Arlington safety...putting it in perspective

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by BillW

7.18 last year 8.19 this year

How about '05 though...That was the year brought up earlier

Look..a lot greater horse minds than me have had a lot of intense debates here on poly and what is has done to racing. I look at it from a bigger perspective than bunched fields and potentially distorted breeding lines. Horse racing needs and wants to be considered a "major" sport. That likely won't happen again anytime soon, but what every major sport has gone through is change and evolution. DH's, artificial turfs, wild cards, domes, the BCC, , etc are all, depending on how you look at it, advancements or tragedies in their respective sports. The one thing that none of those did was cause the demise of the sport. And poly sure as hell won't cause the demise of horse racing. If Delmar was my home track, I probably wouldn't feel so positive about it, but fortunately, Arlington showed it can work and that there is a reason to look at it as a positive

[Cajungator26]

This is just my opinion (for what it's worth), but what I don't understand about the whole polytrack/cushion track/tapeta etc. is WHY spend all of that money on an artificial surface when less money could have been spent by making the DIRT safer with similar results? Look at Saratoga as an example...

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

This is just my opinion (for what it's worth), but what I don't understand about the whole polytrack/cushion track/tapeta etc. is WHY spend all of that money on an artificial surface when less money could have been spent by making the DIRT safer with similar results? Look at Saratoga as an example...

They ripped up Arlington, I think, 3 times last year and brought in all these independant track "experts" and every one said there was nothing wrong with the track. And there probably wasn't. I agree that Poly wasn't put in strictly based on the condition of the dirt track. But it was and there were a lot of added benefits that we debate vs the detractions.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GBBob

They ripped up Arlington, I think, 3 times last year and brought in all these independant track "experts" and every one said there was nothing wrong with the track. And there probably wasn't. I agree that Poly wasn't put in strictly based on the condition of the dirt track. But it was and there were a lot of added benefits that we debate vs the detractions.

I agree that there are probably certain tracks that are at a benefit by having an artificial surface, but what I DON'T want to see is every track in the country having this stuff. It makes my stomach turn at the idea of the Kentucky Derby (for example) being run on this stuff. There are many contributing factors to breakdowns... surface is just one of them.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I agree that there are probably certain tracks that are at a benefit by having an artificial surface, but what I DON'T want to see is every track in the country having this stuff. It makes my stomach turn at the idea of the Kentucky Derby (for example) being run on this stuff. There are many contributing factors to breakdowns... surface is just one of them.

I think Jamie this is where it gets deep. If there was truly nothing wrong with the Arlington dirt LY, then what lead to the breakdowns? Probably inferior, unready horses, um..Cat-Cal class droppers, weakened breeding lines...and you know the rest. So they took a problem caused by a dirt track, that may not have been a problem caused by a dirt track and put in poly. All of a sudden Pletcher shows up with 30+ horses, attendance jumps 10%, handle is up 15 %, breakdowns drop and the debate is on.

All I know is Dallas covered +3 and the Packers are 3-0..what poly?

[BillW]

The last 2 years were on hand - 2005 is taking a bit longer. I haven't given up yet.