CushionTrack: "We'll fix or replace SA surface"

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by JJP

The same horsemen who have made drugs such a major factor in racing? Maybe if the horsemen didn't rely on illicit elixirs, none of this nonsense about "healing the horses" would've come up in the first place.

Before Turfway debuted their Polytrack in 2005, NOBODY said a word about diminishing injuries. The only thing that was mentioned was not having the cancellations that racing in Cincinnati in January can bring. It wasn't until the first meet was over that Turfway management started mentioning the injuries being down. Then TVG ran with it as did the rest of media. Turfway is one track that had a legitimate reason to install a synthetic surface; these California tracks were ignorant to rush into it.

"It wasn't until the first meet was over that Turfway management started mentioning the injuries being down. Then TVG ran with it as did the rest of media. Turfway is one track that had a legitimate reason to install a synthetic surface; these California tracks were ignorant to rush into it."

i must miss your point.

synthetic surfaces were created as all weather tracks. as a side effect they are kinder to runners.

so they should only be installed where it snows?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Idiot Proof is over rated. He has two wins on synthetic and 3 on dirt.
I just don't see where he should be rated as some kind of dirt monster brought low by the surface. Maybe he isn't as good on synthetic as dirt, so what?

In Summation is more of a bust on turf, not dirt. His turf record is 6 starts, 1 win, 3 places. His dirt record is 9 starts, 4 wins, 1 place. His synthetic record is 4 starts, 3 wins, 1 place. He is actually shown to be quite versatile on any surface.

The BC sprint is a toss in my mind, and not indicative of much. Midnite Lute has also confirmed that.

Idiot Proof has a monster win at Monmouth in what I think was a track record and then a second in the BC Sprint. You could argue he is a horse for the course at Monmouth but there is no way you can claim he isn't very talented on the dirt and has run his two best races by far on it.

I don't have In Summation's PPs in front of me but from what I remember those early dirt wins were over statebred 2yos. Once he used up his conditions he was no longer able to compete on the dirt but could on the turf before he really found his home on the synthetics.

Midnight Lute losing to Daaher at a mile is indicative that the BC Sprint is a toss? Are we watching the same sport?

[JJP]

Originally Posted by Scav

I would be careful here JJP, throwing drugs into this conversation is going to be gasoline, and their is only a few that are doing it in regards to drugs

Hono's employer is one that is most defintely not doing it in my opinion

I'm not accusing anyone in particular, but like Da Hoss says, I believe it is fairly widespread. I don't think there's any denying that years of drug use have made the breed more prone to injuries and ailments.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

"It wasn't until the first meet was over that Turfway management started mentioning the injuries being down. Then TVG ran with it as did the rest of media. Turfway is one track that had a legitimate reason to install a synthetic surface; these California tracks were ignorant to rush into it."

i must miss your point.

synthetic surfaces were created as all weather tracks. as a side effect they are kinder to runners.

so they should only be installed where it snows?

My point was that the intent was to enable places like Turfway and Woodbine to race in the harsh weather, and cut down on cancellations. To answer your last question, realistically, thats probably a good idea. I could see NYRA installing a synethetic surface for Aqueduct but I doubt you'll ever see the Fair Grounds or Gulfstream put one in. Thank God.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by JJP

I'm not accusing anyone in particular, but like Da Hoss says, I believe it is fairly widespread. I don't think there's any denying that years of drug use have made the breed more prone to injuries and ailments.

I do not think it is widespread, I think there are a few per circuit that most people can name that are, they are one step ahead. Sooner or later things will even out, in this day in age, everyone is watching, and everyone is in everyones business.

If I get bored one day I will put together "Scav's list of drug users"

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Midnight Lute losing to Daaher at a mile is indicative that the BC Sprint is a toss? Are we watching the same sport?

apparently not.

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Midnight Lute is another horse who probably did not come out of the race 100%. He didn't look like the same horse in the Cigar Mile. His BC sprint win was certainly no fluke. That was not the first time he ran a race like that. He ran just as huge in the Forego.

I'm telling you, when you run in the slop you are very lucky if you come out of the race in one piece.

The voice of reason.

A well constructed synthetic track like Keeneland can handle rain and eliminate the slop factor. They proved it last meet. The week of the BC at Monmouth, Keeneland was deluged for two days and the track was as good as if it had never rained.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Thanks for answering.

Obviously, I don't live in SoCal, but I know that I've seen -- everyone who follows racing has seen -- mudslide proportion rainfall in January and February, as opposed to November, when Hollywood runs.

Good luck with your stable.

they were originally trying to find a way to deal with the 110 degree heat, not a drainage problem...then the finer sand that they went with to try to deal with the heat created the drainage issue. so now they're back to square one, they created a problem by trying to eliminate a different problem. once the drainage is taken care of, will they have a proper mix to deal with the heat they will encounter?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by JJP

I'm not accusing anyone in particular, but like Da Hoss says, I believe it is fairly widespread. I don't think there's any denying that years of drug use have made the breed more prone to injuries and ailments.

I believe that uninformed opinions that have no basis or evidence are much more dangerous than all the supposed drug use going on. Trying to tie 'drug use' and genetics is a stretch at best, rubbish at worst. The fact that people within the industry have made similar statements does not excuse the fact that they are wrong also.

[my miss storm cat]

I really have nothing to add here but i thought I'd post this anyway.

Not defending Idiot Proof.... I like him although he wasn't my pick for this race.

For the sake of fairness, and since this race was discussed, this is from SA barn notes.....

http://www.santaanita.com/news/sn.ph...january3rd2008


Idiot Proof was not himself after finishing third as the 3-5 favorite in Tuesday’s El Conejo Handicap. “He was sick that night,” trainer Cliff Sise Jr. said Thursday morning. “After he cooled out, he laid down in his stall for like a half an hour, which he’s never done. He wouldn’t touch his feed and his temperature was 1:01.4, so I had a vet come and treat him. The horse was a little gassy, but a few hours later, he was OK and he acted good yesterday morning, but something upset his stomach the day of the race. He just wasn’t right.” .

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I believe that uninformed opinions that have no basis or evidence are much more dangerous than all the supposed drug use going on. Trying to tie 'drug use' and genetics is a stretch at best, rubbish at worst. The fact that people within the industry have made similar statements does not excuse the fact that they are wrong also.

You are too kind.
It is worse than rubbish.
Basically this says that
the use of drugs that enhance performance
or just allow a horse to run, changes
the DNA in sex cells of
thoroughbreds.

The poster will win a Nobel prize
in Biology and reverse the last 60 years
of research in Biochemistry if this is proven.

Or was the poster just saying that it does not
allow breeders, etc... to cull horses that have obvious
defects that MAY be genetic because the drugs mask it?

[JJP]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I believe that uninformed opinions that have no basis or evidence are much more dangerous than all the supposed drug use going on. Trying to tie 'drug use' and genetics is a stretch at best, rubbish at worst. The fact that people within the industry have made similar statements does not excuse the fact that they are wrong also.

OK, then how else can one explain the increased brittleness of the breed? The average number of starts per horse per year keeps declining. Over the past 30-40 years, they've been huge declines. Change in training methods? Maybe but why the need? Obviously quite a few barns feel the need to rest their horses as much as possible, apparently because they feel their horses can't handle a heavier workload. Is everyone juicing? Of course not. But, lets face it; a lot of these so-called super trainers have had more than one post race positive.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by JJP

OK, then how else can one explain the increased brittleness of the breed? The average number of starts per horse per year keeps declining. Over the past 30-40 years, they've been huge declines. Change in training methods? Maybe but why the need? Obviously quite a few barns feel the need to rest their horses as much as possible, apparently because they feel their horses can't handle a heavier workload. Is everyone juicing? Of course not. But, lets face it; a lot of these so-called super trainers have had more than one post race positive.

global warming.......ask the nobel prize winner...and father of the internet

[Stall Mucker]

I thought the following:

Polytrack race tracks-usually always listed as fast

Tapeta- usually listed as Tapeta

Cushion- usually listed as Cushion

Santa Anita lists their cushion as FAST

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by JJP

OK, then how else can one explain the increased brittleness of the breed? The average number of starts per horse per year keeps declining. Over the past 30-40 years, they've been huge declines. Change in training methods? Maybe but why the need? Obviously quite a few barns feel the need to rest their horses as much as possible, apparently because they feel their horses can't handle a heavier workload. Is everyone juicing? Of course not. But, lets face it; a lot of these so-called super trainers have had more than one post race positive.

Since cmorioles thinks I am a know it all I will defer to Dr Larry Bramlage in his recent Bloodhorse chat.



Maple Shade, NJ:
Hi Dr. Bramlage, So glad you are chatting with us! My question is about the source of breakdowns. I have done some research on this and it does seem that horses started to breakdown more regularly and with lighter schedules in the late sixties. Now, it seems commonplace. Do you think it has more to do with steroid use, light training or inbreeding to a few sire lines. Also, how do you feel about horses that were not that sound themselves being hot property in the breeding world? Isn't this just passing along more unsoundness?

Bramlage:
Please refer to the earlier question on weakening of the breed. We don't place a premium on longevity or soundness in the market. Because the market does not pay a premium for it, horses are not selected for soundness, just extreme ability. Extreme ability comes at a price. A bigger engine with a lighter undercarriage is lighter and faster, if it is a car or a horse. Data shows that even though horses race fewer times, the training and the races are tougher, so the demand is higher than 50 years ago. So many factors weigh into this analysis we could discuss it for a long time, but it does not mean that we should accept anything that we can modify for the better as unchangeable. That is why the new nationwide documentation of injury is so vital, important and promising. It is time we critically assess each injury.



and...



Lexington, KY:
What in your opinion would happen to field sizes if U.S. racing were to go to absolutely no race-day medication?

Bramlage:
My opinion, nothing. The average field size has decreased less than one horse per field in the last 60 years. When we calculated the average field size it went from approximately 8.9 horses/field to 8.1 horses/field in 60 years. The leveling influence in the field size is that there is not a lot of demand to run 10th through 14th. If you enter and the field comes up very tough, the current mentality is to scratch and run the next opportunity. That is not how it is supposed to be, but it is the reality, partially driven by the cost of keeping a horse in training, and the need to be competitive when you run. We raise five times more horses each year than we did in each year in the1950’s. The number of racing opportunities is about equal. We have fewer tracks, but they have more dates. This means that if each horse was willing to run in about the equal proportion to what they ran in 1950, the average field would be 40 horses. Field size is most closely linked to the opportunity to be competitive.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Since cmorioles thinks I am a know it all I will defer to Dr Larry Bramlage in his recent Bloodhorse chat.



Maple Shade, NJ:
Hi Dr. Bramlage, So glad you are chatting with us! My question is about the source of breakdowns. I have done some research on this and it does seem that horses started to breakdown more regularly and with lighter schedules in the late sixties. Now, it seems commonplace. Do you think it has more to do with steroid use, light training or inbreeding to a few sire lines. Also, how do you feel about horses that were not that sound themselves being hot property in the breeding world? Isn't this just passing along more unsoundness?

Bramlage:
Please refer to the earlier question on weakening of the breed. We don't place a premium on longevity or soundness in the market. Because the market does not pay a premium for it, horses are not selected for soundness, just extreme ability. Extreme ability comes at a price. A bigger engine with a lighter undercarriage is lighter and faster, if it is a car or a horse. Data shows that even though horses race fewer times, the training and the races are tougher, so the demand is higher than 50 years ago. So many factors weigh into this analysis we could discuss it for a long time, but it does not mean that we should accept anything that we can modify for the better as unchangeable. That is why the new nationwide documentation of injury is so vital, important and promising. It is time we critically assess each injury.



and...



Lexington, KY:
What in your opinion would happen to field sizes if U.S. racing were to go to absolutely no race-day medication?

Bramlage:
My opinion, nothing. The average field size has decreased less than one horse per field in the last 60 years. When we calculated the average field size it went from approximately 8.9 horses/field to 8.1 horses/field in 60 years. The leveling influence in the field size is that there is not a lot of demand to run 10th through 14th. If you enter and the field comes up very tough, the current mentality is to scratch and run the next opportunity. That is not how it is supposed to be, but it is the reality, partially driven by the cost of keeping a horse in training, and the need to be competitive when you run. We raise five times more horses each year than we did in each year in the1950’s. The number of racing opportunities is about equal. We have fewer tracks, but they have more dates. This means that if each horse was willing to run in about the equal proportion to what they ran in 1950, the average field would be 40 horses. Field size is most closely linked to the opportunity to be competitive.

yea chuck ya know it all....zip it mr....stop running your sewer...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

yea chuck ya know it all....zip it mr....stop running your sewer...

Sorry for taking up your bandwidth

[Riot]

Chuck forgot my favorite Dr. Bramlage descriptor of the TB racehorse (and he did two days on Bloodhorse, it's still up if you guys want to read it, really good stuff)

Shawnee, KS:
With the push for more tracks to go to a synthetic surface ... or are we just trying to gloss over problems within our breeding industry. I.E. too much inbreeding and or an over saturation of less than quality individuals being bred?

Bramlage:
The data is pretty strong that catastrophic injuries .... This is why we will never eliminate injuries totally. Success is predicated on the fact that our athletes carry the minimum skeleton necessary. They run right on the edge of their physiology.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Sorry for taking up your bandwidth

lighten up eh..i was kidding.....yesh tough crowd!!