now nyra is thinking about it

[sumitas]

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

http://thoroughbredtimes.com/nationa...-surfaces.aspx

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

http://thoroughbredtimes.com/nationa...-surfaces.aspx

Well then I guess it is settled.

[slotdirt]

WELL then, if Jack Knowlton said it, then clearly it must be fact.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

http://thoroughbredtimes.com/nationa...-surfaces.aspx

Where does he say this.....not that I saw in the linked story

[sumitas]

“The data thus far shows a reduction in fatal injuries, maybe 25%,” Knowlton said.

But he said that trainers are reporting more soft tissue, back and hind-quarter injuries with artificial material."


from the Tbred times link in my post.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by sumitas

“The data thus far shows a reduction in fatal injuries, maybe 25%,” Knowlton said.

But he said that trainers are reporting more soft tissue, back and hind-quarter injuries with artificial material."


from the Tbred times link in my post.

I stand corrected

[sumitas]

I do understand that systhetics are evolving. They don't have the ideal track yet. I was overly optimistic at their initial North American introduction. On balance, are they the way to proceed ? Zito has volunteered to chair a commission of 3 trainers (2 named by the state) to research the cost/benefits of state of the art dirt vs. synth.

[pgiaco]

Am I missing something? Is there anything to suggest that the NYRA main tracks are unsafe or are responsible for an increased incidence of injuries or breakdowns?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by pgiaco

Am I missing something? Is there anything to suggest that the NYRA main tracks are unsafe or are responsible for an increased incidence of injuries or breakdowns?

Nope, but the synthetic advocates keep spouting off improved numbers based on tracks that made the switch cause they had such high breakdown rates and of course their breakdown rates were going to improve the next year whether they stuck with the same track, put in a new dirt one, or put in a synthetic. That is what happens when you have an outlier in a data series, it regresses to the mean the following year.

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by pgiaco

Am I missing something? Is there anything to suggest that the NYRA main tracks are unsafe or are responsible for an increased incidence of injuries or breakdowns?

Of course we recall that one record after another fell at the Spa last meet. And how many horses were injured there? Majestic Warrior has never been the same, Mymayonniase has dropped from sight, etc. The Spa super hard track conditions were vehemently criticised last August.

Reflecting back to last fall when a huge deluge covered the mideast for the week of the BC. Keeneland was super impressive with their drainage and the track played much the same throughout their 17 day meet, regardless of rain. Now compare that with Monmouth or any dirt track under those conditions.

[SniperSB23]

How about we compare the safe dirt tracks with the synthetics before all these people come up with meaningless statistics to support their case? What the committee should do is for the next two years track the all weather tracks against SAR, BEL, AQU, CD, GP, FG, and OAK and see what the results show. Make it clear to those tracks that if any of their individual breakdown rates are significantly higher than the average of the synthetic tracks, AND the dirt tracks as a group come out higher in breakdowns than the synthetics that pressure will be put on those tracks to switch to synthetics. If they show that dirt is just as safe or safer, or they can show that their individual track is as safe as the synthetics on average then they are free to keep dirt with no pressure from anyone. The current crap that is being compared is completely meaningless.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

How about we compare the safe dirt tracks with the synthetics before all these people come up with meaningless statistics to support their case? What the committee should do is for the next two years track the all weather tracks against SAR, BEL, AQU, CD, GP, FG, and OAK and see what the results show. Make it clear to those tracks that if any of their individual breakdown rates are significantly higher than the average of the synthetic tracks, AND the dirt tracks as a group come out higher in breakdowns than the synthetics that pressure will be put on those tracks to switch to synthetics. If they show that dirt is just as safe or safer, or they can show that their individual track is as safe as the synthetics on average then they are free to keep dirt with no pressure from anyone. The current crap that is being compared is completely meaningless.

I feel ya man!! I dont know how they can compare top class horses running at del mar (eventhough they had there fair share of fatalities last summer) to a place that runs broken down claimers like finger lakes or mountaineer. No **** the numbers will be different. I totally agree with the tracks you chose to compare with artifical tracks.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Jack Knowlton is quoted as saying there is a 25% reduction in fatal injuries on synthetic tracks.

One of the problems in this industry is who gets anointed as somehow knowledgable. Nothing personal against Jack Knowlton, as he seems like a nice man, but what exactly are his qualifications? Other than, of course, having been quoted by Sumitas.

[Danzig]

you mean misquoted...mr knowlton said 'maybe 25%'-sumitas gave it out as 25%. i think the maybe is important.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you mean misquoted...mr knowlton said 'maybe 25%'-sumitas gave it out as 25%. i think the maybe is important.

That moves Jack up.

Saying " maybe 25% " is pretty useful.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

That moves Jack up.

Saying " maybe 25% " is pretty useful.

it could be 5%-saying maybe gets you off the hook. maybe he doesn't know what the #'s are himself....