Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kasept
Deb,
Not that I'm a defender of the synthetic by any means, but as Bill Finley pointed out in an ESPN piece last week, those figures also included some rather unfortunate and gaudy fatality figs from Los Alamitos. The use of breakdown figures in this debate is always going to be superfluous and inconclusive. The numbers are going to vary up and down, high and wide on any and all surfaces because of the capricious nature of injuries in general.
The synthetic doesn't work as constituted by this generation of man-made surfaces because they have failed to live up to their advertised features and benefits overall. They aren't maintenance free as advertised. They aren't any appreciably safer than a well maintained organic dirt surface as advertised. They have turned off a significant group of the horse-playing public. There has been no benefit to their installation other than to make money for those that got behind it. And for all the adulation Keeneland receives from its' dew-eyed worshipers, I'm curious how they've escaped criticism for their hand in the synthetic surface 'putover'.
|
ah, i didn't see the finley piece. but you'd expect that with the largest tracks having synthetics, there would be a decrease even with the fairs included-unless of course those numbers weren't used in the past. at any rate, it certainly hasn't lived up to its billing.
as for the track surface being changed, it appears stronach is trying to use the surface as a bargaining tool. perhaps it'll end up being changed after all. but i'm not holding my breath.