Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oracle80
yeah easier, and I wonder if anyone ever gets a nice Christmas present for steering a 12 million dollar contract someplace.
Not much money in dirt you know?
Thats my point Richi, How come for years noone at these tracks "cared about" the horse welfare and just didn't spend 1/4 the cost of the poly on a new safe dirt surface?
My suspicions stem from the fact that as soon as there was a whole lotta cash in it, people all of sudden cared so much.
How come keeneland never put in a new dirt surface for YEARS to replace the surface that was very criticized?
All of a sudden they cared? And it had nothing to do with money?
I'm willing to bet that a lotta folks get some nice stocking stuffers this year.
|
Very well said. Poly was originally sold as "saving $500,000 in yearly maintenance costs". Now it's sold as saving horses. The jury is still out on that.
It was also sold as having a 10 year lifespan. That may be true on gallops or training tracks but highly doubtful for a racetrack.
Turfway had an extremely mild winter in '05 and '06. They wouldn't have had to cancel days even if they kept the dirt surface -- yet they ignore that fact and say it was the poly that saved racing days. Total misinformation. They also ignore the fact that the weather (also FG being closed) helped handle.
We'll see this season how the poly reacts to tough weather. So far it doesn't look good.