Synthetic report released :)

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Freda said:

Most probably.

Fall off your motorbike on the road and you slide.     Fall off on a polytrack and you don't.  You hit the ground like a piledriver.

"Most Probably" - then don't fall off!!!  Geez it's not as if you all didn't know these things weren't coming and NZ isn't the first to have them.

 

[Chief Stipe]

This Report is just what I though it would be.  Tries to cover far more than it needed to and at the end of the day doesn't really satisfy any of the various stakeholder groups and their respective levels of understanding.  I don't mean that to sound arrogant but some of you will agree that the science part of the report is above most.  My initial career was in Science and I had to read slowly and reread some parts of it to fully grasp the concepts.

At the end of the day there were two questions that needed to be answered and I'm not sure the Report hits those marks.

1. Were the AWT's installed as per the agreed specification (assuming there was one)?
2. Have the AWT's been maintained to the level and at the frequency required for the track to perform as specified?

Simple as that.  All we have now is fodder for all the naysayers.

Leadership....

[curious]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

At the end of the day there were two questions that needed to be answered and I'm not sure the Report hits those marks.

1. Were the AWT's installed as per the agreed specification (assuming there was one)?
2. Have the AWT's been maintained to the level and at the frequency required for the track to perform as specified?

Simple as that.  All we have now is fodder for all the naysayers.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. The main question that I was hoping would be answered was what needs to happen for NZTR and the clubs involved to improve the safety of our synthetics for both horses and riders.

I've only had a preliminary read so far and need time to read more thoroughly and digest it, but from that, it appears to have answered the above to a large extent with quite specific recommendations and provided some interesting information and data as the basis for that.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, curious said:

some interesting information and data as the basis for that.

Yes but anyone really interested in the science could have researched that.  Many of us have to some degree or other.  Although perhaps it might give something to some OTJ stakeholders to think about.

 

[Freda]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

This Report is just what I though it would be.  Tries to cover far more than it needed to and at the end of the day doesn't really satisfy any of the various stakeholder groups and their respective levels of understanding.  I don't mean that to sound arrogant but some of you will agree that the science part of the report is above most.  My initial career was in Science and I had to read slowly and reread some parts of it to fully grasp the concepts.

At the end of the day there were two questions that needed to be answered and I'm not sure the Report hits those marks.

1. Were the AWT's installed as per the agreed specification (assuming there was one)?
2. Have the AWT's been maintained to the level and at the frequency required for the track to perform as specified?

Simple as that.  All we have now is fodder for all the naysayers.

Leadership....

Well, I don't have a degree in anything....and i certainly didn't get a satisfactory answer to your points 1 and 2.

[Special Agent]

I agree with Curious.  I think the main purpose of the report was to address safety issues.  I am sure Massey had a number of limbs for autopsy from trackwork from the Awapuni synthetic track.  We've all heard the rumours about these findings.  Stupidly I thought there might have been some honest reporting instead of a glossing over of facts.

Looks like I have gleaned a different set of information than most but, I'd stand by my interpretation, particularly in assessing whether or not to train or race on one.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Looks like I have gleaned a different set of information than most but, I'd stand by my interpretation, particularly in assessing whether or not to train or race on one.

Your assessment is?

[Special Agent]

51 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Your assessment is?

Not train or race on one.

[Special Agent]

Most trainers must think along these lines.  How many times are trials on turf cancelled due to insufficient entries compared to trials on synthetic?

The trainer's choice is quite often taken away by limiting the options to only synthetic.

Only time will tell as horses that have trained and raced on synthetic age.

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Not train or race on one.

Your choice.  Most Cambridge Trainers have adapted.

[Special Agent]

Now the report is out and digested to some degree is there anyone out there who believes our AWT's are as at least as safe as our turf tracks?

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Now the report is out and digested to some degree is there anyone out there who believes our AWT's are as at least as safe as our turf tracks?

Which Turf Tracks?

[Special Agent]

3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Which Turf Tracks?

Yes, fair point.  The ones that can get through an entire programme.

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Yes, fair point.  The ones that can get through an entire programme.

Might be a fair point but I don't get your point.  

[Special Agent]

Can someone find evidence in the report that NZ synthetic surfaces are safe for the horse to run on in comparison to a grass track?

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Can someone find evidence in the report that NZ synthetic surfaces are safe for the horse to run on in comparison to a grass track?

Define what you mean by "safe".

[curious]

28 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Can someone find evidence in the report that NZ synthetic surfaces are safe for the horse to run on in comparison to a grass track?

Yes. That's pretty much my conclusion from reading to date. At the moment they appear to be as safe or safer than firm grass tracks, particularly Cambridge, and that with a more rigorous maintenance and measurement regimen, preparation to a softer measurement, and trainers ensuring horses are adapted before racing on them, they would be as safe or safer than good grass tracks.

Edited 22 hours ago by curious

[Special Agent]

25 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Define what you mean by "safe".

No fractures, hairline fractures, bowed tendons, bone misalignment, strained tendons and ligaments, muscle damage etc.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

No fractures, hairline fractures, bowed tendons, bone misalignment, strained tendons and ligaments, muscle damage etc.

Don't risk galloping a horse at speed on any surface.

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes. That's pretty much my conclusion from reading to date. At the moment they appear to be as safe or safer than firm grass tracks, particularly Cambridge, and that with a more rigorous maintenance and measurement regimen, preparation to a softer measurement, and trainers ensuring horses are adapted before racing on them, they would be as safe or safer than good grass tracks.

That's my assessment as well.   However some horses will gallop faster and safer on a very firm turf surface than an AWT.

[curious]

14 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

No fractures, hairline fractures, bowed tendons, bone misalignment, strained tendons and ligaments, muscle damage etc.

That's what I mean too, though minimal not no. That's impossible.

[Chief Stipe]

25 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

No fractures, hairline fractures, bowed tendons, bone misalignment, strained tendons and ligaments, muscle damage etc.

 

11 minutes ago, curious said:

That's what I mean too, though minimal not no. That's impossible.

Not NO for the very reason that some horses are predisposed to the injuries listed by @Special Agent.  That's where the experience of Trainers helps prevent those injuries.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

That's my assessment as well.   However some horses will gallop faster and safer on a very firm turf surface than an AWT.

That might also be because they are better adapted to one or the other surface?

Edited 20 hours ago by curious

[Chief Stipe]

8 hours ago, curious said:

That might also be because they are better adapted to one or the other surface?

We have come full circle.  Some stables appear to have better adapted horses as well which brings us back to early training of yearlings and 2 yr olds.  The science literature shows that horses that have undergone early age preps have a greater racing longevity and less injury than those that don't.

Carefully Training an early 2 yr old on an AWT may actually be an advantage.  As long as it was a properly maintained AWT.

[Freda]

10 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

We have come full circle.  Some stables appear to have better adapted horses as well which brings us back to early training of yearlings and 2 yr olds.  The science literature shows that horses that have undergone early age preps have a greater racing longevity and less injury than those that don't.

Carefully Training an early 2 yr old on an AWT may actually be an advantage.  As long as it was a properly maintained AWT.

Agree with that.