[pmayjr]

let me reiterate a couple things that may have gotten lost in this debate-

I'm with you guys that I was skeptical that changing to synthetic surfaces would have any impact on horse safety numbers. I think it was a waste. But I learned to adapt and even embrace race meets with synthetic. There have been stats and studies that have proven these surfaces are slightly safer, right?

I treat a synthetic surface as a completely independent 3rd surface different from dirt and turf. That's why I've had success with it. That's probably stating the obvious to some of you, but to those who hate it, I wonder if you have yet made that separation?

For those listing all the horses that have all of a sudden woken up running on the surface as it being some sort of side show, that they're worthless because they can't hack it on dirt-
Do you give those same dirt failures crap if they end up having a solid turf career? Is Wee Miss Artie a failure if he runs up the track in the Fountain of Youth but ends up being a good turf horse?

If African Story goes onto win the Dubai World Cup this year, since he's been a monster at Meydan at almost every start there, but never does anything else is he worthless to you?

Are you really just butt-hurt that Swiss Yodeler's value is diminshed, but some random sire named Bartok is worth a lot now because of synthetics?

Just saying, I think the people that don't mind the synthetics are people that see it's value as an independent 3rd surface