Do we need something like this here?

[_ed_]

I think it's a good idea, but of course I would because it's something we're doing here.

Rain-affected tracks can differ so much, two tracks can both fall under the category of 'slow' or whatever but still be completely different. One can be loose and the other sticky, and there will be a lot of horses who will go in one of those but not the other.

So yeah I think it's good to have a bit more information. Although in our case it's an attempt to simplify it - what we used to do is drop a thing called a penetrometer (sounds a bit dodgy) into the track and measure how far it sinks in, and that measurement is the reading.

[parsixfarms]

I don't know how the ratings would be incorporated with the current hard-firm-good-yielding-soft system that we use here, but anything that would more accurately reflect turf condition, especially after a day in which it rained would be a big help to the wagering public. I use the Preakness card this year as an example. They listed the course as "good" but the very slow times from the Gallorette and Dixie suggested that the course, in reality, was a bog. Labeling that course as "good" was a disservice to those betting that card.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Cardus

A new rating system, though, wouldn't stop track operators from listing track/turf conditions inaccurately.

They can't get it right now, complicating the system would just make matters worse.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cardus

A new rating system, though, wouldn't stop track operators from listing track/turf conditions inaccurately.

Are you implying that these inaccuracies are based on intention or incompetence?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Intention.

Definitely- people bet less when they see "off" tracks.

Pimlico on Preakness day in NO WAY was "good" turf, for example.