My fairly ignorant thought about PETA was [LIST=1]
3 Likes
Interesting, thanks for the info. I had heard there were more injuries and if I remember correctly it was because the artificial tracks don’t provide the same amount of slide as dirt does. But, it seems that even if there are more soft tissue injuries, that’s a lot better than horses having to be euthed on the track.
2 Likes
This is public information for the tracks mentioned.
2 Likes
There are no shareholders. Nor are there members. It is the Ingrid Newkirk show.
More fun facts:
No one ever said evil was stupid. (PETA is evil.)
And as someone who was in partnership on a horse who got hurt on a synthetic track, lost a year of training, then eventually had to be retired after reinjuring the bone, I’m not sold on “all synthetics are awesome.”
3 Likes
Somewhere in the dusty recesses of my mind (again, if I am all wet, let me know 
) I recall reading something about the earlier incarnations of synthetic tracks did have more issues with soft tissue injuries but that more recent, newer technology synthetics have improved. Woodbine’s Tapeta track was installed in 2016. Horses run at Woodbine from April to December so the Tapeta surface gets a fair amount of use in a wide range of weather.
Interesting article on Woodbine surface maintenance; both Tapeta and turf.
Golden Gate Fields is also Tapeta (at least I think so, really hard time finding what the synthetic surface really is… I think it started with Polytrack and is now on Tapeta). It also sounds like how the synthetic surface is managed has also improved helping how it rides.
When I said to become a shareholder, I didn’t mean a shareholder of PETA, I meant a shareholder of the aforementioned track ownership corporations.
2 Likes
Thank you very much!
Exactly. Also, they got an article in Blood Horse about their stock purchase. Keeps them in the public eye.
Possibly they wanted whatever information is sent to shareholders that isn’t directly shared with the public. The info would be open to the public in most cases, but just not picked up by media or readily available on the internet. But I’m guessing that they mostly want the chance to make statements with more notice by the media because they are “shareholders”.
“Bought stock in” is not a clear statement on what they bought. How much of the outstanding shares? What rights do their shares have? And so on. I can buy stock in small, medium or large size companies. It means nothing to anyone but me. But I can talk about it with people, and maybe owning some stock gives whatever I saw a bit more standing with the audience? Even if what I say is not informed or especially enlightening to anyone?
Personally I know of nothing positive that PETA has ever done for animals, or for people. They strike me as twisted people who leave only destruction in their wake.
PETA is often deceptive with the public (aka “liars”) - that alone tells me all I need to know.
2 Likes
Well, I was pointing out that PETA doesn’t have shareholders so it makes it tougher to infiltrate them. You have to convince them you are one of their ‘true believers’. It is all very disturbing.
I wasn’t talking about infiltrating PETA… I was talking about infiltrating corporations who own racetracks
PETA… a whole 'nother story.
1 Like
Oh I know. Simply adding observations about PETA and its corporate structure.
Buying just enough shares of a company to get more info is a time-honored tradition.
Also when activists own stock in a company, and that company evicts them from the AGM or refuses to answer their questions or let them put motions on an agenda or is somehow “not transparent” on something, the activists can go to the media with claims their “rights” as shareholders aren’t being respected.
It is all just a PR thing for the activists. It can be useful PR, or not.
1 Like
