|
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. (Or how SOUPlike DIRT, on wet days, can be safer than POLY.) 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, or some of the more traditional players on this forum) and, it seems, they're getting more and more vocal about getting their precious BIASED dirt tracks back. No doubt many of them are animal lovers but, I suspect, more just want to go back to cashing on all those frontrunners. It's all about agendas.
Studies can conclude just about anything.
|