Santa Anita gets 2008 Breeders Cup

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What drives me nuts is that everyone automatically assumes "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good" when it comes to horses' health. And while, yes, it's proven that artificial surfaces are easier on the horses, I don't see a ton of breakdowns in NY racing, and I think it's because the dirt tracks are much deeper than they are anywhere else. I just feel that any track that has a lot of injuries or breakdowns goes "Oh, that's it, we've gotta get polytrack" and takes the easy way out rather than actually using some brainpower and figuring out how to improve the dirt surface.

The bottom line is that, like it or not, the betting public's needs and wants come before the horses' safety. I'm sorry, you might not like hearing it, but it's the cold reality of a gambling-driven sport. If everyone suddenly stopped betting polytrack races, the tracks would have to either figure out a way to make it play more like dirt, or rip it up all together. Do I think it should be that way? Ideally, no. Am I advocating ripping up all polytrack? No. But if you think the wave of tracks moving to artificial surfaces isn't partly or wholly influenced by the fact that people still bet Turfway and Keeneland when they switched, I think you're delusional.

The issue is not necessarily "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good," but rather Polytrack is better when it comes to the horses' health, which you concede. As for breakdowns, keep in mind that what you see in the afternoon is only a portion of the problem. I've experienced more injuries in the morning with our horses than any injuries in the afternoon, and the majority of horsemen attest to the fact that the horses do better over synthetic surfaces.

As for the second bolded portion of your post, I admire your honesty, no matter how wrong-headed and uncaring for the horse that I think the statement is. At the end of the day, the market is speaking about whether it likes the racing - and both Keeneland and Hollywood have seen dramatic increases in handle, despite the number of people I hear saying that they are "boycotting" racing over these surfaces.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What drives me nuts is that everyone automatically assumes "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good" when it comes to horses' health. And while, yes, it's proven that artificial surfaces are easier on the horses, I don't see a ton of breakdowns in NY racing, and I think it's because the dirt tracks are much deeper than they are anywhere else. I just feel that any track that has a lot of injuries or breakdowns goes "Oh, that's it, we've gotta get polytrack" and takes the easy way out rather than actually using some brainpower and figuring out how to improve the dirt surface.

The bottom line is that, like it or not, the betting public's needs and wants come before the horses' safety. I'm sorry, you might not like hearing it, but it's the cold reality of a gambling-driven sport. If everyone suddenly stopped betting polytrack races, the tracks would have to either figure out a way to make it play more like dirt, or rip it up all together. Do I think it should be that way? Ideally, no. Am I advocating ripping up all polytrack? No. But if you think the wave of tracks moving to artificial surfaces isn't partly or wholly influenced by the fact that people still bet Turfway and Keeneland when they switched, I think you're delusional.

Why does , Because its always been done this way =Thats the way it should stay and Change = everyone is going to stop betting ?
How do you know what the stats for breakdowns are at any given racetrack? How do you know how many horses are turned out that dont break down on the track but come back bad at the barn ? You dont , you dont run your hand down horses legs every morning , you dont see the diffirence in the horses legs that train on traditional dirt surface compared to the horses that train on cushion track.
You say betters dont care about horse safety , but I bet they care when fields are reduced to 5 horses and there is only a small margin between odds.
To be honest I dont care if you ever bet another race in your life , because there will always be one more person standing in line at the window or betting from home. Dont fool yourself into believing that me making a living depends on your dollar , because it doesnt , I get paid a wage and my boss gets paid by the head and the people he trains for have more money to blow on horses than they will ever be able to spend before they die. They are not soley in this game for winning purses , they are also in it for the sport and the bragging rights, they all have breeding farms and sell horses and stand them at stud.
So dont bet any artificial surfaces , do what you think is best for you, but when the Hollywood meet starts I want you to prove to me that Cushion track doesnt play fair.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

At the end of the day, the market is speaking about whether it likes the racing - and both Keeneland and Hollywood have seen dramatic increases in handle.

I can tell you're not a bettor---that's for sure.

Bettors like competitive races with full fields---and when you can card them, handle will absolutely thrive. It doesn't matter if the races are run over dirt, turf, poly-track, cotton balls or broken glass.

Horseman are supporting this surface strongly---Eastern trainers sent strings West for HP, and interest to run at KEE has increased greatly.

IMO, Artifical dirt surfaces are great ideas for mid-level and cheap racetracks in weather sensative parts of the country.

Once again though---when horseman stop over-medicating horses, and when commerical breeders start breeding for soundness....I think the people who say they care so much about the welfare of the horse might be taken more seriously.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I can tell you're not a bettor---that's for sure.

No, you can't.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Honu

Dont fool yourself into believing that me making a living depends on your dollar , because it doesnt , I get paid a wage and my boss gets paid by the head and the people he trains for have more money to blow on horses than they will ever be able to spend before they die. They are not soley in this game for winning purses , they are also in it for the sport and the bragging rights, they all have breeding farms and sell horses and stand them at stud.

Wow....nice touch.

That kind of attitude might get you elected president of a horsemans organization.

[parsixfarms]

I could see this coming. I really do not wish to get into a debate about who's more important to racing: bettors or owners (I am both). Let's stipulate that both are necessary for racing to thrive. What does bother me is the suggestion that either should be placed above the interests of the horse.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It doesn't matter if the races are run over dirt, turf, poly-track, cotton balls or broken glass.

Cotton balls? Too funny...

[The Bid]

F polytrack

[Honu]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Wow....nice touch.

That kind of attitude might get you elected president of a horsemans organization.

Dont wanna be , if I had my way right now Id be catchin waves in Hawaii , but for now Im just a horse whore.
Dont be so sensitive , he can say the horses soundness doesnt matter and thats ok , but if I say I dont care if he ever bets another race again Im an asswipe. Whatever

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I could see this coming. I really do not wish to get into a debate about who's more important to racing: bettors or owners (I am both). Let's stipulate that both are necessary for racing to thrive. What does bother me is the suggestion that either should be placed above the interests of the horse.

I've always been a bettor, and in the past I've owned a few lower level claiming horses. I agree that both owners and bettors are very important to racing. I don't talk to many current owners, and I know two who detest artifical surfaces. While the consensus of owners may favor artifical surfaces, I'm not so sure it's a strong consensus....and I'm not so sure they aren't basing there approval on what they are hearing from horsemen.

From a bettors prospective, this "welfare of the horse" arguement just seems incredibly hypocritical. When you look at the actions of horseman and commerical breeders over the past few decades---you'll see two groups who have placed themselves MILES above the interests of the horse.

From a racing fans prospective, and I can't speak for everyone when I say this, but I am in the camp that feels these races just plain aren't that fun to watch.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Honu

Dont be so sensitive , he can say the horses soundness doesnt matter and thats ok , but if I say I dont care if he ever bets another race again Im an asswipe. Whatever

That's one thing I'm rarely accused of being.

Please link me to where I said the horses soundness doesn't matter. .

[Honu]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

That's one thing I'm rarely accused of being.

Please link me to where I said the horses soundness doesn't matter. .

I didnt say you , I quoted Ateamstupid as you can clearly see in the posting .

[parsixfarms]

I think that your ire about over-medicated horses is properly directed towards a minority of trainers (there is a difference between a trainer and a horseman); most of these individuals train for owners who can afford to spare no expense when it comes to veterinary bills. As you probably know from your experience, owners of low level claiming horses cannot afford four-figure vet bills.

As for commercial breeders, I agree that their overemphasis on speed (perhaps over soundness) has been detrimental to the breed. However, if Polytrack and other artificial surfaces force breeders to plan matings that are more geared towards stamina, I think that's a good thing. Eventually, the marketplace will adjust, and not every son of Storm Cat or Unbridled's Song will get a chance to stand at stud somewhere.

As for your final point, I guess we can agree to disagree. I much prefer racing over the "new" Keeneland where seemingly all horses can get involved in the race than the "old" conveyor-belt Keeneland where horses drawn outside had virtually no chance; just like I enjoy turf racing.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I much prefer racing over the "new" Keeneland where seemingly all horses can get involved in the race than the "old" conveyor-belt Keeneland where horses drawn outside had virtually no chance; just like I enjoy turf racing.

KEE new and old is from one extreme to the other.

Personally, I didn't like watching races at either one from a fan standpoint. The old KEE racetrack was very unfair to horses caught wide, or void of speed. It was my least favorite of the dirt tracks.

From a bettors standpoint---I think the old KEE dirt presented better oppertunites, because you can make note of the horses who ran well against the grain of the track, and bet them back if placed correctly next time out. Or, you could confidently bet against a horse who took advantage of the bias.

I agree with you that not all trainers are as guilty as others when it comes to medication.....and it's unrealistic to expect trainers to all go back to hay, oats, and water.

The popularity of the sport is always taking a hit because nothing is ever to the fans advantage. And certainly, we all know in this industry, that NOTHING IS EVER to the advantage of the bettor.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

JOEY,how many more times we gunna have to see the hype -build up to the B.C., and then see the track is whack? I am over these biased dirt tracks on B.C. day.On that one day,I want it to be an unbiased track...o.k.? If the Artificial tracks are 'biased" against certain horses,atleast you know that going into the day.You don't have to wait until 3-4 races in.Even if ya see the bias 3-4 races in,people are gunna tell ya there ain't a bias.

I agree that the tracks on BC day are usually a disgrace, dirt or otherwise. But I disagree that artificial tracks make it easier to spot the biases. I've seen days at Keeneland where one day, it's playing to speed and the next day, it's playing to closers, or even one race and then the next race. I think unlike on those big days, where it's pretty easy to see a dead rail or a live rail, on artificial tracks, biases can change at the drop of a hat.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

As for the second bolded portion of your post, I admire your honesty, no matter how wrong-headed and uncaring for the horse that I think the statement is.

Originally Posted by Honu

o sensitive , he can say the horses soundness doesnt matter and thats ok , but if I say I dont care if he ever bets another race again Im an asswipe. Whatever

Look, let's get one thing straight. I'm not saying that the horses' health doesn't matter to me, I'm saying that I think the betting public's needs and wants come before it in general, and that the recent wave of switches to artificial surfaces has a lot to do with the fact that people apparently aren't going to not bet it. What I would like to see is an improvement in the safety of dirt tracks, not a bunch of racetracks throwing up their hands and saying "there's nothing we can do, put up the fake stuff, they'll bet it anyway." You may say that it's impossible to make dirt tracks totally safe, and I guess you would know better than I do, but I find it hard to believe that there's nothing that can be done.

I think this comes down to a bettors vs. horsemen argument, and I have no interest in being the insensitive bad guy, because just like I won't bet polytrack because the results are too flukey, I won't bet a track that has a million breakdowns and sore horses because I don't want to support a track that isn't doing enough to ensure its horses' safety.

Once again, I love horses and I care very much about their safety. Don't twist my words into something different.

[Honu]

Ateam, dude I understand where you are coming from ok , I get a lil hot headed sometimes.
On a whole , not just for racing but for all around training the synthetic material that I have ridden on and trained on doesnt have as hard an impact on the horses legs as traditional dirt. The horses seem happier training on it , they dont seem to develope problems as quickly , which means in the long run horses will stay in training longer , race more often with better results.
I dont know what Polytrack is like yet but I will in a few months at Del Mar.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Once again, I love horses and I care very much about their safety. Don't twist my words into something different.

Exactly.

Here's an interesting stat. "In 1960, before permissive medications became legal, the average american racehorse ran 11.3 times in a year. By 2005, that number had plummeted to just 6.4 starts per year."

The track cushion at major circuits is deeper today than it has ever been. Does anyone really believe this is so because dirt tracks are unsafe? Horses have been racing on dirt tracks for a long time. Who ought to be held accountable for this trend?

I don't know---it's just a little bit disconcerting to me when I hear "the welfair of the horse" being trumpeted by those most responsible for this trend....and used against bettors and racing fans who have every right to believe this artifical surface movement is moving way too fast.

When I heard an artifical surface was going in at Turfway, I thought it was excellent news. I don't like the way it's been shoved down our throats though. It would have been far more prudent to start off using the surface at cheap-to-mid level tracks in weather sensative parts of the country...and let all sides study them for a few years.

Two years ago, did anyone really think EVERY major track in Southern and Northern California would have an artificial surface?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Exactly.

Here's an interesting stat. "In 1960, before permissive medications became legal, the average american racehorse ran 11.3 times in a year. By 2005, that number had plummeted to just 6.4 starts per year."

This often stated fact actually is misused in the whole context of horses and their soundness as it relates to medication. The fact that the pool of horses almost doubled between 1960 and 1980 is the real reason that the starts per horse per year dropped so dramatically. If you take into consideration that since the mid eighties 2 year olds have been campaigned much lighter, you can understand how this could pull down the avg starts further. One stat that is almost never quoted is the fact that field size has remained pretty constant during the entire era from 1960 despite a stretch during the 80's where there were a signifigant rise in the number of races run. The truth is that field size has dropped from an average of 9 horses per race in 1960 to a little over 8 per race now. I personally believe that if you eliminated 2 year olds entirely from the mix and only compared the avg starts for 3 year olds and up the difference would be much less.

Of course you can just continue to use one flawed stat that props up a weak argument that most of the industry believes. Of course this is the same industry that thought that OTB's and exotic wagers would not work.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I agree that the tracks on BC day are usually a disgrace, dirt or otherwise. But I disagree that artificial tracks make it easier to spot the biases. I've seen days at Keeneland where one day, it's playing to speed and the next day, it's playing to closers, or even one race and then the next race. I think unlike on those big days, where it's pretty easy to see a dead rail or a live rail, on artificial tracks, biases can change at the drop of a hat.

Well the artificial I am most familiar with is cushion track,and I think one of the positives to racing on it is it's fairness (front,back,inside,outside.)I am not gunna tell ya I was great at cappin' on it,but wasn't cuz it was unfair to the front,back ,inside, outside.Sure,they didn't understand how to maintain it properly,and they created some bias by f'n it up on certain days,but still it was the most fair racing I have seen in 25 years.People will get better at cappin' on it.Of course it was hard to win betting on horses running on a new surface.We have been through the worst part,and now have some horses with records on it.What I am looking forward to is the field sizes(that is crucial to SOCAL RACING.)

[timmgirvan]

Ateam: I think Kasept should send you to 08 BCC as the official on-the-spot reporter, as judged by your spectacular Toga musings!