How fast too fast?

I feel there is another reason why the track times are playing too fast these days. I will admit that they are ridiculously fast, but please consider this possibility: For over three years, horses were training over synthetic tracks and built up tremendous stamina (and different reflexes) for the "closing style" finishes that made polytrack races so similar. At the end of any polytrack meet, all these West coast horses ended up being tremendously fit to run on any surface. From my point of view, I see that many of these horses are still tremendously fit and can carry early speed a whole lot longer than horses who don't train on polytrack. If you look at things objectively, maintaining six- and seven-furlong works on Polytrack will keep these horses really fit ... until they run so fast that they will hurt their legs, hocks, hoofs ... whatever anatomical areas are affected by the physics increase explained in a previous post. Do you remember just last year when West Coast trainers would ship horses back East and they would run lights out? That is all that is happening now, just on a daily basis at Santa Anita.

Last race on Sunday (1/23/11) again looked outlandishly fast; (21.34 - 43.52 - 55.52 fractions) - and a 108.11 final time 6 furlongs for 25k claiming. The 2-1 favorite Dave's Pacemaker was beaten nearly 20 lengths and looked very poor on the gallop out. If the horse can run back it may very well be for 8 or 10k. If Hollendorfer does ship out Blind Luck and Dakota Phone because they cannot win on the ultra-biased surface and other owners and trainers follow suit and ship out their closers, then even the hard core fans will go elsewhere with their wagering dollar. Let's raise the takeout further, go to three-day race weeks and let's just rename the track Warren's Santa Anita.

One hundred times more important than the conveyor-belt racetrack in Arcadia to me is the CHRB meeting (Thursday) ... ... armed with shocking declines in business (little Tampa Bay Downs defeated Santa Anita head-to-head one Wednesday $4.5 million to $4.0 million in handle), I am curious to see if the (CHRB) members realize how angry horseplayers are at them and the horsemen for the money grab (the 10 to 15 percent takeout hike) at the expense of their best customers. Will they show the leadership necessary to rescind this failed policy? Also, will they address an ever bigger business killer, declining field size, which is absolutely awful and getting worse? With Santa Anita scheduled to race five days a week in March and April without a prayer of filing the races, it looks like California's lunacy will be Florida's gain for this fan!

It looks like some of the surface squabblers are eating dirt. You guys used to complain that synthetics ruined your handicapping. That's a good thing! If all surfaces were exactly the same every day then "x amount" of front-runners would win and "x amount" of closers would win. It would be the same and nobody would have a chance of beating the 20 percent takeout. Then somebody came out with the cold, hard facts that synthetic tracks are safer for the horses than dirt. That was mostly ignored by the dirt lovers, winning money is more important than the horses' life. To be fair here, not all dirt tracks are unsafe. Many on the East Coast have been slowed down and breakdowns have slowed down too. As far as Santa Anita is concerned, they just can't get it right. I don't mind a dirt track in Southern California as long as it's safe. I'm boycotting California racing anyway, but if I wasn't I would because I don't like seeing horses racing on a freeway. Goodbye, Blind Luck and Dakota Phone. Hollendorfer is sending them elsewhere and good for him. If a high-profile horse breaks down, Santa Anita might as well close up shop and finish the meet at that "safe" track accross town, Hollywood Park.

... the SA main track is going to be dug up to six inches and the sand component of the base track material is going to be added after training on Jan. 18. That does sound like good news, indeed. Ask yourself this question: after a maiden 2-year old runs six furlongs in 1:06.98 and the second-place horse runs (approximately) 108.40 and loses, why would it take 22 days to come to the conclusion that the track is ludicrously fast?

After watching and wagering on the races at Santa Anita this weekend I am disgusted with the track. No wonder guys like Baffert and Headley wanted the dirt back. They have speed type horses. It is not handicapping with this track. Just look for the speed horses, cause you can't pass. I have been betting horses for over 30 years and have never seen a more biased track. I could care less about the times, but when you go head and head going a mile and a sixteenth reeling off fractions of 45 and change and 108 and change and the leaders keep going, then there is a problem. Why did the trainers have such a big say in the return to dirt, and the owners didn't? Who pays the bills, anyway? Without owners, there is no game. I have talked to many gamblers since the start of the meet, and there has been a consensus, if something doesn't change soon Santa Anita will lose many players. Here's hoping that Del Mar gets more dates.

Back in August 2010 it was announced that SA was going to install a new dirt surface at a cost of five to six million dollars. There has now been three weeks plus of an obviously too-fast surface. There is no remedy to slow the track down even just a bit? Horses who run these super fast times, generally speaking, are not able to run back without a long spell of rest. If you are already struggling with a shortage of horses able to run, how much sense does this make?

Some observations on physics and the new Santa Anita dirt track: Physics says force increases as an exponential (actually the square) of velocity [ i.e., f = mass*(velocity squared) ]. The faster times we're seeing at Santa Anita now, mean more multiples of more force (see physics summary below). Could this possibly mean it will lead to more injuries? The new seven-furlong record the other day at Santa Anita was 1:19 and change. According to the Thoroughbred Times Racing Almanac, Spectacular Bid's record was 1:20, and the fastest time in 2007 on the new synthetic was 1:20.37. The fastest seven-furlong time on the old dirt track that year was 1:21.11 by Latent Heat. The average force already on a Thoroughbred racehorse leg at 12 secs per furlong (55 ft per sec) is roughly describable by force = mass (1,000 lbs) times velocity (55 ft/sec) squared. (See Nat'l Science Foundation racetrack force plate studies by Kingsbury in Journal of Biomechanics.) [note -- the foreleg retracts - goes backwards, before hitting the ground so the leg velocity is less at impact than the main inertial mass velocity. On the other hand, the faster they go, the more extended they are, and the less foreleg retraction before impact. The rear legs really don't have that sort of retraction.] Changing from about 1:22 for seven furlongs to 1:19 is a change of 3 seconds overall, or probably at least 1 sec per furlong of velocity somewhere in the race. Go 1 second per furlong faster and the overall velocity is about 5 ft/sec faster. So, for example, if you go 1 sec per furlong faster, instead of a velocity of 55 ft/sec, you'd have 60 ft per second. Put that into the force equation above. 55 squared is 3,025 times the mass = force. 60 squared is 3,600 times the mass = force. That is 575 times more units of force possible. Yes, Santa Anita's new track could conceivably now be improved in some ways in that it may be "softer," or springier, or match the spring constant of a horse's leg better than expected, and have fewer inconsistencies in depth and composition and drainage (future drop hammer tests and ground penetrating radar studies from the Jockey Club's track safety initiative will help determine these things). A "tuned" track for human athletes can be safer and faster if done right. Furthermore, good equine athletes there may compensate in the velocity of their foreleg retraction somewhat, But, still, more potential force in mega units, is still just that.

Santa Anita is my home track and my favorite track despite Stronach, so it saddens and worries me that they can't get the surface right. I have to agree with the people who say "you got what you wanted." Everyone whined about "slow," "anti-speed" synthetics. Now we have the freeway and horses get hurt on it. I don't think this was the track superintendent's intent, but I also am tired of the "it doesn't normally rain this much in SoCal" excuse. Hmm, if it doesn't, why have I heard this excuse for the track multiple times over the last few years? It does rain hard in the winter in Arcadia on most, if not all, years, so build a track that can handle it. The surface also makes handicapping difficult, not just because of the speed bias, but the form reversals - there are always some at the start of a meet, but now it seems really unpredictable, even with horses who have won on dirt before.

One comment, two questions. Vince's points are spot on. How fast would Spectacular Bid have gone on that track? Is digging the track a little deeper and adding whatever component is a larger particle to avoid such a packed tight surface that difficult?

We discussed this on 12-26-10, "Fast track, tough trips." Nothing has been done to slow this track down. So, the Square Eddie time is no surprise. What would Big Drama run on this track? 6 in 1:05? Do something before it is too late.

Santa Anita had problems with the synthetic surface, many feel they could have been fixed. How unfair is it, that the CHRB forced all major tracks to change to synthetic at a great expense and then allows Santa Anita to revert to dirt? It appears there is just too much clay in the sand and the surface is playing super fast. The crew needs to stop juicing it up to get the times slower. It's just what tracks do to make things flashier, or that's my opinion. The increase in takeout is another state issue, not the choice of the track.

California racing is dead if it continues to run five days a week. Small fields are never good for the game no matter how fast the track is.

This track right now is not safe. It is too hard, yes horses get over it good and quickly. But horses are coming out of the races with numerous problems. Carava touched on it, chips, fractures. There are other trainers who have a number of issues with horses who can not tolerate the pounding on this track. I dont know why they are chosing to keep quiet ... for some they asked for this and now they have it, so pride can't let them come forward. Fear of backlash from track management also perhaps. The prior track had some nuisance issues to it, but horses who were properly trained on it came out of their races well, maybe tired but healthy. This surface is a total joke. Most races are a conveyor belt, horses in many races just go single file around the track. The condition of the horse the next day has more drama than the races.

Yes, very happy that they are back on the dirt where American horses belong. Synthetic race tracks will be an ugly mark on the history of our sport when we look back 20 or 30 years from now. The Breeders' Cup Classic run on synthetic surface? What a joke.

Santa Anita clearly is not doing its job. From day one of this meet, it was clear that the new racing surface was way too fast and unsafe. Final times are ridiculous, track records mean nothing and the poor racehorses are paying a heavy price. The horse population is at an all-time low, yet we continue to see an unrealistic five-day-a-week schedule. The result is noncompetitive races (three horse fields with 1-9 shots ) and little or no pick six carryovers, which are the best marketing tool the track has. With five-day-a-week racing scheduled for March and April the racing office was quoted in a recent DRF article "As failing to see the need to make any changes at this time." Many big players are boycotting this meet (business is reported down ...) because of the (takeout) increase and the decline will continue unless SA and the CHRB get off the pot and make widespread changes to their failed policies immediatedly.

It was always so clear that SA's synthetic was working in reducing injuries. Yet, the trainers killed it. They put their own needs in front of the horses and denied obvious statistics which substantiated a greater level of safety with "trainer-speak" minutia. Now, everyone has what they wanted. A faster, souped up track that works real well for equally souped up horses with shortened careers. Where ever Frank Stonach goes, disaster is sure to follow. You can easily trace the precipitous decline of racing to his large scale entry into the sport.

I first attended the races at Santa Anita in 1964. I lived in Arcadia, on Huntington Drive, so I simply had to cross the street to get into the track. In the days before computers and legal on-line wagering, I went to the track everyday. I mention this because, in all the years since 1964, and with all the great horses that have raced the popular six-furlong distance at the track, it pains me to think that the six-furlong track record is now held by a 2 year-old that set the record in his second race as a maiden. Yes, I'm kinda getting up there in years. And, I'm sure there will be those who read what I have to say and ignore these words as the ramblings of an old man who can't handle change. Oh, well. I just miss the days when almost every race had 12 starters and 4 AE's, track records happened about as often as comets appeared, and the track never cancelled a card even when the track was knee-deep in mud during a driving rainstorm. We didn't have "Tomlinson Numbers" in The Form, we had "Mud Marks." And, we didn't have jocks refusing to ride when the track got a little too damp, we had guys like Eddie Belmonte flying up the rail to get his horse in the photo with mud splashing in all directions. So, go ahead on Santa Anita. Increase the takeout, run your four-horse fields, grin and enjoy all those $3.80 win prices and $8 daily doubles, marvel at all the new track records and days when 5,000 people in the stands is considered a major crowd. However, you'll have to do all these things without the likes of me and the rest of us who remember when the Santa Anita meeting was truly something to look forward to.

Thanks for your views on this. I was concerned to see the Bid's record fall, even though I liked watching Twirling Candy's performance. The horses seemed to get over the ground easily, but I don't like to see records going down like this.

You guys at DRF should be happy. You bitched about synthetics for three years. Happy?

Glad you brought this up. I play every every day, but more than a player I am a fan who cares deeply for these horses. I eat, sleep and breath this sport but I do not like what is going on. I was so happy when they decided to go back to dirt but they are going way too fast and too many horses are getting hurt and I do not like it one bit. So what do I do about it? Well, living in Vegas I have access to every track so I just stop playing Santa Anita until horses stop getting hurt at the rate they are getting hurt. I realize horses are going to get hurt in this sport no matter what, but when so many are getting hurt in such a short amount of time something needs to be done. Slow down the track and help keep horses safe.