Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Washington Post, 2006 – “The California Horse Racing Board last week passed a motion that may portend a radical change in American racing, one that could change the nature of the horse-betting game. The board declared that all major tracks in the state “must install a synthetic surface or Polytrack by Dec. 31, 2007” or else have their racing licenses revoked. “
Thoroughbred Times, 2009 – “The report on the Post-Mortem Program at the University of California-Davis for the calendar year 2008 formally documents for the first time more hind-end catastrophic injuries among Thoroughbred racing on synthetic surfaces when compared with those racing on dirt.”
Hey, astro turf was a brilliant idea except for all the injuries from 300lb guys tackling QBs on what is basically green carpeted concrete. I am a big fan of Field Turf for soccer but mainly because it wears better than grass does and kids can actually play a game on it that doesn’t have two dirt pits in front of the goals. Still, high level soccer demands real grass, and horse racing should be done on a natural surface, too.
Test
Is there nothing that California cannot regulate? They have major forest fires because they won’t clear dry brush, taxpayers fleeing the state, double digit unemployment, irrigation systems shutdown for the sake of an obscure fish, IOU’s for tax refunds, boutique green house regulations for automobiles, etc. – but what the hey, the beautiful people of Hollywood still look good. If horse owners are concerned about their prize livestock, they will race somewhere else. So much for racing revenue – PETA will score another coup. Cheers.
Given that horses evolved for like a zillion years running on dirt, no one could possibly have predicted they wouldn’t do well running on some crazy synthetic rubber stuck to concrete.
But who cares? The rubber track people bade a crapload of money thanks to their friends in the gubmint. You think horse racing is regulated to help the horses, the owners or the tracks? Or the fans?
Bwahahahahaaa! Sure it is! Say buddy, ya wanna buy a gold brick?
I would love to see the financial records of the members of the CHRB who mandated these plastic tracks as I wouldn’t be surprised there were kickbacks involved. These tracks were expensive to install and falsely promoted as requiring little maintenance. The evidence that they were safer for the horses was based mainly on one season of racing at one track. Santa Anita has already had to totally replace their track because the first surface was so bad. Even at that, some of the top horses in training will not race in this year’s Breeders Cup championship because their connections refuse to race on Santa Anita’s track.
Horse racing is at least as corrupt as politics. And in both, the people doing the riding don’t give a sh*t about the ridden as long as they perform as expected.
I would think that practically all regulation would result in unintended consequences. That’s why economic growth has been so weak over the last few decades.
why would these califarts mandate rubber track in the first place? how long has there been horse racing? 5,000 years more or less?
they need to be jammed into a rubber room if they’re so fond of the stuff. what earthly benefit were they aiming for with this regulation? cleaner riding gear from no mud flying up? jeezuz murphy that’s part of the tradition.
this really stinks of payoffs betwixt the regulators and the astrotrack mfgs.
How do you spell ‘murderers’?
More ‘orses being injured?
hoh hoh hoh
zat means more barbeque steaks!
…And quid nunc politics screws up another private pastime.
nv53: “I would think that practically all regulation would result in unintended consequences.”
I think that’s the point. All those unintended consequences mean more regulation which means more government. And, in some circles, that’s a Good Thing.
“I think that’s the point. All those unintended consequences mean more regulation which means more government. And, in some circles, that’s a Good Thing.
Posted by: Kathryn at August 31, 2009 10:02 AM ”
And that Kathryn, closes the circle of socialism/communism.
What about the hundreds of people in northern New England who have been killed in collisions with the re-introduced species, the moose? It is more important to know that there are moose wandering the woods, than it is for daddy to come home from work this evening.
Steady on folks, for after all they have not yet mandated running shoes for the horses.
tim in vermont:
Um, in Ontario, which is several times the size of New England, there were 57 deaths attributed to car-moose collisions in the twelve years from 1988-2000. (I couldn’t find any other current stats)
And, I’m willing to bet that whatever deaths there are from car-moose crackups in New England are heavily weighted to Northern NE (Maine, NH, VT). Given that those three states total around 3 million in population, I find it hard to believe that “hundreds” of people are dieing. Perhaps you could furnish some verifiable statistics to support your claim?
You got me. I based that claim on an informal discussion with an emergency room staffer in a hospital in the “Northeast Kingdom” of Vermont. It appears she exaggerated confusing the number of collisions with the number of fatalities. The numbers over the years are more like dozens at the most. Collisions are far more common than they used to be. With a one in 145 chance of a collision resulting in a human fatality, the number doesn’t grow very fast but is far higher than it used to be.