Nice editorial

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

We're the main country for dirt racing, and we are wedded to it and refuse to change. Other countries run on a horses natural surface, turf. So it goes.

Why is turf referred to as 'natural' like dirt is all manufactured? When people make these kinds of statements about 'other coutntries' they seem to forget that the scope of racing is so much larger in the US and the climates so much different that racing the majority of races on the turf is totally impractical.

And the breakdown rates ion synthetic are statistically insignifigant compared to the prior surfaces (mostly because the records werent kept so comparing is difficult)

Simply using breakdown rates to say that a track is/isn't safe or is safer is folly as it ignores the vast amount of influences beyond surface that cause horses to breakdown.

[Riot]

Why is turf referred to as 'natural' like dirt is all manufactured?

Well, I answered this already, but self-deleted it by accident. Sorry.

Horses were designed to work on turf - hooves, legs, tendons, muscles, eyes, breathing, gut. Where do horses live on dirt?

Certainly turf courses are graded, grass types selected, drainage, divots replaced, etc. (less so with the centuries-old type tracks in Europe) But a dirt track is completely manufactured from scratch - drainage, base, and a mixture of soils (clay, loam, sand) specifically composed to a recipe (soils that may not even be local)

When people make these kinds of statements about 'other coutntries' they seem to forget that the scope of racing is so much larger in the US and the climates so much different that racing the majority of races on the turf is totally impractical.

I'm not forgetting. It is what it is in the US. Horse racing started primarily in the upper east, was imported from England and adapted to what we have here. We even developed the speedball specialist to run on our different type of track (dirt)

And the breakdown rates ion synthetic are statistically insignifigant compared to the prior surfaces (mostly because the records werent kept so comparing is difficult)

That's something you just made up. It is not true. Go on PubMed, there's plenty there.

Simply using breakdown rates to say that a track is/isn't safe or is safer is folly as it ignores the vast amount of influences beyond surface that cause horses to breakdown.

I agree. That's why I hate to see, when any horse breaks down on a synthetic track, the predictable few who sarcastically say, "I thought those surfaces were supposed to be safe?"

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Horses were designed to work on turf - hooves, legs, tendons, muscles, eyes, breathing, gut. Where do horses live on dirt?

Certainly turf courses are graded, grass types selected, drainage, divots replaced, etc. (less so with the centuries-old type tracks in Europe) But a dirt track is completely manufactured from scratch - drainage, base, and a mixture of soils (clay, loam, sand) specifically composed to a recipe (soils that may not even be local)



I'm not forgetting. It is what it is in the US. Horse racing started primarily in the upper east, was imported from England and adapted to what we have here. We even developed the speedball specialist to run on our different type of track (dirt)



That's something you just made up. It is not true. Go on PubMed, there's plenty there.



I agree. That's why I hate to see, when any horse breaks down on a synthetic track, the predictable few who sarcastically say, "I thought those surfaces were supposed to be safe?"

The modern thoroughbred traces from middle eastern descent. There is a whole lot more dirt than grass in the middle east.

Turf courses are completely manufactured from scratch as well.

I did not make up the fact that there has been very little to spotty record keeping in regards to breakdown information prior to current efforts. As I said there is little accurate information to compare it to therefore the findings should be viewed skeptically.

And I hate to see when a horse breaks down on a dirt surface the predictable few who sarcastically say, "See we need synthetic surfaces, these dirt tracks aren't safe!"

[Riot]

The modern thoroughbred traces from middle eastern descent. There is a whole lot more dirt than grass in the middle east.

On the sire side. Not the dam. There's alot of cobblestones and English fields in there, too

I did not make up the fact that there has been very little to spotty record keeping in regards to breakdown information prior to current efforts.

Strange you say that. There's plenty of record keeping there in the medical literature, from the 1980's to current: harness, grass, Euro, Australia, dirt, jumping.

As I said there is little accurate information to compare it to therefore the findings should be viewed skeptically.

I find that untrue with what I have read.

And I hate to see when a horse breaks down on a dirt surface the predictable few who sarcastically say, "See we need synthetic surfaces, these dirt tracks aren't safe!"

That's why it's best if facts, rather than emotion, contributes most to the conversation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

On the sire side. Not the dam. There's alot of cobblestones and English fields in there, too



Strange you say that. There's plenty of record keeping there in the medical literature, from the 1980's to current: harness, grass, Euro, Australia, dirt, jumping.



I find that untrue with what I have read.



That's why it's best if facts, rather than emotion, contributes most to the conversation.

The thoroughbred descends from middle eastern stallions. There is a lot of dirt in the middle east. It's pretty simple.

What does records from Harness racing, grass racing, European racing, Australia or jumping have to do with the lack of breakdown stats from American dirt tracks?

And since the jockey club's Equine Injury database is only 2 years old and still doesnt have cooperation from all tracks I find it hard to believe that there is a whole lot of accurate data from prior years.

And the initial findings of the databank is there is little to no statistical variance between breakdown rates on different surfaces.

[Riot]

The thoroughbred descends from middle eastern stallions. There is a lot of dirt in the middle east. It's pretty simple.

Sure. If you ignore that the breed wasn't developed in the middle east, but developed after the three Arabian sires were imported, and was developed primarily in England from fairly common mares. Pretty simple that Arabian sands were never involved. Let alone dirt.

What does records from Harness racing, grass racing, European racing, Australia or jumping have to do with the lack of breakdown stats from American dirt tracks?

There's breakdown stats on American tracks. For example, how about the NY tracks in the 1980's? Compare America to Europe, to Australia. Flat to hurdles. Harness. Lots of good info.

And since the jockey club's Equine Injury database is only 2 years old and still doesnt have cooperation from all tracks I find it hard to believe that there is a whole lot of accurate data from prior years.

Current data has zero bearing on what was available before it existed. As I said, go read the multiple scientific studies on PubMed. You know they are there. They've been mentioned before. And mentioned multiple times when artificial surfaces first were discussed. In fact, those stats contributed to the development of artificial surfaces.

And the initial findings of the databank is there is little to no statistical variance between breakdown rates on different surfaces.

As someone who is knowledgable of the concept of "statistical significance", you know that one final quarter affecting a years data doesn't give you much of that, does it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sure. If you ignore that the breed wasn't developed in the middle east, but developed after the three Arabian sires were imported, and was developed primarily in England from fairly common mares. Pretty simple that Arabian sands were never involved. Let alone dirt.



There's breakdown stats on American tracks. For example, how about the NY tracks in the 1980's? Compare America to Europe, to Australia. Flat to hurdles. Harness. Lots of good info.



Current data has zero bearing on what was available before it existed. As I said, go read the multiple scientific studies on PubMed. You know they are there. They've been mentioned before. And mentioned multiple times when artificial surfaces first were discussed. In fact, those stats contributed to the development of artificial surfaces.



As someone who is knowledgable of the concept of "statistical significance", you know that one final quarter affecting a years data doesn't give you much of that, does it?

Dirt is no less natural to horses than grass.

The breakdown stats were a mess until they started tracking and keeping them them recently. The whole point of establishing the databank was that there was nobody accurately doing it before. And comparing different breeds or countries especially with incomplete data is a gigantic waste of time.

You cant use the stats to say that synthetic tracks are safer then discount the same stats saying that they aren't. I know the entire process is seriously flawed and pretty much discount the entire thing. Synthetic surfaces are not better or worse in my experience in training on them. They create a lot of different issues and there are many problems that are unique to synthetics.