Dirt racings demise?
 

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=40614

She had me until she called Gulfstreams surface "superior". That would be the 1st time I have ever heard of that particular track talked about in any positive manner let alone superior.

I hope she wasn't paid for that piece.

I hope they don't waste the paper and ink and put it in the hard copy. The Bloodhorse seems to me to be in a decline.

Somthing I have always questioned is where is the money? I dont know if any of you remember. About 25-30 years ago Remington had an artificial track. It was supposed to be similar to the euro tracks. The horsemen, writers, jockeys, and anyother person remotely involved in the industry complained about it. I thnk it was there 2yrs before they were forced to replaced it. We heard all the pluses of the surface voiced the same way back then but it was never accepted or adjusted to.. What I see now as the big differance is Keenland versus Remington Is it someting so simple as ,"wheres the money"? Who is pocketing the profits from selling this stuff?

they did.

Keeneland owns 50% of the polytrack put in North American tracks, Martin Collins LLC owns the other 50%. Michael Dickinson owns Tapeta. I have no idea who owns Cushion track.

The PR people for these artifocial surfaces have done a great job. First the included Keenland in there profit making and then learned to use stats to make you look like a dirty commie if you opposed the artificial surface.

I realize us bettors may view things differently than trainers, but I don't know of too many handicappers who had issues with the GP surface. And yes, we SHOULD have a voice as well. If you listen to the Keeneland mgmt and California track management, the only thing that matters is the owners and trainers....and that just isn't right.

No one said that betters should not have a say in the matter but to call Gulfstream a "superior" surface is like calling a Ford Focus a luxury car. The fact is that you guys do have a vote and it is with your betting dollars. And if you have a beef than it should be with your fellow bettors because handle at Del Mar this summer was strong and Keeneland has had record handle levels since putting in artificial surfaces. Maybe some bettors dont like the new surfaces but it seems that many do.

Bettors like large fields, and both delivered. I hate them both and didn't play Del Mar after the opening weekend, especially considering there are synthetic surfaces which play comparable to traditional dirt (see: Arlington, Presque Isle, even Turfway), which tells me the track maintenance is to fault.

Have you been consulting with No Chance to Dance?

Well, we're both named Phil. Otherwise... no. I hate the stuff. I don't understand how Arlington can supposedly have the same sh!t and have reasonably run races and at Del Mar the horses in the stretch look like watching ducks swim upstream into Niagara Falls. Nobody had issues at Hollywood, either...

If he has I'm forming an intervention.

Do we really want all tracks to play the same?

No, of course not- but the idiosyncrasies of Saratoga vs. Monmouth vs. Belmont is one thing, watching horses look like they can barely walk after running a :50 half is another.

I'd definitely agree with that.

Not to mention that an artificial dirt surface should at least remotely resemble dirt racing. It looks more like bad turf racing.

Paint it green?

Gamblers would bet on horses running on ICE. As far as GP goes, she must have meant the back streach is top notch. The track sucks donkey balls.

It is fine if they want to treat it as a third surface and add it to the two existing surfaces at major tracks. What I don't like is the idea of a surface completely different from dirt replacing dirt tracks.

I don't even want to think about it. The only thought worse than that would be Saratoga replacing their dirt track with poly.

Interesting, and in my mind, thought provoking thought process. So, I have a question -- do you think that the majority of the trainers, who were racing at Del Mar this season, dislike the track surface? Do they dislike any poly/synthetic/etc. surface at all?

With regard to the fans -- do the majority of the fans in CA dislike the poly/synthetic/etc. What about nationwide? Sure, the bettors (perhaps a different strata than "fans" in general) might bet on horses running on ice, but contrary to what every hard-core bettor says, this industry and this sport is not about just the bettor. The chicken and the egg, and in this case, even more to the point -- cause and effect.

Handle and field size were up. I want to know why. I hear people say they are looking for predictability. How much? What about the Aqueduct inner track (of years ago)? What about the Keeneland Spring meet? Is that too much predictability? There will always be something less than ideal.

I think there will eventually be a medium with the alternative surfaces. However, until we get there, I think what might be overlooked is the alleged "greater good" so to speak.

Anyway -- great points. I learn a great deal from other perspectives on these types of issues.

Eric

While these tracks may be closer to dirt than Delmar and Keeneland, there is no way they are even close to be comparable to dirt the way we are used to seeing it.

That would be a start.

Arlington definitely does NOT play like a regular dirt surface. Their published stats are a bit distorted since they now card many 1 1/16 mile races, which they had carded maybe 10 in the previous 20 years combined. These races have a fairly short run to the first turn, then a 700 foot stretch run so speed horses have an unfair advantage in those races. And despite this, Saturday saw head-scratchers like Gold Hornet and Solo Survivor win. IMO, Turfway is by far the most realistic of the Poly tracks.