were in desperate need of some serious renovation.

However, if you compare our current synthetic tracks in California to good dirt tracks, I think that a good dirt track is safer. I think there are actually more injuries on the synthetic tracks.