This is one of the most ridiculous thoughts I have ever read. You don't grade a race by what surface it is run on. You also don't grade a race based on your ability to handicap it. Also, PolyTrack is not to be compared to dirt at all. It is an alternative surface to dirt and turf racing. Basically it is a 3rd surface. Of course some horses will like it and some wont. Just like some horses love a sloppy track and some like a fast track. As far as handicapping PolyTrack there has been more winners that come from behind than horses that leads the entire way. Handicapping PolyTrack was very challenging to me. Like Oracle has pointed out several times dirt form doesnt always equate to the same form on PolyTrack. Like DaHoss has said that it is too early to make any suggestions when it comes to PolyTrack. At Turfway, tons of early speed won races in the Spring where in the Fall you didn't have too many. I like the synthetic surface and I like dirt and I like turf surface. All I can say is that the racing at Keeneland this year is by far the most exciting in terms of the finish of each race than at any other time I can remember. Almost every race you have 3-6 lead changes whereas in the past you would have a horse that wins going wire to wire or in the 2nd spot.

Again, PolyTrack is not for ever race venue and nor do I want it in every race venue. I want all 3 types of surfaces. We can have stars at every stage. The stars of dirt, the stars of turf and the stars of a synthetic surface. This is only going to be good for racing. It adds value and excitment when done right. I would be appaled to see Churchill, Gulfstream or Saratoga switch to a synthetic surface. Turfway, Woodbine and Keeneland needed it, not sure how I feel about Cali mandating it.