|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-19-2006, 06:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
[quote=Kasept]Funny that this toe grab issue came up.. Dan Fick of Jockey Club was on the show tonight and one of the topics we covered was the Grayson Foundation call for toe grabs to be eliminated.. Here's Hegarty's piece on it from DRF and a report from Anvils magazine from a few years ago when the California study elaborated on the issue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15319949/ http://www.horseshoes.com/advice/alkane1/tgrbandi.htm[/QUOTE i saw an article about toe grabs and their evils a few weeks ago...makes you wonder why everyone doesn't do away with them... also, about shoeing...what about glue on shoes? i know they've been used on some horses due to hoof problems, are they a viable alternative? i would think if you don't have anything to correct that you could just use those, right? 
|
|
#2
10-19-2006, 06:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
[quote=Danzig188]
Quote:
One of my best friends is a farrier...he says: a glue-on shoe will not fully bond to the hoof wall for about 2 cycles...the glue takes all of the moisture out of the foot...after the first cycle you are left with a dried out 'shelly' crmbling hoof...until the foot is acclimated to the glue the foot is really a mess...if anything goes wrong and the glue ons are not working there is no viable hoof wall left to put a nail into...and you have to wait until the foot regraows (up to 9 months) they are difficult to put on and remove...and if a horse happens to step on it and get it off they usually take of a significant portion of hoof wall with it...unless they are using 'Sigafoos' shoes that have a kevlar cuff that goes over the foot and does not detatch when the shoe falls off.
__________________
 Seek respect, not attention.
Last edited by paisjpq : 10-19-2006 at 06:46 AM.
|
|
#3
10-19-2006, 06:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
so not a really good alternative....wonderful.
but see, if there was a winter break (rather than running on poly at turfway) you could pull their shoes off and let them romp. yeah, like that's gonna happen.
|
|
#4
10-19-2006, 08:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joel,
Up here in the summer our local newspaper prints the previous days handle and shows what the running total to date is as compared to the prior years handle after the same number of days. I predicted that Keeneland would show a bump early on handle then slow down later. Can you get any stats as to where they stand in regards to handle compared to the same number of racing days last year at the fall meet? Calder just reported a 2% increase in handle without "polytrack" at their recently concluded 112 day meet, and Fresno out in California was reporting a 4% handle increase. Since this seems to be the trend in with tracks these days, I'd predict an overall handle increase at Keeneland to be within 2-4% at meets conclusion. Anything less than that will actually be interpreted as a negative sign in this corner.
|
|
#5
10-19-2006, 08:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I would almost lay the odds at '"pick 'em" in a handicapping contest at Keeneland with a lady spending her second day ever at a racetrack who doesn't even know how to read a program.....she seriously has as much chance as I do of making money runnng over that crap....
|
|
#6
10-19-2006, 08:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think there's some definite positives and negatives re: Polytrack to us bettors. Lets look past the breakdown stuff, and kickback and look at it strictly as bettors:
Any time something new occurs, the better horsebettors adapt quickly. For instance, I believe KY didn't have any turf racing until 20 years ago (or thereabouts). Those able to adapt profited. It also brings up a whole new dynamic or how trainers treat surface switches to/from the artificial surface. But there could be major negatives if the Polytrack is too widespread. I believe California reacted way too quickly to mandate every major track to install an artificial surface. The game is still about speed, as well it should be. The last thing we want is the majority of tracks to go to artificial surfaces. A few of them as a novelty is good but hopefully the Polytrack/Cushiontrack folks don't run the game in a few years.
|
|
#7
10-19-2006, 08:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
10-19-2006, 09:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
10-19-2006, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You haveto factor in the trends in racing as well as a whole. Lots of tracks had declines in 03 and 04. Its much more accurate to compare it to the trends with all tracks especially since simulcast money comes in form all over the world and is far greater than on track hanlde at ANY track. The local ecomony of a racetrack area is not a significant factor when comparing all sources handle. How do you ignore the trends at other tracks when making a comparison?
|
|
#10
10-19-2006, 10:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Is Keenelands handle up or down. I know I havent touched Keeneland, but for maybe 3 races and Im good for 25 thousand during the meet. I sit with a few guys who make me look like a 2 dollar bettor and they won touch it either. Im very curious if they are losing the real players yet. Who cares about the young college kids all kicking in 3 bucks in a pick 6. Losing the real sophisticated whales is going to hurt, and I see that happening.
|
|
#11
10-19-2006, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
10-19-2006, 10:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree with you. I think the real serious players, guys who have a clue and put up big dollars have decided to switch tracks. I bet Belmont's handle will be up, but I really dont think Keeneland's will. Not only is Keeneland's bias unreal, the best horses simply arent winning races. If you cant be rewarded for being sharp, knowing which horse is the best, why play? Like I said Im good for 25 a meet, the guys I get down with are good for 20k a day. They have swung that money over to Belmont, as have I. Im sure there are other guys who bet a lot of money doing the same thing, who can blame them?
|
|
#13
10-19-2006, 10:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
10-19-2006, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
 I watched two races at Keeneland today with Mr. Byk on TVG or HRTV (whichever one it was...) and both races were won by horses on or rear the lead the entire race Looks like the wet weather speeds up the track and makes it more managable for frontrunners!
|
|
#15
10-19-2006, 02:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Okay, I finally can't stand it anymore (pause while I put on my well-worn nerd glasses):
Horses weren't created/didn't evolve to run (evolve, in my opinion, for what it's worth). They were created/evolved to spend the majority of their time walking slowly over very long distances (the hoof is a marvelous adaptation for that-- it's essentially a big fingernail, so they are literally walking on tip-toe). They are capable of running very fast, yes, but for relatively short distances and in order to evade a predator (so are most hooved prey animals). They are designed to spend most of their lives walking slowly with their heads down, cropping a lot of a low-calorie food (browse). Yes, they can run for stretches in the wild and they do, but that's not an optimum state for the horse-- it's usually a response to a dangerous situation and ends when the danger does. Yes, I know we've bred the TB to have the desire to run (and boy, do they!) but it's erroneous to start with the impression that the wild horse is designed to spend most of it's life in flight, regardless of the surface. It's not. I think if they were, A) their digestive system would not be as simple as it is and B)our domesticated horses wouldn't need so much cooling out time after a long exertion. Okay, taking off the nerd glasses now and bracing for the hate mail. 
|
|
#16
10-19-2006, 02:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Besides having to go further in search of feed and water, the horse evolved into the present day species of Equus caballus because they had to be able to run faster and further to escape enemies. Although the horse is not the fastest animal on the earth, the horse does possess great endurance. The horse is therefore, a creature of the open country and to this day, its first reaction to any strange or frightening object or situation is to panic and run away. This great fear of the unusual, plus the speed and endurance developed at the gallop, has made the horse a most valuable animal to man... Another point to not is that world horse is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word hors meaning swift. As a side note, their teeth evolved as an adaptation to vegetation changes. But their size and hooves evolved for reasons specifically related to speed, endurance...and power for those two purposes. I can post numerous sources that say this if you would like. For the most, part the rest of your post contained some very good information. Sorry to get into the whole evolution thing for those of you who don't believe in it. I definitely agree with you that a horse was not designed to stay in long periods of flight. But, they did evolve for the survival of the species directly related to the fact that they had to outrun predators. And don't feel bad. I'm being a super nerd  Last edited by kentuckyrosesinmay : 10-19-2006 at 02:40 PM.
|
|
#17
10-19-2006, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Some of the most beautiful equine art can be seen on the ceiling of Lascaux. Painted by folks that really depended on them. To me, they look a lot like Icelandic or Fyord ponies. For sure they never ran on poly crap. And I've never grilled a equi-steak. No recipe and absolutely no taste for it. But the folks that painted their beautiful representations on those cave ceilings certainly did. And, here, all the time...we thought it was really about clicking some numbers to our on-line betting account or passing some green paper through a window. Times have changed! The art remains.
|
|
#18
10-19-2006, 02:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I liked the jab at polytrack. BTW, Eohippus inhabited the swamplands and forests in ancient times...58 million years ago to be exact. Nope, no polytrack. Geek mode...off.
|
|
#19
10-19-2006, 02:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh, KRM, I don't disagree that they are capable of running at great speed and that the most recent descendents of the equine ancestors can run farther and faster (look at the feet!), just not that it's their primary function. If it were, I think they'd have a digestive system more similar to that of a cow or goat, who regurgitate their food later- they can literally eat and run, then bring it back up and actually chew it when they are in a safer location. Horses in the wild spend a huge amount of their time browsing (5 to 10 hours a day, I believe), which is hard to do when running at top speed ("What? Was that food? I don't know; musta missed it."). Running is an adaptation to predation; it's not the natural state when not in danger. The fact that they can tie up after great exertion to me indicates they're not meant to spend long periods of time at top speed. A predator is not going to pursue a prey animal for long-- heck, cheetahs are as fast as they come and they can't maintain the speed for long because they overheat.
I'm not saying they haven't evolved to be fast runners, just that their primary gait is walking and their primary behavior grazing. (And always happy to argue this with a fellow evolutionist.  )
|
|
#20
10-19-2006, 02:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
All the talk about the pro's and con's of Polytrack makes me think how horseman and fans must have felt when they introduced the electric starting gate with humans leading them in and handling them in the stalls. Im sure alot of people voiced concerns about the head man holding the horse or the gate not opening or horses not coping with the small confines.
Im sure when the electric teletimer came into use people thought that there was no way a peice of electronic equipment could replace the human hand and stopwatch that was used and that photo finish cameras would never take the place of patrol judges and the stweards watching thru binoculars. And what about the toteboard? Im sure the die hard gamblers were freaking out that odds would be posted on a electronic board and not done on a oddsboard like they had always done before. Just things to think about and the changes that racing has went thru over the years, we all seem to have adapted quit well and so have the horses.
__________________
Horses are like strawberries....they can go bad overnight. Charlie Whittingham
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
