Santa Anita not racing Saturday?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Rupe, if the CHRB/SA are dumb enough to tear that track out and install another Polytrack they are out of their minds. With the rate of breakdowns at GG, the least they can do is lay the dirt and wait to see if the tracks can be tweaked where performance is acceptable. Carnival of fools.

I can't comment on Golden Gate because I haven't heard anything. But I don't see any reason why they wouldn't put in another synthetic surface at Santa Anita. I know there have been problems with synthetic surfaces at some places but overall I think the pros outweigh the cons.

I think the track at Keeneland is a huge improvement over the old track. I think Hollywood's track is a huge improvement. Chuck says that Turfway is a huge improvement. I'm not crazy about Del Mar. I think it's much safer than the old surface but I think it's way too slow and many horses don't seem to like it. In addition, it's very hard to handicap. I hope they can slightly tweak it for this year's meet and at least speed it up a little.

Now just because these new synthetic surfaces were a big improvement to the old tracks, that's not to say that a new, natural dirt surface wouldn't have been just as big of an improvement. I really don't know the answer to that.

[The Bid]

I thought having to tear a track down to bare bones and the mass breakdowns at GG would be a little bit of a reason. Keeneland is better in which way? Because they dont have the speed bias, or because the injuries were way up significantly? As much as I respect Chuck's opinion, I would disagree completely with Turfway being a good surface.

Tweaking isnt ripping a track up, or adding a zillion gallons of wax and sneakers because you cant keep the kickback down, or its freezing, or balling up. Thats not tweaking, thats incompetance, and lack of forethought. Its amazing that this has happened considering the promises made prior to installation. Whether people want to believe it or not these tracks were sold as low upkeep, safe, all weather surfaces. Why now are people willing to accept the shortcomings?

These new surfaces are not only a great failure, they havent improved anything except initial handle, then they dip back to normal. Infact TWP took a huge decline, of course Ellison said its due to contracts which is understandable. However, even with that the handle is down a considerable amount.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Bid

I thought having to tear a track down to bare bones and the mass breakdowns at GG would be a little bit of a reason. Keeneland is better in which way? Because they dont have the speed bias, or because the injuries were way up significantly? As much as I respect Chuck's opinion, I would disagree completely with Turfway being a good surface.

Tweaking isnt ripping a track up, or adding a zillion gallons of wax and sneakers because you cant keep the kickback down, or its freezing, or balling up. Thats not tweaking, thats incompetance, and lack of forethought. Its amazing that this has happened considering the promises made prior to installation. Whether people want to believe it or not these tracks were sold as low upkeep, safe, all weather surfaces. Why now are people willing to accept the shortcomings?

These new surfaces are not only a great failure, they havent improved anything except initial handle, then they dip back to normal. Infact TWP took a huge decline, of course Ellison said its due to contracts which is understandable. However, even with that the handle is down a considerable amount.

From all the reports I've been getting, the injuries are way down at most of these tracks. The injuries are way down and the field size is way up. I think Arlington is another track where the synthetic surface has been a huge success.

If the injuries are way up on these synthetic surfaces, then the field size would be going down. That is not the case. The opposite has been happening. The field sizes have been increasing.

You say that injuries are way up at Keeneland. I know that injuries were way down initially. I would like to see the data that you are looking at. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I haven't seen the data. There are many ways of analyzing data. Where did you get the info? I would like to take a look at it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Bid

As much as I respect Chuck's opinion, I would disagree completely with Turfway being a good surface.

I didnt say it was good, just better than what previously existed there.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can't comment on Golden Gate because I haven't heard anything. But I don't see any reason why they wouldn't put in another synthetic surface at Santa Anita. I know there have been problems with synthetic surfaces at some places but overall I think the pros outweigh the cons.

I think the track at Keeneland is a huge improvement over the old track. I think Hollywood's track is a huge improvement. Chuck says that Turfway is a huge improvement. I'm not crazy about Del Mar. I think it's much safer than the old surface but I think its way too slow and many horses don't seem to like it. In addition, it's very hard to handicap. I hope they can slightly tweak it for this year's meet and at least speed it up a little.

Now just because these new synthetic surfaces were a big improvement to the old tracks, that's not to say that a new, natural dirt surface wouldn't have been just as big of an improvement. I really don't know the answer to that.

hearing that quite a bit lately...and it's true.

hollywood showed the other cali tracks the right way to do it, hopefully the others can follow suit. i expect del mar will make a move in the right direction, they'll be better this year ( but then, how could it get worse??).

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

hearing that quite a bit lately...and it's true.

hollywood showed the other cali tracks the right way to do it, hopefully the others can follow suit. i expect del mar will make a move in the right direction, they'll be better this year ( but then, how could it get worse??).

At Del Mar, I think if they put just a tiny bit of water on the track in the afternoon that it would make a huge difference. It would tighten the track up and speed it up a little up. One of the major complaints is that the track at Del Mar is different in the mornings from the afternoons. In the morning, the temperature is much cooler and there is much more moisture in the air. The track is much tighter under those conditions. In the afternoon when it is much hotter outside, the track loosens up and gets very slow. I think just slightly watering the track in the afternoon would help quite a bit.

[The Bid]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/nat...d-meeting.aspx

In this article Beasley says the weather played a factor. Why would the weather play a factor on an all weather track?

Rupe, the one stat that was mind boggling to me was Golden Gate a few weeks ago. They had a 6 day stretch where 12 horses were eased, 7 were vanned off lame, and 5 were euthanized on track.

[Danzig]

c'mon bid...it's called all weather as it's supposed to be raceable in all weather, not because it plays the same in all weather.

[The Bid]

Danzig, did they run today at Santa Anita or did I miss something? Why did they delay GG 45 minutes post rain, then have 5 vanned off on that particular card, because its all weather?

Beasley said some people have cited the hot temperatures early in the meeting as one possible reason for the increased injuries.

“A lot of people have thought that the weather may have played a factor in this, but unfortunately, we also had some breakdowns after the temperatures cooled,” Beasley said.

You need to read the article, Im not talking about the way the track played, I am talking about the composition changing due to temp changes.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Danzig, did they run today at Santa Anita or did I miss something? Why did they delay GG 45 minutes post rain, then have 5 vanned off on the card, because its all weather?

Beasley said some people have cited the hot temperatures early in the meeting as one possible reason for the increased injuries.

“A lot of people have thought that the weather may have played a factor in this, but unfortunately, we also had some breakdowns after the temperatures cooled,” Beasley said.

You need to read the article, Im not talking about the way the track played, I am talking about the composition changing due to temp changes.

what track could run after the storms they had in cali?

yeah, they screwed up with the drainage system. they'll fix it. but it's too soon to call this thing a colossal blunder. they need to concede however that this season is toast, move to hollywood and fix the problem now. no time like the present and all that....before everyone cancels the season for them by taking their toys and going home.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Bid

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/nat...d-meeting.aspx

In this article Beasley says the weather played a factor. Why would the weather play a factor on an all weather track?

Rupe, the one stat that was mind boggling to me was Golden Gate a few weeks ago. They had a 6 day stretch where 12 horses were eased, 7 were vanned off lame, and 5 were euthanized on track.

Just because more horses got hurt at Keeneland this meet as compared to last meet on their polytrack, that hardly means that injuries are up overall. All the data shows exactly the opposite.

Your argument about Keeneland is absurd. I'll give you an analogy. Let's say there is a brunette who gets asked out on 1 or 2 dates a week. Then she dyes her hair blond and starts getting asked out on 15 dates a week. Then the following week, she only gets asked out on 8 dates. Would you say that the blond hair doesn't work? Her numbers have gotten worse. Of course not. You would say the opposite.

Just because there have been more breakdowns at this meet than then at the prior polytrack meet at Keeneland, that doesn't mean anything. What matters is whether there are more injuries now as compared to when they had regular dirt at Keeneland.

At Keeneland, Hollywood, and Arlington the number of breakdowns has gone way down since they put in the synthetic surface. Injuries have gone way down, horses are staying much sounder, and the field sizes have gone way up. Those are the facts.

With regard to Santa Anita, I totally agree with you. They botched the job. The track at Santa Anita is a nightmare but that doesn't mean that all synthetic surfaces are bad.