Arlington safety...putting it in perspective

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, where does that leave us? the horses that are well handled--will they be better off, while those that are poorly handled are worse off? or should we completely ignore the 'poly is safer' mantra? if so, then why the move to an artificial surface? is it better over all, or did it have more to do with keeping full fields regardless of weather? how many of these tracks that made the change needed to, and how many are better then they were before? how many are worse?

Bottom line is that if it helps tracks bottom lines then they will stay. The fact is that they are here and you must adapt or move on. Personally I had my doubts about the validity of the track being maintenance free (sounds like an infomercial at 3 am) but thought and still think that the individual horses conformational faults wont be changed by any surface. Maybe an artificial surface can lessen the effects of the faults but they are still there and will eventually catch up to the horse regardless of Poly, Tapeta, Dirt, Turf, etc...

It is obvious that the propaganda (or selling points) were not entirely correct but constantly harping on it really does nobody any benefit. It is NOT going to be replaced anytime soon at the tracks that have it and may continue to spread as long as track that have it continue to do well financially.

As for the complaints that the surfaces are not uniform or play differently, use that to your advantage or bet something else. It is not like all dirt or turf courses play alike so why should synthetic surfaces be any different?


The sad thing about the whole situation is that so many have taken sides and made this issue probably more important than it really should be. The most important thread going now is the one about the dirtbag AZ politicians and the attempt to make us criminals. If this crap spreads than we will have more to worry about than polytrack or dirt.