Arlington safety...putting it in perspective

[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?