Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


September 02, 2014, 07:11:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: for the 4th consecutive year--synthetics has safer than dirt  (Read 3241 times)
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2013, 10:25:15 PM »

Yeah, maybe. You got anything that would indicate otherwise?

I've got exactly what you do, a theory, and my theory is that yours is unsupported fabrication. You would have to show some actual positive evidence for your theory to have legs. (And don't try to claim AP, because their extra scrutiny started BEFORE the new track went in, but horses kept breaking down anyhow.)

Quote
When Aqueduct started giving out that shitload of casino money, and horses were dropping like flies while every trainer tried to run anything they had with 3 legs and a prayer to try and get some of the boodle, what -- you think the track vet was strenuously checking to make sure no severely f'd up horses were running? You can't be that gullible.

And you can't be so gullible as to truly think a place like Presque Isle that never had a dirt track, or one like Turfway that's had synthetic forever, is scrutinizing their horses one iota harder than some comparable dirt track. Just admit it, that's nothing but a B.S. story you fabricated based on zero actual evidence or news story to that effect. Or that big name tracks like Santa Anita (2.89) blow off vet checking their horses.

It's too bad the Churchill tracks don't participate in this study so we could get a few more of the better quality dirt tracks in the mix, but that's about par for the course for them.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 10:27:15 PM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4300




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2013, 12:01:11 AM »

I've got exactly what you do, a theory, and my theory is that yours is unsupported fabrication.

Your theory is based on Circuitous Tautology, eh?

(Hey, weren't they the "next big thing" to come out of the East End in the late 70's, only to be outshined by the emerging "Oi!" movement, which included such post-punk stalwarts as C0ck Sparrer, Combat 84, and the 4-Skins.)

Report to moderator   Logged
hungry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3387




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2013, 01:13:33 AM »

Not safer for my bankroll.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERbiggestal
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1397




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2013, 04:15:35 AM »



I am approaching this from another angle: while synthetics may prove to be statistically safer than other racing surfaces...are they doing anything else significant for the game? Or are they just protecting below-average physical specimens (i.e., slow, uninteresting horses) from injury?

If it's just the latter, big whoop: let's make the game die of boredom, of all things.  doh

I am sure you saw Secret Number pedigree. He ain't boring. and Godolphin in their infinite wisdom decided to start his career at Kempton on the poly.

why is synthetic loving Ravens pass a better sire than dirt loving Curlin. :-)

 clocker biggestal
Report to moderator   Logged

Kickers beat one-pacers almost every time.
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2013, 08:44:28 AM »

Your theory is based on Circuitous Tautology, eh?

The proper response to your "I've Got Zero Evidence for What I Claim, But Who's To Say It's Not True?" theory.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4300




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2013, 10:09:18 AM »

The proper response to your "I've Got Zero Evidence for What I Claim, But Who's To Say It's Not True?" theory.

Yes, you always make sure YOU line up on the side of the argument that gets to make the specious demand for evidence and proof that you damn well know is impossible to obtain; in this case, good luck getting a track vet to admit that he or she has let sore horses race, recently or in the distant past.

The assumption that all track vets are doing about the same job in culling out potential breakdowns -- and that the racing surface alone is the difference between breakdown rates at different tracks -- is simply laughable. And the idea that the track vets at the poly locations weren't instructed to tighten up their pre-race inspections after their track owners spent umpteen millions on the fake stuff? Doubly so.

Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: March 11, 2013, 11:09:07 AM »

Yes, you always make sure YOU line up on the side of the argument that gets to make the specious demand for evidence and proof

Actually, I was asking for some proof of YOUR specious claim. It's always easy to line up against claims people make that sound nice, but have zero actual merit when you tip them over even slightly with the stick.

Quote
that you damn well know is impossible to obtain; in this case, good luck getting a track vet to admit that he or she has let sore horses race, recently or in the distant past.

The proof we're looking for is that which would support your claim that the tracks that put in poly are now doing a more thorough job of vetting horses pre-race so as to improve their fatality numbers and justify their expenditure. But "impossible to obtain" pretty much tells us you have exactly zero positive proof or evidence in support of your claim and it was just something you made up that sounded good, so thanks for admitting.

Quote
The assumption that all track vets are doing about the same job in culling out potential breakdowns -- and that the racing surface alone is the difference between breakdown rates at different tracks -- is simply laughable.

Why? Where's your proof that says otherwise? That's what is being asked of you. Overall as a group, on average, track vets would be expected to do pretty much the same job. No reason at all to suspect that polytrack vets as a group would be doing a far more thorough and careful job than dirt track vets as a group.

The Jockey Club has actual stats that point to a difference based on track surface. You have bupkus aside from your self-interested arguments against poly designed to discredit those stats simply because you prefer dirt racing and don't care how many horses die as long as you can keep gambling. Dead horses? ::yawn::

Quote
And the idea that the track vets at the poly locations weren't instructed to tighten up their pre-race inspections after their track owners spent umpteen millions on the fake stuff? Doubly so.

Produce your evidence that says that was the case. Oh wait, you admitted above you can't - this is something that is entirely a product of your imagination.

Bottom line: Jockey Club: stats  Horse Voice: horsefeathers
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 11:13:12 AM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
brivolta
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 739




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2013, 11:17:17 AM »

Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2013, 11:26:44 AM »

It is indeed a humorous discussion, brivolta.

For the first few years after tracks put in poly for safety reasons, the gamblers who hate it delighted in pointing out there was no evidence pointing to any difference in safety. Now, after a number of years of stats collection when it's starting to look like there actually might be such a difference, we start getting all these other wild stories, about how the numbers are actually the result of some totally unprovable behavior of track vets at the synthetic tracks and so on.

Roll Eyes

 
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
brivolta
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 739




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2013, 12:52:21 PM »

It is indeed a humorous discussion, brivolta.

For the first few years after tracks put in poly for safety reasons, the gamblers who hate it delighted in pointing out there was no evidence pointing to any difference in safety. Now, after a number of years of stats collection when it's starting to look like there actually might be such a difference, we start getting all these other wild stories, about how the numbers are actually the result of some totally unprovable behavior of track vets at the synthetic tracks and so on.

Roll Eyes

 

I don't find the safety of horses humorous. Just enjoying the show! In all seriousness I do enjoy when you two debate issues because you're both very knowledgeable.
Report to moderator   Logged
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4300




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2013, 01:19:07 PM »

For the first few years after tracks put in poly for safety reasons, the gamblers who hate it delighted in pointing out there was no evidence pointing to any difference in safety. Now, after a number of years of stats collection when it's starting to look like there actually might be such a difference, we start getting all these other wild stories, about how the numbers are actually the result of some totally unprovable behavior of track vets at the synthetic tracks and so on.

Pretty phony construct if you are implying it applies to the current debate; I never said anything about whether fake surfaces are "safer" or not.

But if you suggesting that the tracks just spent oodles of money on implementing poly, and didn't do *anything else* to help manage to the lower numbers of fatalities, you are either a blissfully ignorant idiot, or you are being intellectually dishonest.

I already said I can't prove the tracks told their vets to tighten things up, but does that make it unlikely? You know damn well how things work in the corporate world, and the racetracks are not so different: those kinds of capital outlays DEMAND successful results...no matter how they get there. If you want to be stubborn and deny such money pressure exists, go ahead -- it will say far more about you than me, Mr. "I Used To Work At Big Co.".
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2013, 03:19:51 PM »

Pretty phony construct if you are implying it applies to the current debate; I never said anything about whether fake surfaces are "safer" or not.

doh

You're here arguing against the validity of the stats presented as the basis of a thread titled "synthetics safer than dirt".

Quote
But if you suggesting that the tracks just spent oodles of money on implementing poly, and didn't do *anything else* to help manage to the lower numbers of fatalities, you are either a blissfully ignorant idiot, or you are being intellectually dishonest.

I'm being honest - I don't know one thing about what else they did or didn't do. Neither do you. It is you who is being dishonest in claiming these tracks took certain actions, when you have no real evidence whatsoever for what you claim, and are instead trying to foist off a product of your own imagination as something that must have occurred, using as your authority nothing else than forceful posts and name-calling.

(But somehow, vets didn't step up their game at dirt tracks, where fatal breakdowns are just as much of an issue in this day and age. And in another blow to your fanciful scenario, what do tracks like Del Mar and Golden Gate have to prove to anyone about what a good investment they made, when they were forced by the CHRB to put in these surfaces?)

Quote
I already said I can't prove the tracks told their vets to tighten things up, but does that make it unlikely?

It makes it nothing but your imagination.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
faster horses
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 470




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2013, 08:57:20 PM »

Observation #1:  Logically, there should be no correlation between one's views on the safety benefits of synthetics and one's handicapping success on synthetics.

Observation #2:  In the real world (and/or on this forum), there is close to a 1.0 correlation between one's views on the safety benefits of synthetics and one's handicapping success on synthetics.
Report to moderator   Logged
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4300




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2013, 10:28:00 PM »

It is you who is being dishonest in claiming these tracks took certain actions

What? Since when is it "dishonest" to form a hypothesis as to what may or may not have happened in a given situation?

And in another blow to your fanciful scenario, what do tracks like Del Mar and Golden Gate have to prove to anyone about what a good investment they made, when they were forced by the CHRB to put in these surfaces?

The CHRB helped pay for the installation of synthetics, for one, and another problem with using California in this discussion is that they are SO far ahead of all of the other state racing jurisdictions in equine safety; this is partly why Santa Anita was able to return to a dirt racing surface: they are not "married" to synthetics the way some think they are, and they have numerous other measurements and checks in place to try to administer and promote safe racing...not just some dry stat re: "number of catastrophic breakdowns by surface" as lone evidence of racing surface safety.

Finally, while I admitted to not having specific knowledge of any tracks that installed poly also implementing other safety improvements at the same time, I asked a simple question: does it make it unlikely that they changed any other procedures or rules at the same time in order to achieve safer racing? You responded:

It makes it nothing but your imagination.

Which is a completely absurd answer to a question where a simple yes or no would have sufficed.

(Not to mention pig-headed...)
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: March 12, 2013, 09:02:34 AM »

What? Since when is it "dishonest" to form a hypothesis as to what may or may not have happened in a given situation?

There was no "or may not" to your assertion. Your assertion was "laughable to think otherwise".

Quote
The CHRB helped pay for the installation of synthetics

No, they didn't. They said any track that didn't install a synthetic surface would not be granted dates, so they did, but not without a great deal of whining on at least one track operator's part.

Quote
and another problem with using California in this discussion is that they are SO far ahead of all of the other state racing jurisdictions in equine safety; this is partly why Santa Anita was able to return to a dirt racing surface

Santa Anita was "able" to return to a dirt surface because of the tremendous pressure on the CHRB at the time due to repeated failures of the Santa Anita pro ride synthetic track (and the pressure from some trainers). It was "built on the cheap" (Stronach's own words), they were incapable of maintaining it, chunks of the underlying asphalt were coming up through the cushion, it would not drain when it rained, and California was losing racing days (including an entire Oak Tree meet at SA due to the condition of the pro ride).  But even as they granted that variance they noted for the record that the numbers showed their original assertion was correct and synthetic tracks were safer for horses.

Quote
they have numerous other measurements and checks in place to try to administer and promote safe racing

Just not effective ones, apparently, as the So Cal tracks both poly and dirt have higher fatality rates than their counterparts in the rest of the nation. But meanwhile, the rate at Santa Anita is higher than at Hollywood or Del Mar, even with the rough year Del Mar had. Not to mention, the fatality rate at Santa Anita increased substantially just as soon as they went back to dirt.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/24/local/la-me-horse-deaths-20120324
« Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 09:16:46 AM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Mary Ann
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2053




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: March 12, 2013, 07:06:54 PM »

The following article is about a study and research that's been done on the risk of injury on racetrack surfaces (it doesn't just compile racetrack statistics) and lists other contributing factors for injury.

It does state "synthetic surfaces have significant potential for reducing musculoskeletal injuries in Thoroughbred racehorses." "However, the researchers state that, based on significant differences between footing materials, weather and maintenance programs among tracks and regions, "extending the results of this study to encompass all synthetic track surfaces should be done with caution.  We are just scratching the surface with this study, but the comparative results do look promising to start."
 
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ceh/docs/educational%20presentations/RacetrackSurface-sec.pdf
 
One of the things I like about the synthetics is you donít have to be concerned about a wet track.  My priority though is safety for the jockeys and horses so whatever they can do to improve it can only be a plus and that involves more than just the surface.
Report to moderator   Logged
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4300




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2013, 10:24:53 AM »

LOL. You do know that the favorite for the UAE Derby is Secret Number, right?

 clocker biggestal

Another overpriced Godolphin Ky. Derby hopeful, down in flames...on the fake crap.   thumbs down thumbs down thumbs down

Doesn't get any better than that!
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2013, 01:18:02 PM »

And another American horse manages to win the big one, this time over the fake stuff, go figure.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 01:23:42 PM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
tapetea
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 381




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2013, 01:57:21 PM »

And another American horse manages to win the big one, this time over the fake stuff, go figure.

I just woke up, so I missed everything. Did the Americans have a big day, or are you going back to the early days of the World Cup?

ANIMAL KINGDOM was coming off three turf races. What does that tell you? GATO DEL SOL would have been a monster over synthetics.

Where did ROYAL DELTA finish? Never been on grass.
Report to moderator   Logged
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4300




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2013, 02:45:27 PM »

And another American horse manages to win the big one, this time over the fake stuff, go figure.

My post was a shot across the bow at BiggestAl, who, when challenged to provide a list of all the Big Time Winners On Poly (as if), could only provide the name of one horse that hadn't really proven anything: Secret Number.

And in a remarkable display of consistency, Secret Number still hasn't proven anything at all.  Cheesy

Nice pickin', Al!

(Hey...who do you like in The Spiral, Al?  nyah )
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2013, 03:03:39 PM »

I just woke up, so I missed everything. Did the Americans have a big day, or are you going back to the early days of the World Cup?

ANIMAL KINGDOM was coming off three turf races. What does that tell you?

What it means is that American racing over phony groomed dirt surfaces is really what's out of touch with the rest of the world.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
tapetea
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 381




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2013, 03:36:55 PM »

What it means is that American racing over phony groomed dirt surfaces is really what's out of touch with the rest of the world.

Yeah, well, what it means to me is that synthetics are not dirt tracks and shouldn't be considered as such. I just don't see the point when turf courses are still around.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2013, 03:39:29 PM »

Yeah, well, what it means to me is that synthetics are not dirt tracks and shouldn't be considered as such. I just don't see the point when turf courses are still around.

They aren't considered as such. They're considered synthetic tracks. 

And the point is you have a surface to run over day in and day out that's safer than dirt.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
tapetea
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 381




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2013, 04:31:53 PM »

They aren't considered as such. They're considered synthetic tracks. 

And the point is you have a surface to run over day in and day out that's safer than dirt.

Then why did the stakes races run over the new surface retain their graded status. It's because they all told us it was "like" dirt. It's not.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12087

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: March 30, 2013, 04:34:57 PM »

Then why did the stakes races run over the new surface retain their graded status.

They retained them because they historically attracted a certain quality of horse, and still do.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.108 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy