Arlignton Poly

[NoChanceToDance]

Originally Posted by JJP

Who rips it for no reason? There's plenty of reason to rip it; the first being that it produces boring, unwatchable races. I've got news for you Europeans; we Americans don't like watching your style of racing. Sure, Europe has the best grass horses nowadays, but watching a field of horses gallop/crawl for 8 furlongs only to start trying for the final 2 furlongs is a joke. I think Stephen Crist addressed the subject quite well in his Sunday editorial in the DRF.

And if the tracks prepared the poly correctly, it could act just like dirt and make sure there is a true end to end gallop. They're obviously not doing that, though.

We prefer tactical racing, the jocks use their brains (well, most of them) rather than just say "well, lets have a pac duell with four other horses, get posted five ride round the bends and not have a chance of winning".

Just because you now have what once was just a european surface, it doesn't mean the races have to run like european races. As i said, if Arlington and the other tracks were to prepare it to ride like a dirt surface (but safer), which can be done...... the problem that you're having would be solved.

[JJP]

We'll see if they can get it right. Like Crist said, we have more extreme weather here and I don't think many who rushed to judgement took that into account. I won't rip Turfway Park because they have to race thru brutal conditions and from what I've seen, their racing has been more like normal dirt racing than the other synthetic tracks. And they were losing race dates. Arlington? I hated to see my local track get it but I knew it was going to happen because of all the bad publicity last year. The Chicago Tribune, a paper who basically eliminated horse racing coverage and charts ten years ago, was on a witch hunt to make AP look bad. Was it the surface? Maybe, but I think some trainers were definitely to blame for some of the breakdowns we saw last year (which seem to be escalating recently).
But California? This was just plain wrong for the CHRB to mandate synthetic surfaces on all the tracks. They don't have weather issues out there. If this was a reaction to breakdowns at Dmr last year, then fine, just put it there but don't penalize the other tracks and fans. And Keeneland? That track has become a laughingstock. The Poly propagandists love to point at the Sinister Minister race as being fraudulent but I would argue that the most fraudulent Grade 1 on dirt I've ever seen was the Blue Grass this year.....and I even nailed the exacta so it wasn't sour grapes.
A little bit of synthetic is fine; a good alternative for winter tracks like Turfway....I could see Aqueduct replacing the inner dirt with it and it probably would make sense. But to see tracks like Keeneland and Santa Anita go to it is just wrong. I hope to God Saratoga and CD never go to it because that will be the end of American style racing as we know it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by JJP

We'll see if they can get it right. Like Crist said, we have more extreme weather here and I don't think many who rushed to judgement took that into account. I won't rip Turfway Park because they have to race thru brutal conditions and from what I've seen, their racing has been more like normal dirt racing than the other synthetic tracks. And they were losing race dates. Arlington? I hated to see my local track get it but I knew it was going to happen because of all the bad publicity last year. The Chicago Tribune, a paper who basically eliminated horse racing coverage and charts ten years ago, was on a witch hunt to make AP look bad. Was it the surface? Maybe, but I think some trainers were definitely to blame for some of the breakdowns we saw last year (which seem to be escalating recently).
But California? This was just plain wrong for the CHRB to mandate synthetic surfaces on all the tracks. They don't have weather issues out there. If this was a reaction to breakdowns at Dmr last year, then fine, just put it there but don't penalize the other tracks and fans. And Keeneland? That track has become a laughingstock. The Poly propagandists love to point at the Sinister Minister race as being fraudulent but I would argue that the most fraudulent Grade 1 on dirt I've ever seen was the Blue Grass this year.....and I even nailed the exacta so it wasn't sour grapes.
A little bit of synthetic is fine; a good alternative for winter tracks like Turfway....I could see Aqueduct replacing the inner dirt with it and it probably would make sense. But to see tracks like Keeneland and Santa Anita go to it is just wrong. I hope to God Saratoga and CD never go to it because that will be the end of American style racing as we know it.

i'm thinking the type of poly selected may be a big part of the equation. i believe hollywood was praised as being almost no different from a dirt surface-having gone with Cushion Track. arlington has been pretty kind to all types of horses, as the #'s have been showing. seems turfway is the one who had the worst of it, and of course right now del mar (poly, not cushion)is showing a bias.
golden gate is going with Tapeta.

i still think these tracks should have stayed with dirt, that had they invested in revamping their dirt track, they'd have been fine. it's not like you can lay down a dirt surface and it will last forever. and if they had the mentality that it WOULD last forever, they may have the same style of thinking that poly is maintenance free, rather than taking care of it correctly.

but you may as well get used to it, it's not like those tracks are going to lay out 9 million, and then pull it right back up again. but perhaps in future tracks might consider going with cushion like at hollywood--seems some of the confusion is based on calling all these artificial surfaces poly track, when that is only one type....kind of like calling all tissue brands a kleenex!

[cmorioles]

JJP hit the nail on the head. Why in the world would Southern California, with some of the best weather in the world, need an all weather surface? The whole thing is becoming a joke, much like most of the races on the stuff.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

JJP hit the nail on the head. Why in the world would Southern California, with some of the best weather in the world, need an all weather surface? The whole thing is becoming a joke, much like most of the races on the stuff.

west coast tracks were notoriously tough on horses--the surfaces were too hard. whether it was the location, weather, or what....take note of how many less euros shipped to the bc when it was in cali. i remember the months leading up to the last time it was held out west. everyone was complaining, they didn't want to ship out there and compete on that track. remember that mineshaft retired rather than go out there? no one liked the surfaces out there.
mandella won half the card that day--he had a homefield advantage.

[cmorioles]

Clearly, less Euro horses shipped to California because of the much longer journey and the warm weather. Most are turf horses anyway, so I don't think the surface had a whole lot to do with it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Clearly, less Euro horses shipped to California because of the much longer journey and the warm weather. Most are turf horses anyway, so I don't think the surface had a whole lot to do with it.

not just euros, a lot of east coasters didn't want to go. they didn't like the track, and how hard it was. euro turfers generally don't do well, altho this was the year high chaparral and johar dead-heated. but it was only the cali connections who were happy to have the bc out there that year.
next year will be the first time on an artificial surface for the bc, i guess we'll see how it plays out...but i'm thinking you'll see more attendance by euros. after all, if for some reason the races get rained off, they won't have shipped all that way to scratch, they'll have a familiar surface to run on.

don't get me wrong tho, i'm 'old school' and was not thrilled to see dirt decried and replaced. but it's there now, so i just hope they get it RIGHT.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seems some of the confusion is based on calling all these artificial surfaces poly track, when that is only one type....kind of like calling all tissue brands a kleenex!

While obviously different, they are still pretty similar to each other. Cushion track behaves a lot closer to polytrack than it does to dirt. It isn't much different than calling dirt at Santa Anita and Mountaineer both dirt. They are quite different even to the naked eye. Still, dirt pretty much plays the same all over, with most differences due to course layout.

The problem I have with the fake stuff is the constant tinkering not only from day to day, but even between races. It is very tough for a bettor to handicap the night before, because you have absolutely no idea what to expect.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

While obviously different, they are still pretty similar to each other. Cushion track behaves a lot closer to polytrack than it does to dirt. It isn't much different than calling dirt at Santa Anita and Mountaineer both dirt. They are quite different even to the naked eye. Still, dirt pretty much plays the same all over, with most differences due to course layout.

The problem I have with the fake stuff is the constant tinkering not only from day to day, but even between races. It is very tough for a bettor to handicap the night before, because you have absolutely no idea what to expect.

i just know that everyone was thrilled with hollywood, but not near as much with del mar.

i just hope oaklawn stays with their surface, churchill, saratoga, belmont as well....
keeneland probably needs to do something with their surface as well...of course their dirt track was showing a huge bias as well....

i just want to see a surface that is kind to no one particular running style. get rid of the bias!

[cmorioles]

I can understand the thought that tracks should be fair. However, I feel speed, and let us not forget we are talking about racing, should have some advantage. At a minimum, they should have the advantage of being able to establish position and make others go around them. That advantage has been turned into a big time negative at some of these places. Why reward slow horses?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I can understand the thought that tracks should be fair. However, I feel speed, and let us not forget we are talking about racing, should have some advantage. At a minimum, they should have the advantage of being able to establish position and make others go around them. That advantage has been turned into a big time negative at some of these places. Why reward slow horses?

that's right, no one should get a early or late boost. the horses should decide the outcome, not the track.

[NoChanceToDance]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I can understand the thought that tracks should be fair. However, I feel speed, and let us not forget we are talking about racing, should have some advantage. At a minimum, they should have the advantage of being able to establish position and make others go around them. That advantage has been turned into a big time negative at some of these places. Why reward slow horses?

Our Poly often gives the advantage to the speed horses, so why should it be any different over there? It is quite often the speed that gets the advantage, and then there are some days when the winners come from off the speed. It all depends on the weather and how it is prepared on the day.

If you're saying it isn't helping the speed horses, it is because it isn't being prepared for them. Maybe they are harrowing too deep, and making it hard for the speed horses to maintain those quick fractions?

The beauty of Poly is that is can be altered to make it fair on most horses no matter what the weather conditions.

[Riot]

i just want to see a surface that is kind to no one particular running style. get rid of the bias!

I was happy to see the CA tracks get synthetic, as I considered them notoriously biased in favor of speed. I was tired of seeing horses come out of CA and not being able to reproduce their racing form elsewhere (false speed).

I like the artificial surfaces, as they do what you want, they level the playing field. True speed can hold, false speed stops like a rock, closers have an honest chance, stalkers have to have that last good burst to pass. More of a tactical race, with horses that have to be prepared, than simply "gun 'em and go".