- This topic has 26 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
As usual, I’m starting a thread about a topic of which I am ignorant.
Santa Anita to go back to dirt from AW.
I know there has been some lobbying about this. How influential was it?
Said they had drainage problems.
However, other synthetic tracks haven’t suffered with this problem, have they?
Surely they can sort the drainage out, and then put a synthetic surface on it, unless the synthetic material is the problem?
How come they can go back to dirt, when there has been a California State edict about the issue?
The will get permission from the CHRB to put dirt back in.
It’s funny how AW is viewed so differently on either side of the pond. Considered the greatest thing since sliced bread on the right side of the Atlantic and the creation of the devil on the other side.
Btw, why do you consider dirt racing backwards and a victory for the Luddites? Hopefully you’re not basing it on the idea that it’s supposedly safer, as the most recent comprehensive study by the JC shows that fatal breakdowns occur at more or less the same rate on AW as on dirt.It’s absolutely brilliant news. Alarmist people who think a standard Dirt track is unsafe and the horrible self-promotion of synthetic surfaces, which were not proven as they should have been when this was "mandated", caused this unnecessary problem.
Here’s a few of many articles on the issue.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/ … id=5456208
http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/santa … etic-saga/
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/04 … a-20100305
The surface was originally installed as a "Cushion Track" surface. Yes, one of the many varieties of these plastic surfaces. If you take a look at some of Zenyatta’s early wins at Santa Anita, you will see the original surface had more kickback than any Dirt surface and they also run unbelievable times on the surface in every race. 1:06 was recorded for 6 furlongs – a then world record. Since I believe installed Pro Ride fully, which is just another wonderful plastic track, which according to Ian Pearse and the Pro Ride website is the best on the market. That also hasn’t drained well at Santa Anita.
Hollywood Park has had renovations.
Del Mar has been described as a nightmare in places.
As for how can they go back to Dirt with the apparent rule in place, despite the fact the major tracks have the synthetic surfaces in place, the "fairs" tracks still have Dirt. It’s not hard to work out from there and Richard Shapiro is no longer able to wreck racing there.
Thought this was going to be something about the brilliant indie pop groups of the eighties. The Luddites.
"Doppelganger". One of the best intro’s to a song ever, before the first line…."The lightbulb shatters,
With the strength of your cry, of your cri-ie".Value Is EverythingOn the correct topic…
It is a retrograde step.
Dirt kills!
So does AW, at more or less the same rate.
What really kills is the American obsession with balls out speed. But you can’t legislate for that.
The more rational among us have zero problem with synthetics. The tracks at Presque Isle, Woodbine, Turfway, even the hallowed ground of Keeneland recieve next to no complaints. The issue is that when the legislation was passed in California to mandate synthetic surfaces for every track with an extended meet (Los Alamitos gets an exemption for being primarily a quarter horse track), every track rushed to put different untested surfaces on.
Southern California has pretty much the opposite weather of the UK-it has two seasons, warm and HOT, so the rubber in the surfaces actually melts, and the tracks actually get over 150 degrees Fahrenheit. It doesn’t rain much, but when it does it POURS, so the "all-weather" surface at Santa Anita was closed for nearly a week this spring after a particularly heavy storm. Also, Santa Anita has gone through at least 2 AW surfaces, the ProRide had to be replaced with a new track, which clearly failed and had trainers fuming. Del Mar has it even worse, being so near the ocean the tides actually affect the sand underneath, and there has been a lot of scrutiny over it. There were even rumors that Zenyatta wouldn’t run in the Clement L. Hirsch due to surface concerns. There is hard evidence that while synthetics have slightly fewer broken legs and hoof injuries, there has been a rise in soft tissue injuries.
All California tracks have seen dramatic drops in field size, as trainers have fled east with their mudders and fussy dirt-horses in tow, and remaining trainers don’t run their horses as often. The tracks have gotten a bad reputation, deserved or not, among many trainers and owners, and I have seen many betters adamantly refuse to wager on California tracks. With so many different types of synthetic surfaces, each different from dirt and turf, I don’t blaim them.
Dirt kills!
So does National Hunt, horrifically.
Very interesting read, Miss Woodford. The Americans should do what they think is best for American racing. Period.
Indeed a good read.
We should do all we can to minimise injuries and (in particular) fatalities in all spheres of racing.
I am not in favour of Summer jumping either.
For Santa Anita to give up on synthetics is likely to cause others to do so. One step forward, two steps back.
The Americans should do what’s best for the
welfare
of their horses Cav. Period.
Suspect synthetics being seen as advantageous to European horses may have a small part in the decision too.
Value Is EverythingI am not in favour of Summer jumping either.
Why? Because it kills? What about horses killed during the Winter? Any suggestions for that "sphere"?
Suspect synthetics being seen as advantageous to European horses may have a small part in the decision too.
5-2 to the USA on Pro-ride at last years Breeders Cup. Not that there’s any problem reverting to the surface that
they
race on the majority of the time in
that
country for
their
championship series. Should Epsom be dug up to encourage American 3yo’s to come over in June?
Why is it two steps back?
The big selling point in synthetics, at least in California and indeed why they were mandated by the CHRB, was that they were supposedly safer. There was the idea that they would require less maintenance than dirt (less watering and dragging post race), but that was not the main reason for their use in California. Maybe up in Turfway in KY or Woodbine in Can, where they race in the cold.
Now, if it turns out that they are not any safer, as reports seem to suggest, then what is the whole point? There is almost universal dislike for them.
Fans dislike them as they change the way races are run from the traditional style of US dirt racing, which generally favours early and sustained speed.
Owners dislike them as some of their horses don’t perform on them, so you’re left with some expensive horse meat that you have to put on plane to run back east. It’s not like in England or Ireland where there are bucketful of racecourses within a 100 mile radius, so if your horse doesn’t handle one course you can race him 20 miles down the road at a more suitable course. If you have a horse at one of the big three tracks in SoCal, and he doesn’t like synth, you are screwed. I suppose you could run at Los Alamitos, a 6f Bullring, for peanuts, or one of the fair tracks, also for peanuts.
Trainers don’t like them for many of the same reasons as owners and the fact that there has been an increase in soft tissue injuries.
Lastly, bettors, who finance the sport in the US through parimutuel takeout, generally hate synth also, because it changes the way races are handicapped. Sure, they could just adapt and learn to handicap synth, but you’ve spent your life developing a handicapping strategy with speed and pace figures for one type of surface and someone pulls the rug out from under you, so you’re probably not going to be too happy.
It’s funny, people on this board get upset because a race is given a new name with a sponsor, yet they think the yanks should just suck it up and get used to having their racing culture turned on it’s head.
As to being advantageous to Europeans and that being part of the descision… do you really seriously think they made this decision for the one or two days of the Breeders Cup that may happen every 3 or 4 years and not the 100 plus days of racing each year at Santa Anita when there are no European shippers?
As I recall it, US owners and trainers were very much in favour of replacing dirt with polytrack for the very reason that horses were getting so badly injured on dirt that owners would not race in California, those that did had to be barn rest their horses for weeks to recover and field sizes were shrinking year by year.
It is too early to tell on injury figures excepting that US figures for all surface types are far higher than elsewhere as the horses are stuck in the barns and race flat out when unfit. Few of the US polytracks are properly constructed or maintained – so false ground injuries arise on a potentially safer surface. It is no accident that UK trainers train their horses on polytrack if they have the money.
StA made a complete mess in "thinking" that polytrack was just a matter of replacing dirt with sand. It crucially relies on an integral drainage system and that was totally missing. Other tracks with zero knowledge and the arrogance not to consult insisted on changing the mix to suit some arbitrary requirements – that resulted in more kickback than dirt, not far less as here. The melting polytrack is another myth as it is tested at those temperatures and works very well in Australia and the Far East.
So they had a big problem which is being "solved" by going back to the original conditions when they had the same big problem. Management by deck chair rearrangement.
- Total Posts 17716
Superbly illuminating post,
Robert99
– thank you.
So we’re talking cock-up rather than conspiracy here, poor technical implementation rather than unsound statistics. With the failure of an initiative that was intended to save it, the situation for Californian racing looks bleak indeed.
One thing’s for sure. This demise of "level playing-field" synthetics will do nothing to encourage European trainers to risk their best horses on good ol’ American dirt, in the increasingly provincial-looking institution that is the Breeders Cup.
I am not in favour of Summer jumping either.
Why? Because it kills? What about horses killed during the Winter? Any suggestions for that "sphere"?
Suspect synthetics being seen as advantageous to European horses may have a small part in the decision too.
5-2 to the USA on Pro-ride at last years Breeders Cup. Not that there’s any problem reverting to the surface that
they
race on the majority of the time in
that
country for
their
championship series. Should Epsom be dug up to encourage American 3yo’s to come over in June?
The risk to horses jumping on firm ground is in my opinion too great. Therefore I am against Summer Jumping.
Of course horses die in winter too, but the risk is less. There was an excellant thread on here about Cheltenham’s second last. How to reduce the risk of injuries and fatalities. I’d be in favour of anything that reduces injury yet keeps most of the spectacle.
I’d take it you would not be in favour of going back to uninviting vertical fences, concrete posts, no plastic rails and throw away other safety initiatives over the years Cav?
I said "seen as advantageous" I don’t personally believe synthetics were a significant advantage for Euros. Am I saying they should bend over backwards to suit Euros? NO, just do what’s best for safety. Doesn’t matter whether that is pro USA or pro Euro.
Value Is EverythingRob, could you name all the tracks in Australia and the Far East that race on Poly? Thanks in advance.
Few of the US polytracks are properly constructed or maintained – so false ground injuries arise on a potentially safer surface. It is no accident that UK trainers train their horses on polytrack if they have the money.
StA made a complete mess in "thinking" that polytrack was just a matter of replacing dirt with sand. It crucially relies on an integral drainage system and that was totally missing. Other tracks with zero knowledge and the arrogance not to consult insisted on changing the mix to suit some arbitrary requirements – that resulted in more kickback than dirt, not far less as here. The melting polytrack is another myth as it is tested at those temperatures and works very well in Australia and the Far East.
So they had a big problem which is being "solved" by going back to the original conditions when they had the same big problem. Management by deck chair rearrangement.
They are not all "Polytrack," which is crucial when going through this mess.
Why would any normal synthetic brand/track maker not ensure the track allowed the proper drainage facilities to be installed to ensure the surface drains?
It sort of makes no sense for the company to allow the track to be at fault, especially Cushion Track, who Santa Anita were supposed to be suing, although how Mr Stronrach can sue anyone, I don’t know.
All I’ll say on the heat issue is that Tapeta was hardly working great in Dubai. It was a slow surface for nearly all of the carnival that I would have nothing to do with. Kempton water the Polytrack to keep it binding well before race-days in the summer here.
These tracks are an inconsistent, bias filled nightmare.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.