I'm as skeptical as anyone about the claim that synthetic's are much more safer than a well maintained dirt course.

However I don't think it's a good idea to use this one isolated tragedy to argue the dismerits of synthetics.

Good.

Nobody is arguing anything here. It was a tragedy, no doubt about it.

If it was run on conventional dirt, the Syntheads would be flocking to the thread in a heartbeat. That's all.

I don't think anybody on this board, except possibly the trainers, can "argue the dismerits of synthetics" intelligently.

That's what my big problem is. Really no long term research has been done to prove that synthetic IS safer than dirt. But the Polly police is always trying to jam it down everyone's throat. All I know is that I saw a horse by himself with a 4 length lead and about 100 yards to go, breakdown horrificly (and it wasn't one of those 8000 claimers that ran last night either). If this would have been Belmont or Churchill, the Polypolice would in a posting frenzy. I don't want to turn this into another poly/dirt thread. So I have said my peace.

hi5
4/2/9/7811 13 14 / 7811 13 14 $20
4/2/7811 13 14 /9/ 7811 13 14 $20

super 20c
24/24/9 11 13/all

24/9 11 13/24/all

a forgetable day all around.

You know, just before the leader went down in the 7th, I was thinking it was a little weird how far out towards the middle of the track that 54-1 shot was making his late move, and then his position proves to be a boon as he easily avoids the spill and wins.

I agree with you 100 percent. There are so many variables which have contributed to the weakening of the breed. A well maintained dirt course should be good enough.

I don't know if you follow NY racing but everytime we get heavy rain, NYRA has to cancel racing if they are running on Aqueduct's main track.

Aqueduct was rebuilt in the late 1950's and I'm going to assume that the base of the racetrack was a part of the work that was done on the track.
When was the last time, the main track's base was replaced? They installed the inner dirt course in 1975. Was any work done on the main track when they ripped out the main turf course?

I think I'm stating the obvious here but a more pragmatic approach to synthetic surfaces would have been to install a few in different areas. One at Turfway Park which has cold winters. Maybe install another at one of the So Cal tracks that run in the spring and summer. The people at Delmar really pushed hard to have this surface installed so that would of been a good track to test the surface. These are all "they should of" arguments.

I think people would accept the synthetics much better if the reasoning was weather related. I guess Turfway has worked out the kinks that they originally had, and probably didn't lose any days due to the track. I could undersatnd if Aqueduct wanted to do the same because it is basically a winter track. I would rather have a track give that reason then use the saftey issue statement. It is not that I do not care about the horses safety, but I just do not think that there has been enough research. As far as the days that Aqueduct lose now, I think it is more of the jocks strongarming NYRA than the actual track condition. But I could be off base there.

Track Superintendent John Passaro is on record as saying the base of Aqueduct's main track needs to be replaced. I believe his estimate for the cost was 8 million or somewhere in the area. Now that NYRA has an agreement in principal for the franchise with the state it is an issue that will be addressed.