A loose Beyer behind the wheel

[Heidilady]

Hopefully you got the "Beyer" = "nut" reference there.

Ok so Andy Beyer wrote an article against Polytrack that is perhaps one of the most moronic things I've ever read.

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NI ... bs=0&arc=0

Now I've never seen Beyer and a crack head in the same place at the same time. Coincidence? He is naturally paranoid about track people, trainers, and jockeys t'would appear. I have absolutely no intention on supporting keeping California tracks hard as a rock and essentially (paraphrasing) 'to heck with the health of the animals cuz they run really really fast and that's much more cool.' No offense to those who are all about reading forms and betting but I have no intention of being happy having tracks practically cement or speed biased the way they are simply so you can exercise it as some sort of edge in the betting game. There's a ton of people who follow this sport enough to allegedly have the edge so I promise it's not the edge you think it is. And heaven forbid you actually have to bet a horse's ability rather than 'oh rats I'll toss out that horse, he drew outside.' Gimme a break.

[BJ]

Hopefully you got the "Beyer" = "nut" reference there.

Ok so Andy Beyer wrote an article against Polytrack that is perhaps one of the most moronic things I've ever read.

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NI ... bs=0&arc=0

Now I've never seen Beyer and a crack head in the same place at the same time. Coincidence? He is naturally paranoid about track people, trainers, and jockeys t'would appear. I have absolutely no intention on supporting keeping California tracks hard as a rock and essentially (paraphrasing) 'to heck with the health of the animals cuz they run really really fast and that's much more cool.' No offense to those who are all about reading forms and betting but I have no intention of being happy having tracks practically cement or speed biased the way they are simply so you can exercise it as some sort of edge in the betting game. There's a ton of people who follow this sport enough to allegedly have the edge so I promise it's not the edge you think it is. And heaven forbid you actually have to bet a horse's ability rather than 'oh rats I'll toss out that horse, he drew outside.' Gimme a break.

I'm all for making the tracks safer for the horses, and therefore, the jockeys. BUT, I personally have a problem with them passing a law or a regulation that all tracks must install it (here in CA) by such and such a date, WHEN they know nothing about the ill-affects of inhaling that material for extended periods of time. I would think the jockeys, who often ride every race, would be jumping up and down to be sure they are not going to end up with "Black Lung" or an asbestos-like cancer causing health issue.

Obviously, there are big bucks paving the fast track (no pun intended)here!

[austique]

I actually agree with BJ because in the case of Equitrack here in Oklahoma it took awhile (a) for the bleeder epidemic to be linked to inhaling the Equitrack and (b) for the stuff to start forming huge clods which bruised a lot of horses and jockeys. Does anybody know how long they've been using it in Europe?

[Elusive City]

Since 2001. No ill effects on horses.

[Heidilady]

My problem is mainly that he seems to look at it from a bettor's perspective as a reason to not do it. I realize how betting is tied to the sport and what importance to place on the existence of it but geez I'm concerned with the health of the horses and people. Also the fans because seeing horses break down turns people off of the sport. I'm sure some people left after Ruffian or Go For Wand and never came back.

On another thread we were talking Dutrow and some people brought up tracks like Tampa and others and talked effects on hocks and such. Wouldn't Polytrack make that go away?

I'd like to know more about breathing issues and durability. I ran track in school and when they went from paved to rubber surfaces, yes it was fun to run on and bouncy but it was so easy to just sit around during practice and pick at it out of boredom. What happens when horses actually get it in the face or body vs dirt? There has to be at least some kick back right?

[Sysonby]

I'm all for making the tracks safer for the horses, and therefore, the jockeys. BUT, I personally have a problem with them passing a law or a regulation that all tracks must install it (here in CA) by such and such a date, WHEN they know nothing about the ill-affects of inhaling that material for extended periods of time. I would think the jockeys, who often ride every race, would be jumping up and down to be sure they are not going to end up with "Black Lung" or an asbestos-like cancer causing health issue.

Obviously, there are big bucks paving the fast track (no pun intended)here!

That's something I've wondered about. What's the bloody rush? Who's going to make the money to change it over? I've heard rumors that it is going to cost Del Mar $7 million. Hollywood is a bigger track. What does that mean $10 million? You can kiss Bay Meadows and Hollywood goodbye and possibly Golden Gate.

I'm all for safety. But there's a cost benefit analysis that I think we have to take into account. Furthermore the jury not back yet on this surface. One season at Turfway is meaningless for Southern California. What if there is a big increase of bleeding because the kickback is greater due to the differences in humidity? Do the tracks then pay several million to put a dirt track? They won't. They'll just shut down racing and then what happens to thousands of California Thouroughbreds?

Let Del Mar be the guinea pig because they want to. Study the surface for awhile. If it truly is safer, I'll be the first to suggest we roll it out everywhere. But the speed that this thing is going smacks of special interests to me.

[Sysonby]

Since 2001. No ill effects on horses.

What kind of injuries do you see on it? What I've seen only talks about catastrophic injuries. What about soft tissue injuries?

[madelyn]

There is another point to consider. All of the reports coming out of Turfway (with a new polytrack) indicate that it "runs" different than dirt. So all of those short-distance, dirt-specialist sires would suddenly have their offspring not be competitive.. it would change the face of the breeding industry. Breeders would demand versatility in the stallions (bye bye Mr P). But, more seriously, my husband the Heavy, Serious Racing Fan, argued that it would go much deeper than that. Think of all the records set on dirt. Would they be eclipsed by Polytrack records, or would they stand and new records start to be kept for the All Weather Track (as it is referred to in the race program)? Historically speaking, the root of horse racing in America is different than that in Europe... there the gentry took their best hunters and "steeplechased" in point to points across grassy fields, jumping obstacles and European racing has very firm turf roots, while in America the Virginians started racing their "quarter horses" down the main dirt road in the town (usually a quarter of a mile long, or so) and American racing is squarely planted in dirt.

[Scott]

I am for Polytrack. Sure, the unknown is always disturbing. But I'll take a five year track record of improved safety now over possible catastrophic injury seen at all major tracks due to surface degredation.

As a layman (i.e. not a scientific response) regarding the track surface, potential breathing problems related from the track's ingredients seem to be no reason to dance around the safety issue.

From the manufacture's website - Martin Collin's Surfaces & Footings, LLC - the tracks ingrediants are 1)polypropylene fibers 2)Recycled Rubber and 3) silica sand covered in a wax coating.

Do we see rubber lung issues in humans? No. And we are probably exposed to more dust from the worlds greatest producer of rubber dust - our autos pounding the concrete with our rubber tires.

Polypropylene - used in carpets, clothing, and our food storage containers (rubbermaid) - exposed to extreme heat with our dishwashers, dryers, irons, and we consume food from the containers.

Sand silica - no different than dirt . Wax - no known issues.

From reports of those who have used it, it produces less "kickback" and less dust than dirt tracks.

Sign me up = the tracks need to be responsible to their product.

[wilf]

Actually I read Beyer in todays form and shook my head. Of course the players loved Turfway as the speed-bias was so predictable. Full marks to Turfway for making the change once the results were in on Polytrack. Change frightens me but history tends to leave us all in its wake except the visionaries.The California wording did surprise me though. As a born cynic I would be amazed if there wasnt some payoff going on over there. I actually like to watch Turfway now. That French kid can ride some, leads the nation so far this year.All Turfway needs to change now is Battaglia, by far the worst racecaller I ever heard.

[Derring]

Since 2001. No ill effects on horses.

Glad to hear that there are no ill effects so far. Though sometimes ill effects take quite some time to show up and be attributed to the correct cause.
I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on whether to have it or not. Are they faster on this sort of track? I am a traditionalist by nature so am only thinking of track records---would they have an unfair advantage as far as records go?

[Sam]

Think of all the records set on dirt. Would they be eclipsed by Polytrack records, or would they stand and new records start to be kept for the All Weather Track (as it is referred to in the race program)?

It's my understanding those records stand, they are just usurped by the PT times. When the surface went in at Turfway, they didn't even acknowledge "records" until after the KY Cup so that they could have "the best times available" and I'm sure the same will hold for any other track that puts the surface in. The dirt times will still be there because, like I said, there will always be dirt tracks. Not all tracks can afford or will be willing to put the surface in right away, so no, "dirt sires" are not going to simply vanish overnight. We're talking about 7 tracks out of 300. MAYBE 10 years from now, we'll be talking about 70 tracks out of 300.

One of these days, I'm going to understand why people are so quick with the chicken little response to change.

All Turfway needs to change now is Battaglia, by far the worst racecaller I ever heard.

No, that would be Durkin. That guy makes my ears bleed.

[wilf]

My Dear Samantha!! give poor Durkin a break......isnt he doing the winter olympics at the moment? Trying to make cross-country skiing look exciting.? I would love to send you a dvd of The Caulfield Cup in Melbourne Australia, calling 20 horses in order and describing how they are going without missing a beat......now thats a challenge.

[austique]

My only thing with Polytrack having been through the Equitrack debacle and yes I realize they are different is the different weather conditions over here as compared to Europe. What's going to happen to it in extreme heat? But hey I'm all for softer surfaces and less injuries. I like the fact that it slows down times and I absolutely love that it gives the turf sires a bit of an advantage. They get no love.

Okay just to add some research I did for my own amusement. The same company makes Polytrack that made Equitrack. Polytrack is supposed to have less of a problem with kickback and has been heat tested in a lab and is reported not to melt and clump like Equitrack. Keenland is a business partner with the company who makes Polytrack and will be the new dealer for the surface in the U.S.

After reading all the stuff on Polytrack here are my concerns. It hasn't been heat tested in field conditions with animals moving across it. Manure can degrade the surface and it is suggested it be removed off the surface (How do you do that at a racetrack?). The manure reportedly strips the wax coating and dries out the surface which will increase kickback and that given the past results from Equitrack that would be bad for trainers and good for the makers of Lasix.

[Sam]

My Dear Samantha!!

Just "Sam" It's not short for Samantha or anything else. I use it because 3% of the female population born in the 70s was named "Jennifer" and I got tired of turning around every time someone yelled "Jennifer" in a crowd. I couldn't even go by my blasted middle name. I was best friends with two other girls with the same first and middle name when I was in grade school. Now the only time I respond to Jennifer is at work. I don't respond to "Jen" at all unless it's to reprimand someone for being disrespectful and presumptuous enough to think they have a right to call me something other than what I introduce myself to them as.

That and, according to my friends, I don't "look like a Jennifer." Whatever the heck that means.

give poor Durkin a break......isnt he doing the winter olympics at the moment?

Aaaaah, I knew there was yet another reason for my to be boycotting NBC at the moment.

I would love to send you a dvd of The Caulfield Cup in Melbourne Australia, calling 20 horses in order and describing how they are going without missing a beat......now thats a challenge.

I've seen some of those as well as a few Melbournes (Kingston Rule's race was awesome) and I adore the callers in HK.

Hey, I have a ton of respect for anyone that can do it, doesn't matter how many horses in the field. That doesn't mean I have to LIKE them. Durkin sucks. He's sucked for years. The only call he's done that was halfway decent was Cigar's Classic. He screwed up Sunday Silence's by showing his blatant bias. There was NOTHING "desperate" about SS's run. The only thing "desperate" in that race was Easy Goer's final lunge.

But then I grew up with two of the greatest sports callers of all times -- Trevor Denman and Vin Scully. Still confuses the hell out of people that I love to listen to Vin Scully call a Dodger game, but never grew up a Dodger fan. Blame Don Mattingly... I do