Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Bid
I thought having to tear a track down to bare bones and the mass breakdowns at GG would be a little bit of a reason. Keeneland is better in which way? Because they dont have the speed bias, or because the injuries were way up significantly? As much as I respect Chuck's opinion, I would disagree completely with Turfway being a good surface.
Tweaking isnt ripping a track up, or adding a zillion gallons of wax and sneakers because you cant keep the kickback down, or its freezing, or balling up. Thats not tweaking, thats incompetance, and lack of forethought. Its amazing that this has happened considering the promises made prior to installation. Whether people want to believe it or not these tracks were sold as low upkeep, safe, all weather surfaces. Why now are people willing to accept the shortcomings?
These new surfaces are not only a great failure, they havent improved anything except initial handle, then they dip back to normal. Infact TWP took a huge decline, of course Ellison said its due to contracts which is understandable. However, even with that the handle is down a considerable amount.
|
From all the reports I've been getting, the injuries are way down at most of these tracks. The injuries are way down and the field size is way up. I think Arlington is another track where the synthetic surface has been a huge success.
If the injuries are way up on these synthetic surfaces, then the field size would be going down. That is not the case. The opposite has been happening. The field sizes have been increasing.
You say that injuries are way up at Keeneland. I know that injuries were way down initially. I would like to see the data that you are looking at. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I haven't seen the data. There are many ways of analyzing data. Where did you get the info? I would like to take a look at it.