Forum Replies Created
- Posts
There should be an international rule that you can’t run a G1 on a 7f bullring. It’s a complete crapshoot with the tight turns and hard ground. You can’t have a true run race on those things. Like watching Dog racing.
Woodbine and Belmont are the only places the BC should be held at.
Keep the top handicaps and replace the day to day racing with a series of allowance races:
NW1, NW2, NW 1 in a year, NW2 in 6 months etc.
While there may be some merit to the claiming system as used by the Yanks, the allowance system makes absolutely no friggin sense. Think about it, what does "Non Winner of One Race" mean? That could be anything from the worst horse in the country to Youmzain (he’s a NW1 in 2½ years!!.. he also has over €4m to his name). It does a shite job of providing evenly matched fields.
Look at this race… http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result … &popup=yes
The winner, a multiple G1 winner, who had finished 3rd in the BC Turf in his last start, is getting 4lbs from the top weight, a horse who had only ever run once in group/graded company in his life, finishing 2nd in a G3. Why? because Croton Road had won a couple of egg and spoon races in the previous few months and the multiple G1 winner was sitting in his stable?
Stupid system.There have been some good eventers that were coloureds, Lorna Clarke (nee Sutherland) was 8th at Badminton on Popadom a fine Skewbald in the late 60s and I think won a team gold at the world championships at Punchestown about 40 years ago.
Don’t forget Torrance Watkins’ horse, the diminutive
Poltroon
. Won a Bronze medal at the the alternate Olympics games in 1980 (due to the Moscow boycott) and a runner up at Badminton a year or two later. He was the result of a cross between a coloured pony and a TB stallion.
Here’s a pic of them in action http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae30 … oon001.jpgRob, could you name all the tracks in Australia and the Far East that race on Poly? Thanks in advance.
No, I can’t.
The ones I know or have heard about about but can’t confirm include:Kranji, Singapore
Japan – eight training tracks with confirmed plans to extend to main tracks
Hong Kong Olympics
There are some in Korea I know nothing about. Seoul has an AW training track.
Near East has Istanbul, Meydan and Al Quoz
Australia has Geelong, Sunset Coast, Toowoomba, Morphetville, Broadmeadow, Gosford, Moonee Valley, Warwick Farm?There is no AW racing in Japan. The majority of their day to day racing is on dirt and next to the US they are probably the biggest player in dirt, except maybe Argentina. Yet neither Japan or Argentina have seen the need to switch to Polytrack or any other synthetic.
Al Qouz is not a racetrack, it is training centre.
Moonee Valley does not race on AW surface. They do however have a
synthetic grass
surface… now there’s a concept.
Morphetville doesn’t race on synth. It has an AW training track.
Broadmeadow doesn’t race on synth. It has an AW training track.
Gosford doesn’t race on synth. It has a tiny AW training track inside the turf course.
Regarding Geelong’s Thoroughtrek course, seems they’ve had more that a few problems of their own in the drainage dept and question marks about it’s safety… http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/art … ports.html
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.
Some were, some weren’t.
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.
Now you might be on to something. The style of racing prefered in NA, and the shortness of most races play a large factor, irrespective of surface.
Speed kills.Few of the US polytracks are properly constructed or maintained – so false ground injuries arise on a potentially safer surface.
I imagine you are using the term "Poly" as a generic catch all for synthetic surfaces. There are several different types of synth in US. Regarding Poly, Martin Collins himself oversaw the installation of the earliest ones. Later Keeneland, the people that run the sales and the racetrack of the same name, bought a 50% stake, and run the NA end of things. They are not a fly by night organisation.
The tracks that utilise Tapeta were installed under the direct supervision of it’s inventor, Michael Dickinson, who regularly consults on it’s maintenance at those tracks.It is no accident that UK trainers train their horses on polytrack if they have the money.
UK, Irish and French trainers train on it because it is
ALL WEATHER
. When you train in a place where it pisses ran most of the time, esp in the winter, it’s essential to have a surface that allows for the most uninterrupted training. I remember when we used to gallop on wood chips prior to the advent of synthetic surfaces. This was for the very same reason… grass turns to ploughed mud if you gallop on it day after day after day after day after day after day, esp when it gets wet. If Poly was safer than grass then why hasn’t every racecourse in the UK from Ascot to Wincanton being ripped up and replaced with it?
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.
SA never had Polytrack. It had Cushion track initially, which was installed by the Cushion track people. They themselves screwed up the installation when they altered the mix to withstand high temperatures, a fact which they themselves have admitted and has resulted in a $10m lawsuit.
The Pro Ride people from Australia were then consulted and the Cushion was blended with Pro Ride at their recommendations, before eventually being replaced with Pro Ride. Where are you getting the "arbitrary requirements" and the "arrogance not to consult" from????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.
If it doesn’t fix the problem, then why not race on a surface that 90% of the horses were bred to run on and that fits the style of racing that most people are used to watching and betting on?
The fact is becoming apparent that synthetic surfaces don’t appear to be any safer.The underlying reason for the higher fatality rate is something you hinted at earlier. American racing is about speed, early and sustained and over shorter distances (95%+ of all races carded in the US and Canada are from 5f to 8.5f). Add in the fact that ever race involves at least one 180 turn, and many two 180 turns (which put a huge strain on limbs, then that combo will result in lot of horses breaking down no matter the surface.
Rob, could you name all the tracks in Australia and the Far East that race on Poly? Thanks in advance.
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?
On 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 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.Maybe richest 10f race.
Juddmonte £650k added (with added money this year came to £683k)Derby is richest flat race… £1.25m added
King George at Ascot richest WFA race. £1m addedGrand National richest jumps race… £925k added
e race saying "that isn’t a Thoroughbred, why is he racing".
Does make you wonder if the history of the breedline of his bloodline is pure TB, as it’d be difficult to get the coloured gene in there if he was a full TB.
He isn’t a pure TB, he is registered in Weatherbys Non-TB studbook. However it’s hardly unusual for a non-TB to race. As pointed out there’s a whole industry in breeding AQPS horses in France, some of who have been Gold Cup and Stayers Hurdle winners. There have also been a good few non-TB winners of the Grand National, the most recent being Amberleigh House who is not in the GSB (look at his pedigree here, his 5th dam was a half-bred mare). While more common over fences, it happens on the flat too. Clantime who was a G1 quality sprinter in the 80’s was non a GSB TB. He was later given full TB status by Weatherbys so his offspring could be registered as TBs. Two of the top sprinters in the UK in the mid-60s, Lucasland and So Blessed, both July Cup winners and neither were in the GSB and therefore technically no TBs.
Then there is the case of all those horses in the first half of the 1900s from American lines who were not considered "pure" TBs by the Jersey Act, many of who were Classic winners.Its difficult not to conclude from Saturday that trainer and jockey were minding the horse with one eye on the Travers, JCGP and Breeders Cup Classic for a showdown with Zenyatta.
The Travers (aka "Summer Derby") is for 3yos. Maybe you meant the Woodward?
The JCGC is not a handicap, it’s a true WFA race, older horses carry 9st and 3yos carry 8-10. That’s why it stands head and shoulders above the other races mentioned as it is invariably won by the best horse. Allowing major races to be handicaps means lesser horses can win G1s over better horses, that should never be the case.
There’s absolutely no reason why some American horses shouldn’t take a shot at the Arc. It’s worth $6m for goddsakes, more than the BC Classic. What argument could you make to stay home and run in the Turf Classic at Belmont the same weekend for 1/10th the money? You definitely can’t argue that the Turf Classic is more prestigious.
For that kind of money it’s worth a shot. Would most US turf horses be in over their head in the Arc? Sure, but that hasn’t stopped a good number of European horses giving the BC Classic on dirt the old college try.
But then, this is a racing culture where the best horse in the country, probably the world, spends her time running against tomato cans in restricted races in her home state, and that’s considered an acceptable/normal schedule. With that kind of mindset I think it’s unlikely well ever see many, if any, US horses shipping east across the pond.If anything the result proves that QR is the better horse, not Blame. Over 9f, 5lbs translates to approx 2.5 lengths, and he only lost by a head, so he’s still 2L a better horse.
Also illustrates why handicaps should not be given G1 status. All G1s should be WFA.I think I’ve heard it all now…. Pacemakers put in to ensure there’s no pace…..Genius!
Take a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zFKD5RLrhE
The two Ballydoyle pacemakers let the Maktoum pacemaker go to the front then both jockeys slam the brakes on to slow down the main group and isolate the Maktoum pacemaker. So yes, pacemakers can be used to slow the pace.
Of course they can also be ignored, whether there to quicken or slow the pace.
