A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

laughinggull — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:51:37 GMT

Anyone else notice the slavering approval of "world opinon" and "mandate?" This journalistic giant sounds like a barker for the Global Whining Manifesto. He tries to make dirt racing sound as scandalous as Hottergate. Good luck with that, but two big thumbs down, guv.

Dave,

Before I'm able to destroy your argument, I'll need a translation of the following:

"... none ... broke down, which was routine during previous Breeders' Cups."

If none breaking down was routine, you've destroyed one part of the anti-dirt case. If one/some breaking down was routine, what in God's name does that term --- "routine" --- even mean? One per every Cup ? One per day in the two-days-per-Cup era? Once in a while? However often it kinda feels like it was to you?

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Ann in Lexington — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:22:23 GMT

IMHO, there are several causes behind increased numbers of breakdowns. Breeding to unsound stallions is certainly one of them. But the way yearlings are raised these days is another. 'Sales prep' as opposed to running in a field with your buddies makes for less dense bones. And many trainers don't seem to understand that longer distances worked at a tempo below racing speed build muscle and bone and wind. Horses are capable of much more exercise, if properly done, than modern trainers realize. (Read Preston Burch's book.) And, I might add, dirt tracks are not as well maintained as they once were; it is a labor intensive (read expensive) job and more likely to receive budget cuts than executive pay.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Bob Hope — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:16:30 GMT

get rid of the Breeders Cup Hybrid Classic.

get rid of the astericks that will be necessary in all future sales catelogues

employ science(physics) in main track (dirt) construction, not veterinarians

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Terry — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:43:24 GMT

In my perfect world, all racing would be on turf. Maybe that would be possible if, instead of a turf plus dirt (or turf plus synthetic) surface, tracks each had two turf tracks so races could switched back and forth as needed to let the turf recover. Ain't gonna happen though.

Myself, I don't like dirt racing because it turns into mud, slop, swamp, gumbo, frozen muck, etc. when the weather is bad. The track is more consistent with sythetics. At least that seems to have been the case with Polytrack at Woodbine. I don't know about other kinds.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Sam — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:14:23 GMT

America racing is dirt. We don't want to be Europe. Racing on dirt tells an entire story, while racing on polytrack is often a 100 yard dash with all the horses racing in a tight pack. I love the appeal of dirt racing and I would be heart broken to see it go.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

J in NY — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:15:26 GMT

CA legislature changed their 2006 MANDATE which stated that all CA tracks need to be synthetic. THIS is the only reason why the tracks in CA were changed. Now, the mandate is reversed.

All of the CA tracks and trainers realize also the "less injuries, less maintenance" claim of the synthetics was false, AND, after the ownership issues get sorted out, most of the CA tracks will most likely revert back to dirt.

There were not enough tests done on the plastic surfaces to begin with to make such claims. God only knows what the horses are breathing in and ingesting when they get pelted in the face with that stuff. Saying that this is "better" for the horses when horses run on grass and dirt and sand in the wild is a bit inane. Besides which, every synthetic surface is different.

This blog is basically built on opinion, not fact. To tell every major track in the nation to spend MILLIONS to change to this poly-crap is completely unrealistic. Mark, I think all of the the European tracks should change over to DIRT! But, if you want a bunch of poly horses with mushy behinds, that's on you.

One woman I spoke with mentioned that "Tapeta" surface in Dubai. When that city gets its high temps and the sun beats down on the track, they will have to create a new track condition: "Melted"

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Eileen — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:42:52 GMT

One important point that nobody has addressed, to quote the article, "High levels of fatalities are grist to the mill of increasing vocal animal activists"

If these animal activists get even a "TOE" in any decisions made about any racing conditions, they will find a way (just like what they are doing to dog breeders in California)to STOP any racing at all.

They can't be humored. They can't be given ONE INCH! If they are, they will find a way to SHUT IT ALL DOWN.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Alysse — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:53:11 GMT

Try walking on synthetics yourself. Feel the heat rise up on hot days. How good can that be for Thoroughbreds, notorious for problem feet? Wonder how the kickback of the artificial, odorous surface goes over in a horse's lungs. Feel how deceptively soft the cushion is while the base is rock solid. Imagine being a jockey falling on that surface. So much for your safety then.

Then what becomes of all these horses with soft tissue injuries synthetics are becoming known for? Sure, they might not die right away, but they are harder injuries to come back from. It's harder for them to become useful horses. Maybe they'll find a home. But then that owner won't want them anymore and they keep trickling through owner and owner until the worst become inevitable.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

mark c — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:42:50 GMT

There is no better racing surface than at churchill downs !!!

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Chris — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:17:42 GMT

I wish I could get paid to write crap and make stuff up. Synthetic safer? Why don't you compare Saratoga fatalities vs. Del Mar this year. Hint...it will prove your theory is bogus. Go back to Europe.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Kayte — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:08:43 GMT

I personally think that synthetics should be dumped and forgotten-- I hated the idea years ago when news came out about this new 'surface' that would protect horses. I still dislike heavily to this day.

And show me the evidence that horses are safer? I read somewhere a while back that, while catastrophic injuries such as broken legs, are down, the incidence of soft-tissue injuries at tracks that have replaced dirt with a synthetic surface are up. So trainers are dealing with more pulled tendons, sore muscles, each that take away from a horse's training and readiness for a race. And that's a fair trade-off for a surface that costs millions to install and is supposed to keep Thoroughbred safer???

And, as we have seen, synthetics in the afternoon run almost similiar to what a turf course is. So why spend the money on a surface like that when a track could just remove the dirt track altogether and run on the turf completely. From the way you are talking, then the Europeans will be even more happy--their turf stars can come over here and not even feel challenged.

Such a terrible article!!!! I am disappointed that Bloodhorse would even post this.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

rowner — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:02:59 GMT

I have read this article with an open mind and come to the conclusion that it was mindless drivel. You have to look at the motivation behind it and after reading the article and all the comments it seems that there is no clear basis to switch from one surface to another. 2 years does not make a study its just euros wanting a larger slice of the american pie, people just looking to take advantage where they can get it. The main problem is breeding and drugs not the surface. How many euros raced on lasix this year,almost all of them. I agree Monmouth was a mistake due to the weather and I would like to see the Breeders Cup earlier and not in November back to October. We must have done this for the euros to because of the Arc being so close in time frame. Anytime you race in November its a crap shoot with weather except in your warm weather states so should we discount all the eastern tracks because of weather being cold? I enjoyed this years Breeders Cup but I wonder what might have been elsewhere a 100 years of tradition is just to much to throw out on a whim.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

GeoRA — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:29:01 GMT

Oh and JCN? The synthetics are MARKEDLY diffferent from morning to afternoon.

The number of foot, suspensory and particularly hind end injuries are MUCH higher on the synthetics.

What bush track do you run on that only has one break?

Even the 'experts' the people who install the synthetics say the hundreds of horses pounding the synthetics in morning works makes the track play a lot different.

Not sure where you're getting your info from. Talk to Baffert or even John S. Any number of trainers out there who are very unhappy with the surfaces, particularly Del Mar.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

GeoRA — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:22:07 GMT

JCN, better hurry. Wait much longer and you'll be down to two tracks with synthetics.

If no buyer is found for Santa Anita there they go. If Arnie decides to reclaim Del Mar, you can run at Golden Gate.

But, depending on the class of horse you have, my bet it's claimers if at all, then you'll be running at the Fairs or Los Al, NONE of which are synthetics.

Maybe a little more research too.

The handicappers have forced the issue and most of the trainers in Cal admit the surfaces have been 'sped up'.

IF you've ever had a Derby prospect, winner or runner it really is rare when one pops up and wins without that distance behind them, but there are always freaks.

Handle is declining? Well the economy is in the toilet, people have lost their homes in record numbers, the unemployment # is headed for an all time high. Yet the hubby is going to go spend money at the track? I don't think so.

The farms are going to manage to keep going?

My opinion? I read this stuff on here and have come to the conclusion that a lot of you aren't fans, aren't in the business at all. Those of us who are, are trying everything we can think of to stay in it and keep it going until the economy has some kind of recovery. We're no different than any other business. We're driven by disposable income and there isn't much of that on the whole right now.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

John T — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:44:42 GMT

Well done Mark,you have opened a

can of worms that should be opened.

Looking back on the recently concluded Breeders Cup meeting at Santa Anita I think the Marathon,Sprint and Juvenile for colts were three of the most exciting finishes I have ever seen

and all three were run om a synthetic surface.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

RonM — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:04:21 GMT

sophiekea, you have summed up the attitude of the US dirt leadership well: "Its not fair!!"

Its not fair our business is declining, give us slot money.

Its not fair handle is declining, let us increase takeout.

Its not fair we are becoming increasingly marginalized by the world racing community, let's just race on dirt and call it a "world" championship.

Its not fair our foal crop is only 30k a year, lets just foist mediocre year round racing on our diminishing fan base, they won't notice.

Ah yes, right out of the General Motors management playbook!

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Waquoit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:56:42 GMT

What about the game - picking winners? Fake dirt is a crap shoot and takes all of the fun out of horse racing. For proof, I submit the large number of huge Pick 6 carryovers in SoCal. Never used to be like that.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

al bundy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:07:00 GMT

what are the stats of injuries and breakdowns to horses running the hurdles.seems like every race i see at least one goes down.usually more.my opinion of go for wand was the jock would not settle for place and pushed her to hard.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

sophiekea — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:34:36 GMT

BMC Racing, have you heard of Lilly Langtry? She got injured during THIS year's Breeders Cup!

To me its not even about the injuries or deaths. Its just not fair to have a Classic run on synthetics. Why not just run it on the turf then because we have all seen in the last two years that the track is basically an artificial turf surface. Of course the east coast horses didnt do well, they mainly run on dirt. The TRADITIONAL surface for the classic!!!

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

RonM — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:25:13 GMT

JCN nailed the safety issue in his (her?) point #2. Speed causes horse breakdowns, just like it causes human breakdowns. Any horse running a 1 mile race is under considerably more stress if the half is run in 45 vs 48. Physiological fact, I'm sorry but you cannot spin this one. Anyone can validate this with a run around their block: compare the feeling between an even pace with a fast start, then hanging on to the finish.

Its conceivable the main driver of less catastrophic breakdowns on turf may not be the surface per se, but rather the pace scenarios correlated with the surfaces.

Synthetics in the US are basically a compromise, as our country is *slightly* bigger than the UK, so we cannot change racetracks every few days to keep the turf in raceable condition.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

Steve — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:50:18 GMT

All you dirt track lovers, which do you love more? An unsealed dirt track that has just taken two or three days of heavy rain and is fetlock deep in slop and mud, throwing all form out the window and turning races into jokes, or a sealed dirt track that is concrete-hard and unsafe to horse and rider? Personally, I don't like either one.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

paco — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:37:01 GMT

Yes, by all means lets run all BC cards on synthetic tracks so we can continue to neutralize many of the best American runners and allow more second-tier Euros who take to the wax win millions while their highly-touted compatriots run up the track. Seems fair to me, and a great way to advance the sport. NOT! And using Keeneland as a prime example of a voluntarily switch to an artificial surface is both stupid and misleading since they have an ownership stake in polytrack. It will be very interesting to see how Tapeta holds up in Haydes, oops I mean Dubai, and just how long that experiment lasts. I predict Dickinson and company will be racking up a lot of frequent flyer miles on Emirates Air.

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

LEON — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:11:06 GMT

Tvnewsbadge & Pnewmarket:

The world rankings show a huge bias against US racing...Gio Ponti won 4 G1's on turf, and finished 2nd on a different surface in the BCC, while beating Rip Van Winkle & Twice Over. Rating Rip Van Winkle that high after his flop in the BC, is nonsense, especially when considering he only won 2 G1's all year. What they are implying is that his second place races vs Sea The Stars had more importance than any of Gio Ponti's 4 G1 wins.

Fame & Glory won only one G1 in 2009, and yet he holds a tie for fourth with Zenyatta, and he is ranked above Rachel & Gio Ponti too...

That's rubbish...

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

LEON — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:46:52 GMT

To pnewmarket:

You said Turf is the natural surface for horses, however, this article is calling for dirt tracks in the US to switch to synth, not to turf.

I'd like to see Longchamps or Royal Ascot switching from grass to synth...That'll be the day...

re: A Dig At Dirt - By Mark Popham

WhiteCamry — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:20:47 GMT

"There are no dirt surfaces in countries with quality racing outside of America."

Canada? Argentina? Or by "America" did you mean the entire Western Hemisphere?