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


December 19, 2014, 07:45:46 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 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: for the 4th consecutive year--synthetics has safer than dirt  (Read 3568 times)
CLOCKERbiggestal
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1471




Ignore
« on: March 08, 2013, 12:15:14 PM »

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/76735/equine-fatal-injury-rate-is-steady-in-2012

much safer than dirt. stats don't lie. :-)

 clocker biggestal


Report to moderator   Logged

Kickers beat one-pacers almost every time.
Trainer Rusty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1215




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2013, 07:01:23 PM »

How many jockeys have been paralyzed or worse on synthetic tracks compared to dirt?  MORE.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 07:03:09 PM by Trainer Rusty » Report to moderator   Logged
Trainer Rusty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1215




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2013, 07:02:33 PM »

How many jockeys and horses have breathing problems from synthetic kick back compared to dirt?? MORE.  Everything has to be put in perspective.


Report to moderator   Logged
Trainer Rusty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1215




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2013, 07:12:20 PM »

And the most cr*ppy tracks in the U.S. are dirt tracks.  These are lowest of all level racing and the lowest of low horses running.  These horses are not sound to begin with.  Tell me that's not a factor?  Tell me at the Big A when everyone was on a claiming spree because of the slot money that those horses were sound and fit?  They were NOT.  These are bullcr*p stats that were not evaluated whatsoever.

Report to moderator   Logged
Trainer Rusty
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1215




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2013, 07:13:34 PM »

My statistics professor would call bullcr*p on this article.

Report to moderator   Logged
Cablacinasian
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 713




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2013, 06:00:11 AM »

Rusty- I'm sure if you do train it's at bottom feeder tracks like Fairmount.  Don't worry about synthetics.  Your horses won't ever race on them.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERbiggestal
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1471




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2013, 04:33:39 AM »

How many jockeys and horses have breathing problems from synthetic kick back compared to dirt?? MORE.  Everything has to be put in perspective.

okay AP has had synthetics in for awhile, maybe we could get a list of jocks with breathing problems, just havent seen in in the UK where they have been racing on synthetics for over a decade.

 clocker biggestal
Report to moderator   Logged

Kickers beat one-pacers almost every time.
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4528




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2013, 06:45:02 AM »

...just havent seen in in the UK where they have been racing on synthetics for over a decade.

 clocker biggestal

Just wondering, Al -- who is the biggest "name" horse to have raced on the synthetics in the UK? Any Group I horses?
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13146

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2013, 08:40:50 AM »

And the most cr*ppy tracks in the U.S. are dirt tracks.  These are lowest of all level racing and the lowest of low horses running.  These horses are not sound to begin with.  Tell me that's not a factor?

I don't think you even took a look at the report to see what tracks were providing injury data for this study, did you. Hint: With the exception of just a couple, the lowest of the low crappy ones ARE NOT.

The ones in blue with the * are participating.

http://jockeyclub.com/initiatives.asp?section=2

Quote
Tell me at the Big A when everyone was on a claiming spree because of the slot money that those horses were sound and fit?  They were NOT.  These are bullcr*p stats that were not evaluated whatsoever.

Speaking of not evaluated whatsoever, you didn't bother to actually look at the report or the underlying numbers, did you. Many of those Aqu injuries happened in 2011, so wouldn't be included in this report - they were reported for 2011 and it shows up there. However, if you look at Aqueduct for 2012 their fatality rate was 2.34, which was lower than for instance Santa Anita (2.94) or Lone Star (2.53), both with no slots.

Quote
How many jockeys have been paralyzed or worse on synthetic tracks compared to dirt?  MORE.

I tend to doubt that. I say most of the jocks that get seriously injured do so at "crappy" little dirt tracks. But we'll be glad to take a look at your stats and analysis thereof that say otherwise.

Quote
How many jockeys and horses have breathing problems from synthetic kick back compared to dirt?? MORE.

Could we see the statistics on that?

Quote
My statistics professor would call bullcr*p on this article.

Or call bullcrap on his student.
Report to moderator   Logged

He's literate and funny.  I can see why he angers you so.
CLOCKERbiggestal
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1471




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2013, 09:41:45 AM »

Just wondering, Al -- who is the biggest "name" horse to have raced on the synthetics in the UK? Any Group I horses?

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

 clocker biggestal
Report to moderator   Logged

Kickers beat one-pacers almost every time.
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4528




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2013, 10:50:34 AM »

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


He's entered; that's it. Nowhere does it say he's the ML favorite. (I know YOU will bet the piss out of him if he's the chalk.)

Secret Number was also entered in the Group 3 UAE 2000 Guineas, and ducked out of that to run in (and win) the Al Bastakiya yesterday -- a glorified allowance race, at best, listed but not graded.

And...this is all there is to show for 10 years of synthetic racing in the UK? THIS is your retort -- condescending "LOL" and all? Really, AL?

Blows me away.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13146

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2013, 10:58:02 AM »

Scintillo?

Won the Winter Derby over the fake stuff at Lingfield in 2009, previously the G1 Gran Criterium, later a Group 2 at Chantilly, and went on to become a frequent G1 runner though not winner.

http://www.racingpost.com/horses/horse_home.sd?horse_id=672644

And incidentally, what the heck does "best horse to have run over fake stuff in the UK" have to do with the claim of jockey or horse breathing problems?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 11:00:44 AM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

He's literate and funny.  I can see why he angers you so.
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4528




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2013, 12:32:44 PM »

Scintillo?

Won the Winter Derby over the fake stuff at Lingfield in 2009, previously the G1 Gran Criterium, later a Group 2 at Chantilly, and went on to become a frequent G1 runner though not winner.

http://www.racingpost.com/horses/horse_home.sd?horse_id=672644

Never heard of him. Seriously. And just as seriously, if "Big Al" is of the opinion that synthetics are SO great for racing, then surely HE could come up with more than one semi-lame example of what kind of top-flight runners have been produced from 10 years of fake UK racing. In other words, I'd like Big Al to answer the question, if you don't mind.

And incidentally, what the heck does "best horse to have run over fake stuff in the UK" have to do with the claim of jockey or horse breathing problems?

I have no idea; whose premise is that?

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
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13146

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2013, 12:56:05 PM »

Never heard of him. Seriously. And just as seriously, if "Big Al" is of the opinion that synthetics are SO great for racing, then surely HE could come up with more than one semi-lame example of what kind of top-flight runners have been produced from 10 years of fake UK racing. In other words, I'd like Big Al to answer the question, if you don't mind.

The issue of the thread and the study is safety, not great runners.

Quote
I have no idea; whose premise is that?

doh

Rusty asked: "How many jockeys and horses have breathing problems from synthetic kick back compared to dirt?? MORE.  Everything has to be put in perspective."

Al answered: "okay AP has had synthetics in for awhile, maybe we could get a list of jocks with breathing problems, just havent seen in in the UK where they have been racing on synthetics for over a decade."

And you were off to the races on that with: "Just wondering, Al -- who is the biggest "name" horse to have raced on the synthetics in the UK? Any Group I horses?"

So I'll ask again, "what the heck does 'best horse to have run over fake stuff in the UK' have to do with the claim of jockey or horse breathing problems?"

Quote
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?

Well, I'd suggest that you, too, take a look at the tracks reporting injuries in the actual study being discussed here, and make the determination on that. The fact that pretty much only the top tiers of tracks are reporting the injuries should tell you a little something about what horses are being protected.

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

Or we can just keep letting horses die on the track and let the game die from PETA.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 01:01:47 PM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

He's literate and funny.  I can see why he angers you so.
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4528




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2013, 01:39:03 PM »

The issue of the thread and the study is safety, not great runners.

If it were YOUR forum, then perhaps you could regulate such things. It's not your forum.

I went off on a slight tangent (not unprecedented around here, nor forbidden) and you know it; you want to act like a dick about it...and you know that, too.

Well, I'd suggest that you, too, take a look at the tracks reporting injuries in the actual study being discussed here, and make the determination on that. The fact that pretty much only the top tiers of tracks are reporting the injuries should tell you a little something about what horses are being protected.

Or we can just keep letting horses die on the track and let the game die from PETA.

If all that can be said about synthetics is that they make for safe(r) but completely uninteresting races, then PETA can go find another dead horse to beat: the game is already kaput.

My larger point (racing on synthetics is completely boring, does almost nothing to provide any excitement about the game) stands.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13146

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2013, 01:51:01 PM »

If it were YOUR forum, then perhaps you could regulate such things. It's not your forum.

I'm not trying to regulate things, simply trying to find out what earthly connection your question has to do with anything at all that was being discussed.

Quote
I went off on a slight tangent (not unprecedented around here, nor forbidden) and you know it

It wasn't "slight" at all. It was an attempt at a major derailment to divert attention from the actual subject. You being a dick, and you know it.

Quote
If all that can be said about synthetics is that they make for safe(r) but completely uninteresting races

Considering that three of the synthetic tracks are the "majors" Keeneland, Del Mar, and Woodbine, your assumption about anything uninteresting is plain old nonsense.

Quote
My larger point (racing on synthetics is completely boring, does almost nothing to provide any excitement about the game) stands.

That's simply your personal opinion, and an unsupported one at that. Where's your evidence that people find the races at Del Mar or Keeneland boring?
Report to moderator   Logged

He's literate and funny.  I can see why he angers you so.
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4528




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2013, 02:07:11 PM »

I'm not trying to regulate things, simply trying to find out what earthly connection your question has to do with anything at all that was being discussed.

Oh, stop already; it's too much for you to act like a dick and then lie about it all in one day. You knew *exactly* what you were doing with that snotty schoolmarm response. No one here is fooled.

It wasn't "slight" at all. It was an attempt at a major derailment to divert attention from the actual subject.

"Major derailment", my ass: "Big Al" was able to figure out what I was talking about, and he's not quite the mental giant we all know you to be.

I hate it that your GF never lets you win an argument at home, and you try to stir the shit here instead. I prescribe a couple of Giant Beers for you, stat.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13146

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2013, 02:31:38 PM »

Oh, stop already; it's too much for you to act like a dick and then lie about it all in one day. You knew *exactly* what you were doing with that snotty schoolmarm response. No one here is fooled.

I knew what I was doing, all right, asking you what the hell "best horse to run on the fake stuff in the UK" had to do with the subject at hand, or even the immediate post to which you responded. And now you have answered - absolutely nothing at all, except the words "synthetic surface".

Quote
"Major derailment", my ass: "Big Al" was able to figure out what I was talking about, and he's not quite the mental giant we all know you to be.

Big Al fell for your attempt to derail the subject and take focus off the FACT of the study that the fatality rate is 1/2 on synthetics what it is on dirt. That is the dirty little secret you're trying so desperately to obscure with your diversionary OT nonsense. You don't want people to focus on the fact that the synthetic surfaces are apparently accomplishing just exactly what they were intended to accomplish, because then more tracks might think about putting them in. You don't like the racing on the fake stuff because to you it is inscrutable, and you'd rather just keep right on killing twice as many horses for your gambling entertainment, rather that have the industry do what looks to be the right thing to do as far as minimizing fatalities.

Refocus, now. Here's the issue:

"In 2012, the fatality rate per 1,000 starts on synthetic surfaces was 1.03 compared to 2.10 on dirt and 1.74 on turf."
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 02:35:51 PM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

He's literate and funny.  I can see why he angers you so.
tapetea
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 394




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2013, 05:26:15 PM »

"and 1.74 on turf."

How come grass is getting a pass?
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13146

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2013, 05:28:24 PM »

How come grass is getting a pass?

Because there's really no issue of grass vs. synthetic, I guess.
Report to moderator   Logged

He's literate and funny.  I can see why he angers you so.
tapetea
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 394




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2013, 07:03:30 PM »

With the exception of just a couple, the lowest of the low crappy ones ARE NOT.

The ones in blue with the * are participating.

How significant are the California fairs in the study? Something like 6 out of 30 reporting tracks were from the fair circuit.

You also have quarter horse stats from Indiana thrown in there along with Portland Meadows. So we have about a third of the study comprised by tracks that some might find dubious.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13146

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2013, 07:24:09 PM »

How significant are the California fairs in the study? Something like 6 out of 30 reporting tracks were from the fair circuit.

You also have quarter horse stats from Indiana thrown in there along with Portland Meadows. So we have about a third of the study comprised by tracks that some might find dubious.

You can click through to each of those and review their stats, if you really want to know. One thing about those fairs, they don't run many races, so their data gets swamped by that from the larger meet.

And as for the synthetic tracks, there are some who might find the quality of horse flesh at Presque Isle, Turfway, and Golden Gate just a bit dubious, too.
Report to moderator   Logged

He's literate and funny.  I can see why he angers you so.
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4528




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2013, 07:32:20 PM »

Refocus, now. Here's the issue:

"In 2012, the fatality rate per 1,000 starts on synthetic surfaces was 1.03 compared to 2.10 on dirt and 1.74 on turf."

:::yawn:::

Too small of a difference to be meaningful; there just weren't that many horses dying on racetracks to begin with.

Anyway, I still contend (as I did years ago) that at least some of the improved numbers have to do with increased scrutiny of runners by the track vet at places that went through the expense of installing fake racing surfaces; really, what would be the point of spending all that money if you adhered to the old policy of "looking the other way" on iffy runners, just to keep average field size up? (No doubt in my mind that at least AP was letting sore horses race before they installed poly.)
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13146

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2013, 07:59:43 PM »

:::yawn:::

Too small of a difference to be meaningful; there just weren't that many horses dying on racetracks to begin with.

Approximately 1200 per year, according to the NY Times in their recent series. But if a surface change could conceivably reduce that to 600 per year, you would just yawn?

The following MSNBC story from 2008 says 5,000 died on thoroughbred tracks between 2003 and the article, so that's also 1000 per year.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25163444/

Quote
Anyway, I still contend (as I did years ago) that at least some of the improved numbers have to do with increased scrutiny of runners by the track vet at places that went through the expense of installing fake racing surfaces; really, what would be the point of spending all that money if you adhered to the old policy of "looking the other way" on iffy runners, just to keep average field size up? (No doubt in my mind that at least AP was letting sore horses race before they installed poly.)

They increased their scrutiny, but in this day and age dirt tracks continue to look the other way? Roll Eyes

Weak. Really weak.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 08:05:04 PM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

He's literate and funny.  I can see why he angers you so.
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4528




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2013, 08:28:41 PM »

They increased their scrutiny, but in this day and age dirt tracks continue to look the other way? Roll Eyes

Weak. Really weak.

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

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.178 seconds with 17 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Breeders' Cup
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

Breeders' Cup
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