Tradition!

re: Tradition!

Racingfan — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:02:11 GMT

Excellent article again Steve! And I agree with you Alex H! I wish I had a vote for the championships because I would consider the whole year like it should be. And I would never give a championship to a horse that ran just once in this country! I also find it sooooo interesting that Saratoga and Belmont had no breakdowns this summer while Del Mar had 8!! The jury is definitely still out on the safety of the synthetics!

re: Tradition!

Whatever — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:31:28 GMT

Well, it doesn't matter what surface this years Breeders Cup is run on, Curlin and Big Brown will not be there. The announcement of Big Brown's retirement doesn't surprise me. Apparently he grabbed a quarter and tore off the bulb of his hoof (OUCH!), However, this doesn't change anything because Big Brown would not have won anyway and Curlin already has HOY wrapped up no matter what happens in the Classic. They need to rush Big Brown off to the Breeding shed A.S.A.P. so they can start passing on his impeccable soundness and conformation qualities, AND those wonderfully brittle hooves can be passed on to some poor potential racehorse who eventually will end up lame and unsound themselves when those genetically weak hooves can no longer handle the punishment of being beat into the dirt or turf ending what will be a very short race career, just like their great sire. This years Classic will be won by one of the Californians, most likely Well Armed, Student Councel or Colonel John. Btter yet, find out who Dick Mandella is running in this years Classic, and bet on that horse. Horse of the Year: Curlin (only horse to win abroad and in America). Should Casino Drive win the Classic he should rightfully be voted: Best 3 year old colt. It shouldn't matter that Big Brown won the Derby and Preakness because he was deliberately kept out of the Travers for no good reason, other than the fact they needed to duck a tough race in order to keep him sound. The horse shouldn't have been made to be a race horse to begin with. I think I've stated enough facts.

re: Tradition!

VP — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:33:39 GMT

The BC has been turned into a joke (no matter what surface type it is being run over). Too many races to many horses get to call themselves champions after all is said & done. Keeping the race in CA for 2 yrs in a row wasn't such a smart move either. This is the first time in years I won't be betting the Classic. You can argue that any real champion can run over anything & maybe they can to some extent but look at what happened when Cigar ran on dirt. I don't think that made him less of a champion because he preferred that surface. What about the article in Blood Horse stating it is easier for synthetic horses to switch to dirt as opposed to dirt horses switching over to synthetic surfaces. The article states it "could" take months to correctly switch the animal over (if you would like to reduce of injury). So is the new "safer synthetic surface" really safer for a horse like Curlin or Big Brown? I don't blame Jackson for being reluctant compete. How many East Coast horses will be injured compared to the amount of West Coast horses injured? Haven't the Europeans had synthetic surfaces for close to 30 yrs now? I don't blame them for wanting to come over this year & compete. They aren't just looking at the grass this year either. Good luck to them. I hope they make a clean sweep. Maybe then we'll have to judge a horse on the all their performances for the year (no matter what surface they run on)and not just the one race they run on BC Day. What if a European or other foreign invader wins our Classic should he be our horse of the year? Why not, if their record shows they deserve it.

re: Tradition!

Karen2 — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:04:01 GMT

Wanda: I will gladly agree to disagree. Synthetic is new and isn't proven and I believe change is part of the equation. I for one generally welcome change. But not all changes are made for the better in the world we live in. Thanks for your point of view.

Thoroughbred racing is so rich with history and traditions. I, like many others cherish those traditions and the history and I know you do too. I can't help but feel the industry is looking for an easy fix the problem. Why don't we look at the breeding practices. What's with the deep inbreeding? Why breed unsoundness? Why surgically correct confirmation flaws and then send that horse to the breeding shed? Didn't Big Brown's sire also suffer from severe quarter cracks? Then on top of it you stick a 2 year old in a hard,vigorous training schedule. Pump him full of high protein (unnatural) feed and by then he has had his legs x-rayed who knows how many times and the bones aren't even done growing yet. My good friend is a MD and he firmly believes x-rays invade the bone structure and can cause brittleness and weakness in the bone with to much exposure. Some will argue the training is what makes the bones stronger but I'm not buying it. Perhaps light training will build the bones but that's not what they get. Then you stick them on all kinds of drugs. Instead of focusing on the core issues, the industry decides "fake" tracks should help "mask" the real issues.Really, its no wonder we are having the catastrophic breakdowns. Its because of the almighty dollar and make no mistake, the industry knows what the problems are, they just refuse to acknowledge it. Big Brown is off to the breeding shed after the BC while his owners laugh all the way to the bank. I guess so he can carry on the legend of the quarter cracks. Then on top of it, record numbers of foals are hitting the ground every spring and very few even make it to the track and even fewer make it big so then we have a problem with unwanted horses. Even the casual fan can see these obvious issues. Its tough to love something this much when there is so many reasons this sport is very undesirable.

re: Tradition!

Wanda — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:35:16 GMT

Karen2: You misunderstood me. The comments were about keeping everything "natural" nothing we do with racehorses is natural. I have no problem with keeping them in a boxstall at all, I've looked down a shedrow of horses most of my life. The point is the debate over the two surfaces. My spin on it is if it proves to be better in the long run so be it. Give it a chance. I remember years ago debates over shoeing, feeding etc all these things are argued over because it's change. Let me tell you that the racetrack can be 10 years behind the times in alot of ways.The older trainers who comment on here can tell you that.

So lets agree to disagree and I look forward to more discussions in the future.Thanks for the debate Karen and have a great day okay?

re: Tradition!

AlexH — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 07:38:16 GMT

While I prefer dirt racing to synthetic and I do have an East Coast bias, there is a question here that I don't quite understand. Since when did the Breeder's Cup races become Grade IA? To me the voting should be based on the body of work submitted for the year, not just one day. Was Arcangues Horse of the Year? Champion Older Male? No! Yes, I know, as Tiznowbaby stated, that we have gotten into the habit of giving the turf championships to Europeans who won one time in North America, but why? If the voters handled the Breeder's Cup races as just another Grade I then it wouldn't matter what surface the horses were running on this or any other year. The method of determining which race is most important is by the Grade/Group rating and the extra reward for winning a Breeder's Cup race should be the hefty purse attached to it, not a year end award. We don't give the Derby winner the 3 year old championship for winning JUST the Derby, so why do it with the Breeder's Cup?

re: Tradition!

Helen S — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:51:09 GMT

TerriV, you touched me with your comment that no horse should be diminished by not winning an award. My father and I don't see eye to eye on very much, but when I got him to watch horse racing with me his initial comment was: "They try so hard, don't they?" It really moved me that he saw that. This is what Carl Naftzger said... if you can't appreciate 10K claimers giving it their all, then your don't need to be in horseracing. They don't know that they aren't running for an Eclipse Award. I love them no matter what, and I worry about them more when they don't make the big time.

About Invasor, he was too cool for the room. He isn't appreciated by Joe Shmoe because Invasor did not humiliate his opponents. He sized up his competition and did just as much as he needed to defeat them. Just look at his pictures... a high level of intelligence comes through.

re: Tradition!

KatintheHat — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:00:09 GMT

Just a note to let people know that I e-mailed Santa Anita yesterday in regards to Curlin's workout on Monday. Their website has a workout cam on it and they informed me that the workout cam will be up for Curlin's workout!!!!

re: Tradition!

Wanda — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:55:41 GMT

Karen2: If you are able go out and look at a print from a running horse on dirt and see the impression. The same goes for synthetic. On dirt there is no give so if they have toe grabs on that's alot of torque there. Synthetics are designed to give somewhat and I respectfully disagree that most of them can't get ahold of it. I do agree that they need to train differint and have been told that by people who have run on it. Horses that struggle on it will struggle in mud or whatever. If they have a bad stride they need a perfect track anyway so they should run where they can do the most good. What bothers me is that because it's fairly new, nobody will reserve judgement on it. Instead all I hear is negative remarks. Is it the surface or is it just change?

re: Tradition!

Karen2 — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:42:07 GMT

Wanda: with all due respect, horses (animals) are absolutely intended to be bred to do certain tasks. You may not necessarily agree with keeping a horse in a box stall for 23 hours a day, but that has nothing to do with horses being bred to do a certain task. Thoroughbreds are bred to run.

re: Tradition!

Karen2 — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:36:43 GMT

This article is about tradition. Horses racing on dirt and grass is tradition. Nick Zito said something along the lines of "if we go to synthetic, we change history.. it will be gone". Powerful words.

Wanda: The 2007 BC classic. No, you wouldn't have had slop, but the question is, what would you have had????

re: Tradition!

Karen2 — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:24:35 GMT

Wanda, that is my opinion. There is no "firm" surface under synthetic. Nothing for a horse to "grab" ahold of. My point was horses are NOT getting ahold of it and can really struggle on it. Horses with a late kick can't always find it on synthetic. The "wild" results when horses run on synthetic proves it. I think sythetic is harder to run on and requires a horse to be fitter and have more stamina. In regards to breakdowns, my point was "IF" synthetic research proves synthetic is safer for the horses then it will have to be accepted. Personally, I don't like it and feel the industry misses the boat on the real issues that breakdown our "iron horse".

re: Tradition!

Wanda — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:40:24 GMT

I'm sorry but nature never intended that we take the horse breed it to do certain tasks and put it in a boxstall for 23 hours a day. I must disagree with you all about synthetic tracks. Case in point 2007 BC, if it had been run on a synthetic track you would not have had slop. If the stats bear out 2-5 years down the road that it is safer, then that's a good thing.

re: Tradition!

TerriV — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:21:02 GMT

What a great discussion. RobertP, so beautifully stated - I agree completely. What really gets me about the whole "Synthetic" concept is that it is FAKE and UNNATURAL. Horses are creatures of nature. I worked at a Thoroughbred breeding farm for years - our foals and yearlings grew up walking, running and playing on dirt and grass. Not some fake fibers. What is wrong with letting horses race on what nature created? As far as awards go, not winning an award should not ever diminish the glory of any horse.

re: Tradition!

Wanda — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:07:36 GMT

Karen2: Seriously synthetics have no bottom? How the heck are all these horses getting ahold of it? Do you think maybe the fact that Kentucky has banned toe grabs might have something to do with less breakdowns? How bad is the angle of the foot hitting the ground with toe grabs opposed to no grabs? Pro-Ride or Poly you don't need them so a horse must be able to get ahold of the surface.

re: Tradition!

Steve Haskin — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:15:52 GMT

Mike, that's why I dont pay any attention to things like this. They mean nothing. Even the concept of picking two horses in a bracket is ludicrous. I have a friend who is very upset by this and I told her she cant take these kinds of things seriously. Invasor was a phenomenal horse and no silly contest is going to alter that in the slightest.

re: Tradition!

mike — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:23:42 GMT

steve, Is Invasor the most underated horse to win classic in last twenty years? Invasor didn't even get out of the first round of this B.cup challenge done by fan vote on this website. I guess he lived in Barbaro shadow because of breakdown. Then the media tried to make Berni the second coming of the Bid or Big Red. Its very wrong in my mind how disrespected this horse is compared to Curlin. I have know doubt if berni would have won classic and won the Donn and Dubia like Invasor did in his last 3 starts he would be compared to the Bid and Cigar and even Big Red by most fans and alot of the media!! Thanks for guys like you Paul Moran, John Pricci major horse writers who gave Invasor his just credit in articles because you are the only 3 that did.

mike

re: Tradition!

Matthew W — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:07:28 GMT

In the past, when it rained, horses would run in the slop---then if it kept raining the slop would turn into mud.....NOW, TO SAVE $$$$, tracks roll the sloppy surface so as to cause the rain to not sink into the dirt---thus REMOVING the cushion of the track....races are almost always won on the lead and are usually close to the track records---this is another example of a "fake track"--and for the same reason--$$$$!! Perhaps the "answer" is to limit all graded stakes to dirt tracks?? Would it satisfy to limit all Breeders Cups to dirt tracks? Again, I agree with you about dirt/over poly, but what about the horses/trainers/owners who race on it?...how does the sudden (and unfairly unalaterial) change to synthetics in Calif lower the status of the racehorses who run on them?? Great blog Steve! A testimony to the "collateral damage" of the sudden changes to racing! So many questions unanswered/WHY did they have to change ALL Calif tracks? What happens to the inorganic matter being breathed by horse/jockey? For that matter, what happens to the organic matter coming from horse to track?? New York has always been #1 in terms of racing class---even if they all went synthetic (and Calif stayed dirt) they would still be #1....after all, it's the horses/stables that maed the Hopeful, The Champagne, The Whitney, The JC Gold Cip....and it's the horses/stables that make the Big Cap, Pacific Classic, etc....

re: Tradition!

BIGHORSEFAN — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:23:40 GMT

Steve, You're so right about the temps at SA. It's like being in Vegas in the dead of summer on the hottest day standing on a black top parking lot, the heat just emanates from it. I can't see how that can be healthy for equines or humans. What if one of these jocks gets overwhelmed by the heat and disaster follows, not too far fetched. Same with a horse during a race.

As far as Karen's point, well taken. Except, Saratoga had the same horses by the same bloodlines that are running all over and they had no breakdowns. So that isn't necessarily the entire issue. Good maintenance of a dirt track by people who know how to do their job will help more than anything.

I just think that the powers that be think they have to make these wild moves to satisfy the critics, then when it all blows up in their face, then what?

re: Tradition!

Steve Haskin — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:54:56 GMT

Matthew, they ARE fake tracks, no matter how you look at it.

Do you or anyone really think a Thoroughbred racing surface should be 150 degrees during a race. That's the temperature the Pro-Ride reads during the afternoon.

re: Tradition!

Bradgm — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:54:32 GMT

Robert, couldn't agree more. The lack of breakdowns was a focus on one of Steve's blogs, maybe 'they' should pay more attention to 'turf writers' like him instead of blog writers who don't understand that tradition has a place in every part of life and the abandonment of tradition without improvement is only change for the sake of change and doesn't accomplish anything.

As Steve may or may not remember from my previous writings, I am a 30 something traditionalist to the max and have been bashed for it a number of times on various posts. But I love to watch a great race on a dirt track and believe like a lot of horsemen, that you CAN make a dirt track safe.

I guess we can take all of this a step further and ask what happens when similar numbers of breakdowns that occurred at Del Mar start happening on all these synthetic surfaces (similar to Keeneland when they first installed theirs)? What happens when horses start collapsing from heat exhaustion on furnaces like Santa Anita? Or the track has to start cancelling days because of that? Say it's a trial and error, learning process and they're trying to make it safer for ALL horses while sacrificing the others, like those don't matter? We've been thru the trial and error of dirt, the really good supers know how to make them safe, like the Saratoga super. If the synthetics can't be made safe then the next step is to make PETA happy and abolish racing and trust me there won't be much time allowed for them to tweak it.

All the critics, change fostering folks all continue to think only what is new is good and only want to point out the negatives, never any of the positives. What a horrible way to live.

re: Tradition!

Ranagulzion — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:10:48 GMT

This has been a very interesting discussion. I am on the side of the traditionalist because of all the great champions of the past: Man O'War, Native Dancer, Dr Fager, Secretariat, Spectacular Bid, Invasor and currently Curlin that have excelled on Dirt. All doubts about Curlin's greatness should be dispelled if he should repeat his BCC win on the Pro-ride synthetic surface (not because he has to overcome Big Brown and possibly Commentator) but he would have excelled on all three surfaces (he lost no marks in the narrow loss to Red Rocks on the grass in my opinion). Also when I think of the great tradition of the annual Triple Crown series on dirt how can you not discount the performances of horses that have not competed on dirt when thinking about Horse of the Year and Eclipse awards. Perhaps a good compromise that has been sugested before is to create new championship categories for Synthetic runners. However until the Triple Crown series and major 2YO races along with Saratoga goes Synthetic the so-called East Coast bias will not go away.

On the Ghostzapper discussion I agree with "Matthew W" that Bobby Frankel bamboozled the Roses In May connections in negotiating an easy first half mile for the amazing Ghostzapper in the BCC. He was an extraordinary horse but he got away with "murder" in that BC Classic.

re: Tradition!

Matthew W — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:55:13 GMT

NO WAY am I defending synthetic surfeces---indeed I wish California still ran on dirt---it's that Calif horses are somewhat DISMISSED as having won their races on "fake tracks"! Having been in/around racing on West Coast for 37 years, I can tell you that West Coast DIRT TRACKS have also been compared as "fake tracks" because of their difference to the deeper/sandier tracks where it rains more--I'm saying judge THE RACEHORSE--not the tracks! Can a horse run exclusively on synthetics and win an Eclipse? If not, then racing needs to take away graded status from synthetics!

re: Tradition!

Poor Miss Cozy Cat — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:17:14 GMT

You know RobertP, you are probably correct. I was wondering why the West Coast surfaces were changed from dirt to synthetic without ANY discussion, seemingly overnight (like the change was no big deal). Everything ultimately is about money, isn't it? Follow the money trail. Just as you said, internationalizing racing is the real goal, not the safety of the horse. There are plenty of breakdowns on the synthetic surfaces. One World, right? (with the Dubai people buying up all our best horses.) Put that together with the fact that everyone is saying the European turf champions will now be at less of a disadvantage when they come over seeking BC Classic glory. It makes perfect sense RobertP.

re: Tradition!

Karen2 — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:04:25 GMT

Gabriel: I would have to respecfully disagree with you that a horses dirt surface form and their synthetic form are virtually the same. I don't see that at all and in fact believe that synthetic can and does produce wildly different results than traditional dirt. I am no expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination but it has been clear to me that a lot of horses struggle with getting a grip on synthetic. There is no bottom, nothing to push off from. Of course it is about the horses and if synthetic is what will ultimately make our equine friends safer, than that is what we need to focus on however I personally feel that when it comes to breakdowns, there are many,many more areas that need to be addressed. If we can start at conception and work our way up we wouldn't need synthetic surfaces. This is just a band-aid and not addressing the real problems.