Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the_fat_man
I find it interesting that while poly races are always hard to fill at GG, for example, that turf races there almost always have nice sized fields. Now, I know that not all horses that handle turf can handle synthetic surfaces, this is certainly the case at WO, for example, but it seems that there are many other places where there's a close relationship between the 2 surfaces. GG might not be the optimal example but certainly there are many horses there that handle both surfaces nicely. (I thus wonder why their turf races fill so well and the poly races don't.)
I wonder, then, why POLY is dangerous and TURF isn't. Well, actually, I don't. If it were to turn out to be the case that POLY was breaking down more horses, then I'd certainly be all for going back to dirt. I don't know if this is the case, however. What I do know, is that there are many horseplayers who just can't adjust to POLY (see practically everyone over at PA, for example) and, it seems, they're getting more and more vocal about getting their precious BIASED dirt tracks back.
Studies can conclude just about anything.
|
the dynamics of a horse running over an AWT is different than a dirt or turf one, which is why the injuries are different. also, if you have a main track horse that has run on dirt, and you put him on awt, he has to make adjustments in his running style. the bounce is there, the slide is not. it would be like taking a guy who runs track and putting him on a sandy beach, or on a cross country course. he'd be best off on the cross country, just like turf horses have the least amount of wear and tear according to studies that have been done.