Maiden filly euthanized after breakdown
Another casualty at Del Mar on Tuesday morning, as the Barry Abrams-trained maiden filly Bell Canyon Road broke down and had to be euthanized.
That brings the total mumber of casualties this meeting, with seven days of racing left, to 12 -- 11 on the synthetic Polytrack surface and one on turf.
It's the worst meeting for deaths since the 2006 meet, which helped spur the CHRB's synthetic track mandate.
I'm not blaming the track because I don't think any of us know the reason why all these horses are breaking down, but I am still going on record as saying synthetics have not proven to be any safer than a good, quality dirt track. And tracks like Saratoga, Belmont and Churchill Downs didn't have to ante up more than $40 million to improve their surfaces.
Makes you wonder who has an incentive to continue this madness. Someone must have a finacial stake in keeping this crap.
They said “Synthetic surfaces would be less expensive to maintain”. Wrong! Synthetic Surfaces are more expensive to maintain. It’s not even a close call!
They said “Synthetic surfaces would have fewer biases than traditional dirt surfaces”. Wrong! In fact there are manmade and natural biases created on a daily basis!
They said “Synthetic surfaces would be much safer for the Horses who race and train on it”. This is the biggest and best lie of all.
they said “Synthetic surfaces would increase field size”. Wrong! Due to a large number of soft tissue injuries many Horses are in rehab and races can’t be filled!
Until this year we were taking the word of the Racing Executives and Dr. Rick Arthur. What a mistake! What’s funny is that beginning this year when everyone started paying attention and counting injuries and fatalities the numbers went way up. What a surprise! Maybe we were misled in 2007 and 2008 to help the cause of the synthetic advocates. How can the numbers be so far off from what we were told?
From where I stand Racing Officials and Racing Executives in California are either disconnected from what their customers want or they just don’t care. Or maybe they have a personal financial interest in perpetuating the big lie.
How on earth can any sane person decide to put an All Weather surface at Del Mar? From my recollection it has rained twice in the last 20 years. Does this make sense to anyone?
A couple of weeks ago I sent an email to Kirk Breed and Mike Marten of the CHRB and asked a couple of questions about Dr. Rick Arthur (they have always answered my questions in the past). As of today the questions have not been answered. The questions were:
Has Dr. Arthur received gifts, monies, free trips, meals, or stock options from any manufacturer of synthetic surfaces?
Has Dr. Arthur received gifts, monies, free trips, meals, or stock options from any Race Track or Racing Executive in California to promote synthetic surfaces?
What type of injury did the filly suffer? Just curious.
I still think it's unfair to compare Del Mar to Belmont, Saratoga, et al. And even in the worst meet to date for breakdowns on Polytrack, the total amount of breakdowns will (knock on wood) still be fairly lower than 2006. I do find it somewhat amusing that a quick check shows a total of 0 posts regarding breakdowns from your blog in July/August, 2006.
Racingfan:
There's a very good reason why you didn't see posts on breakdowns in July/August 2006 ... that's before we were all fed this baloney about synthetic surfaces being (1) safer, (2) maintenance free, (3) capable of drawing larger fields (4) and leading to more horses coming here from out of state. I have gone on record as saying synthetics will be a thing of the past in California within five years and I find it interesting that a high-ranking state racing official told me today he can't comment on whether artificial tracks will still be around in California by 2014. A large portion of the trainers who were in favor of them at the start have now done a 180-degree turn and don't like 'em. You know why Hollywood Park and its Cushion Track has had the least amount of breakdowns of all the California tracks in 2009? Because as trainer Ron Ellis told me, it was closer to a dirt track this summer than a synthetic.
Chrystal -- fractured sesamoids in her right front leg.
LOL .... There was no such thing as synthetics in the U.S. in 2006. Perhaps that is why nobody was covering them? I still can't believe the amount of people out there that are still so misinformed they continue to think that the synthetics are helping the racing industry by cutting back on injuries.
ING, I'm well aware there were no synthetics in 2006. The point I was making is that it seems a littled biased to report on every single breakdown now, when there were 0 posts about all the breakdowns on dirt. To me, if a breakdown is worth reporting now, it should have been in 2006 as well. Perhaps even more worthy in 2006, seeing as there were 19.
I also don't feel I'm misinformed. I'm aware that synthetics haven't greatly reduced injuries, but they have at least modestly reduced breakdowns at Del Mar. They've also led to a better (more European-like) racing product by placing a greater emphasis on durability and less on cheap, early speed. Perhaps this will prompt American breeders in increasing their focus on durability. In my opinion, breeding so heavily for speed and increased drug use are the two main factors that led to synthetics in the first place.
Racingfan,
It's not biased to report breakdowns on synthetics when that was their major selling point -- that they would significantly reduce catastrophic injuries. The media is not going to turn a deaf ear to these breakdowns, particularly after we were told they would be greatly reduced. Reporters do not work for each track's publicity department, we're not trying to place a positive spin on everything. We still have not been given cold, hard numbers regarding breakdowns and what the numbers looked like before the synthetics and now. Is someone trying to hide something? I don't know, but I do know that horses unfortunately are going to break down at times on any type of surface and it didn't take the $40-plus million that Del Mar, Hollywood Park and Santa Anita have spent on synthetics to prove that point.
Art,
Point taken. I’m definitely not trying to insinuate that you shouldn’t be reporting on these issues now. I just feel the issue should have been reported on in 2006, as well. Breakdown statistics were obviously not well documented prior to synthetics, so a true comparison with exact percentages will never be attainable. But we do know there were 19 in 2006, 6 (or 7, if I’m off by one or two I apologize) in 2007, 8 or so in 2008, and, hopefully, around 13 in 2009. This shows at least some benefit, to me.
Breakdowns/injuries aside, I still don’t quite understand some people’s disdain for the synthetics. I find its racing to be more exciting, and just as handicappable (I think I invented a word there) as dirt racing. Despite a major decline in the inventory of horses in the state, starters per race seem to have stayed pretty consistent with previous years. And I like the fact that durability/endurance is as big a factor as speed. Synthetics are not the panacea that the CHRB made them out to be, but, in my opinion, I would still classify them as fairly good for the sport.
Racingfan84
Santa Anita had nearly a 50% carryover rate and the the carryovers since the advent of synthetic surfaces are way up. It's not an accident.
Andrew A,
I think I remember hearing that favorites still won at a 33% clip at the Santa Anita '09 spring meet (though I have no way to back that up). I feel that most of the carryovers were caused by strings of 7-1 horses winning, not by daily 40-1 shots. Handicapping synthetics is different than handicapping dirt, but I still contend they are handicappable, it just takes some adjusting. I would agree that maybe it's harder to single horses in each race on synthetics.
Racingfan84
The favorites win percentage is correct for all races but not the pick 6 races. They put the short fields and races that are easier to handicap out of the pick 6 sequence so a carryover is more likely.
The bottom line is that the product we were sold is not the product we got.
I was once a proponent of synthetics as I was tired and bored of the racing on sealed tracks. Too many times cheap speed held on. Now I can't stand them as I see jockeys pulling their horses back and horses alone on the lead stopping like they dropped an anchor.
I used to own horses, but have stopped since synthetics. Many of my friends have shipped their horses out of state and in my opinion the CHRB has turned Cal Racing into a joke.
The Breeder's Cup should never race in CA again until they switch back to dirt. If we had a dirt track we'd be seeing Rachael versus Zenyatta instead we'll have other quality horses not coming to the Breeder's Cup.
Look at Keeneland; they've pretty much made their main track racing to be non important as horses that have no business winning races at that meet are winning and quality horses are passing and going to other races. NY now has the best racing with Churchill second and even Florida ranks before CA racing. Good job CHRB!
Catman,
Tough to argue with anything you write. Hopefully your friends will return when we get quality dirt tracks back. I emphasize the word "quality," because when the SoCal tracks do go back to dirt, management must make sure it installs only the highest-quality dirt and then does a super job maintaining it and keeping it high quality.
I would like to ask you about this Art-I noticed one trainer's name attached to 3 or 4 of the first 6-8 morning breakdowns. That is, if the lists I saw were accurate. If that is indeed the case, I find it hard to believe that is just mind boggling coincedence and wondered 1 if true and 2 what does that mean about him and his horses? It bothered me.
Outlaw,
I think if in fact one trainer lost that many horses because of morning breakdowns, it had to be just very poor luck as opposed to anything wrong he or she was doing.