Horse Racing Fantasy Community

D, Thay play football indpoors, don't they?
Joe

I think It is safer for horse, and great horses can run on anything..
just my op.
Joe

D, I agree with you, BUT.. I go to Arlington, Two years ago, so many horses were breaking down, they had to do something,so they switched to Poly..... Vey little breakdowns? Again I agree with you, but things don't change, times change..................:) Keep riding well......
Joe

That's wonderful, Randy Moss. No one likes to see a horse and rider go down. But one can't go on and say that it's because of the synthetic surfaces. There's very little data to make such a claim.
I've watched on TV , literally every Breeder's Cup race since the beginning and most of them have been run without incident. I'm talking dirt. Not synthetics. In-other-words, Randy, you can't use one day to make such claims. More data.
To my knowledge,(Daily Racing Form article) five horses have been put down after running on Santa Anita's new Pro ride surface.
Two of these breakdowns were during morning workouts. Personally, I think you have to consider more variables than just surfaces.
Remember Remington Park racetrack, Oklahoma, about twenty or more years ago, where they came up with this magic synthetic formula that would revolutionize race track surfaces and make it more safe for the horses. That's what they told us. Just like they're saying today about the newer versions of synthetics. Well, it didn't work out and after three years they switched back to dirt. They're still using dirt. Don't be surprised if that happens all over again. I can't wait for the heavy winter rains to hit Santa Anita this year to see how their claims pan out. I wish them well. Ending by saying some of the Pro Ride surface actually has real dirt as part of their formula from what I read.

Recently we lost Bay Meadows racetrack in northern California to development. That was in August 2008. This was supposed to happen several years ago. The developers at that time completed phase one of two phases. To work on phase one ( office space buildings) They had to build new stables on the infield, near the tote board, before taring down the old stables, moving the horses and beginning construction. There were many delays and nobody ever knew when Bay Meadows would finally end. Trainers were reluctant to bring their horses here. I guess we got lucky, because we got several more years of racing that nobody thought was possible.
Well, along comes synthetic surfaces and in our state a decision made by the California Horse racing Board. Six members.
Every track in the state of California that has a race meeting beyond 14 days must put in the new synthetic surface before January 2008, else they will not get a license to race. For us, that's Santa Anita, Hollywood Park, Del Mar, Bay Meadows and Golden Gate Fields. At that time, there was another delay by the developers and Bay Meadows could get in another meeting. Everyone here was happy. But, the California Horse Racing Board told Bay Meadows that they still just comply, as the other four tracks did and install the new synthetic surface to the tune of 11 million dollars. Ridiculous. 11 million for a 40 day meeting, then throw that money away by stripping everything away during development. They said that possible Bay Meadows could get back some of their money by selling the surface to other tracks. Yea, right. LOL Contaminated, synthetic surfaces to make other tracks safer for the horses.
Anyway, after many meetings, the Board made a special concession to Bay Meadows and let them have the final meeting without having to make the change.
In ending, when you start forcing tracks across the country to switch to synthetics via these kind of threats, you are not only causing them an expensive inconvenience, your adding to the problems that already plague horse racing. I don't think the time to do that is now.
With the closure of Bay Meadows, the talk is to use what was their allocated racing dates and race at Sacramento racetrack, and/or Plesanton (sp)racetrack. Guess what folks. First they have to spend the 11 plus millions and go to the new surface. The response so far, they don't have that kind of money. Where's this heading. We have hundreds of racetracks across America, but only a handful have the new synthetics. Why do some feel the need to protect the horses and others don't. I say leave things alone as is and continue to gain worthwhile data to make comparisons.

Churchill Downs is one of the best manicured dirt tracks in the world, if not the best. They take such good care of that track that it can be sloppy in the morning and fast by the afternoon. However this year on Kentucky Oaks and Derby days, at least two horses suffered career ending or fatal injuries. Statistics do show that synthetics are safer... fewer catastrophic injuries happen on them. Here's a study on the issue: http://www.ecoterr.com/turftrack.us/catastrophic_and_non_catastrophic_in...

Personally, I hate that excellent dirt horses can't carry their form over to the synthetic. Ginger Punch finished horribly yesterday and Curlin lost today and I strongly believe that it was solely because of the surface. I disagree with allowing any track to host the BC two years in a row, especially if it's a synthetic track. But synthetics do have a place in racing now and if it keeps the horses safer, I'll accept that. I was very bitter about the switch to synthetics last year. I believe that the synthetic was responsible for the retirement of Lava Man. I hated the way that Del Mar was running last year when pace horses and stalkers did better not to run at all. But I appreciate that horses are suffering fewer injuries.

I think it would be great to have a BC Classic-dirt and a BC Classic-synthetic. I also think your idea about having 2 tracks host each year would be really cool. They do that for the Sunshine Millions. I too dislike the Friday-Saturday set up. I'm still a student and was able to schedule my classes so I didn't have class on Friday so I could watch the Breeders Cup (yes, when I scheduled classes in the spring, I was already looking ahead to the BC in October), but I'm not going to have that luxury when I get a job.

Again, my orgininal issue is BC on the same synthetic track two years in a row. No matter what anyone says these races are not like dirt races but more like turf races and have a profound effect on the top horses. Most of our american horses were breed for DIRT racing, and for this....these races are not giving us a true dirt classic winner but more turf pedigree horses...we already have 5 turf races to feature those horses why do we need more. That to me stinks.

I believe there was an extensive study done, that was published by the one of the governing bodies and a report was written up in bloodhorse....which the head vet sighted no statistical difference at this point. It worth a read if you can find it. Just one small sample which was published I think a month ago.

I'm not a fan of the new synthetic surfaces, and I'll reserve my judgement on the relative safety of dirt vs synthetic for a few more years anyway. I'm wary of studies conducted or paid for by companies which manufacture synthetic surfaces. If we remember, the tobacco companies had studies that showed smoking wasn't harmful.
I'm convinced that it is the breeding for precociousness vs soundness that bears more responsibility. It costs so much to breed and raise thoroughbred racehorses that it appears necessary to the sport to do so. Big Brown's sire fee will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he will pass on his foot problems to his progeny, just like he'll pass on his speed and versatility. Some of his progeny will likely be wonderful young horses who then retire due to foot problems before the end of their 3year old season and then pass on the defect on the line until the breed is full of crosses between frail sires. I don't know if there is any solution to what I see as one of the biggest problems confronting racing, since the money is in breeding and not in racing.
Oh yeah, and I think it stinks that Santa Anita hosts two consecutive Breederss Cup Championships.
The predominant surface of North American racing is still dirt, going two years without championships being contested on dirt seems to encourage horses to race on synthetic tracks and discourage prepping on dirt. I know I'm being a crabby curmudgeon about this, but I remember Equitrack from twenty years ago, too. That was the new safe surface that would cut down on injuries too.

I know exactly what you're saying, dede. I agree. I could go back to the fifties when most Amercian tracks didn't have turf courses and ran exclusively on dirt. Real dirt. LOL
Well it was said then that if we're going to attract good Europian (sp) horses to come to America and run in our big races, we're going to have to start installing turf courses. I don't know about the rest of the country, but Santa Anita was the first major California track to put a grass course in. My memory says this was around the mid fifties.
Okay, back to dede's post. It is said that the new synthetics favor turf horses and encourages the good ones from around the globe who mostly run on the grass to enter "our' big races here.
Again, I agree with dede. We already have enough real grass races for the big money. Why do we need to have our big money races designed to run on the grass as well as the synthetics???
Ya know, I'm from California and love Santa Anita, but am of the opinion that no track should dominate and be allowed to have back to back Breeders Cup races. Let's spread this around.
I also read what dede was referring to and agree. We need more research and data to say synthetics are safer than dirt. This is merely a sales pitch. Heck, why don't we merely give up on any and all surfaces that aren't grass Kidding, of course.

<<< Wait until they change the grass to astroturf.................:) only kidding...

Ya know, Joe, I was thinking the same thing I wouldn't be surprised if this happens someday. Not kidding. LOL I'm happy for Arlington Park and the horses racing there if there are fewer break downs.

Actually, I think I recall reading where one of the Florida tracks introduced astroturf a few years ago. Not surr how it worked out, but expect that it didn't, since they're not using it today.

Doug, I lived in San mateo, years ago, god....now that i think about it, 30 years ago, i use to go to Bay meadows all the time. Nice track, but i liked Golden gate much better.
I remember on thanksgiving day they use to have turkey races and orstrich races! Rembember?
on the DIRT...ha.ha..
joe

No, No betting on the Ostrich races...
joe

Just as an interesting thought:
I have been riding horses in "real life" since I was four and have ridden on a variety of riding arena surfaces. I notice a huge difference between sand, grass, dirt, bluestone, and the synthetics even when I am just walking or trotting around in an arena. Some of this is inherent to the particular surfacing (i.e. blue stone tends to be less shock absorbing than most synthetics), but mostly this has to do with how well the surfacing is maintained and designed. If the surfacing is not deep enough, not raked often enough (obviously, this doesnt apply to grass), or the base has not been designed right, you will have issues. Also, surfaces should be watered frequently to minimize the amount of dust horses (and people) are forced to inhale. There are those who believe grass is the best footing. It is true that grass tends to provide good traction and cushioning when dry, but it can be extremely treacherous and slippery when wet and very jarring to the joints when over-dry. As to whether or not synthetics are better than dirt, I've ridden in good dirt arenas and good sythetic arenas and in general the synthetics seem to provide better cushioning. I have actually been to venues with synthetic footing where you couldn't even hear the horses' hooves hitting the ground. Synthetics have the added benefit of retaining water better than dirt, but they must still be watered. As to racing, I think there is more at play than simply the footing. One must remember that thoroughbreds begin racing at two. Many riding horses are not broken until three or even four to allow their joints to mature. Personally, I think racehorses could benefit from a similar practice.

Had to do with how things evolved in America during early colonization. I'll try to keep it simple. They found vast forests everywhere and at great labor and expense they had to clear away the trees to have agriculture land that was in high demand. The land was too valuable to build racetracks. That would change in later years.
Many of the leaders were very familiar with horse racing where they came from and most, actually bred and raced race horses back home.
Again, trying to keep this post short, they brought with them there love of horse racing. So, they raced on "dirt" paths and on "dirt"streets near towns and in the centers of towns. Some streets were named, " Race" street in some towns.

Using England as an example, they raced in the existing country side over hill and dale on all kinds of different terrain in those days. The surface was grassy. Kind of like that today at many tracks.
Well, when land started losing it's agriculture value in America,(oh much more complicated than just this) The folks decided it was prime time to start building racetracks. The people then decided that, unlike, England (as an example) , they didn't want any portion of a race blocked by bushes and, or trees, or hilly terrain, so they decided to make shorter, circler (sp) tracks on flat terrain.
So the stage was set, I believe, for dirt courses in America. That's what they've been running on. The dirt paths and dirt streets.Not on those vast grassy meadows, like in England.
Quarter horse racing was also popular in America at that time and they always raced on "dirt" in the streets. Oh, there's more, but I think that's a good enough explanation for now.

My source is a book titled, " The History Of Thoroughbred Racing In America" by William H.P. Robertson ....... Chapter one
Mr. Robertson was at one time, the editor of " The Thoroughbred Record" , a weekly magazine. I bought this large, thick book in the late sixties, or early seventies. It was a new release at the time. I recommend that everyone have this book in their library.
Has almost 600 pages.

Joe, I was born in San Mateo and have been going to Bay Meadows and Golden Gate Fields since when my Dad first took us kids to the tracks in the mid forties, after the war ended.
It's being demolished now, but a group called Friends Of Bay Meadows is chalenging th developers over Environmental Impact Reports that they say are no longer valide due to major changes by the developers.
They also are suing San Mateo's five city counsel members for breaking many laws and accepting payola from developers. It goes to court mon December 05 2008. If we win, the developer will have to replace, all that they destroyed. Everything.

I like Golden Gate Fields too and we go as often as we can. We're 1 and 1/4 hours away, in the Santa Cruz mountains.
In fact, we are going up next Wednesday, taking advantage of their free turf club tickets and free valet parking tickets. Already called to make reservations for 4. Sometimes they provide a free buffet lunch to as well as a free Daily Racing Form.
It was at Golden Gate Fields where I first met and started a friendship with, Harry Aleo, owner of Lost In The Fog. Had a box next to his.
His estate is still active and his Victorino won a big race at G.G.F. on Saturday. His highly regarded, High Resolve didn't do as well at Santa Anita. I'm waiting for his very good stakes winning horse, Wild Promises to race again.