Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Don't the interests of the horses matter at all. What you seem to be saying is that certain segments of "the betting public" are more concerned with their pocketbook and their subjective enjoyment of the races than the welfare of the horse - and the safety of the horses should be relegated below the "wants" of the bettors.
|
What drives me nuts is that everyone automatically assumes "Dirt = bad, Polytrack = good" when it comes to horses' health. And while, yes, it's proven that artificial surfaces are easier on the horses, I don't see a ton of breakdowns in NY racing, and I think it's because the dirt tracks are much deeper than they are anywhere else. I just feel that any track that has a lot of injuries or breakdowns goes "Oh, that's it, we've gotta get polytrack" and takes the easy way out rather than actually using some brainpower and figuring out how to improve the dirt surface.
The bottom line is that, like it or not, the betting public's needs and wants come before the horses' safety. I'm sorry, you might not like hearing it, but it's the cold reality of a gambling-driven sport. If everyone suddenly stopped betting polytrack races, the tracks would have to either figure out a way to make it play more like dirt, or rip it up all together. Do I think it should be that way? Ideally, no. Am I advocating ripping up all polytrack? No. But if you think the wave of tracks moving to artificial surfaces isn't partly or wholly influenced by the fact that people still bet Turfway and Keeneland when they switched, I think you're delusional.