Polytrack vs Dirt Debate

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Revolution

This is a serious thread. I am very interested to see legitimate arguments for each surface. I am going to make the argument for polytrack (which is 90% sand).

1) Data from Europe and the US shows it has drastically cut down on breakdowns. "It's like galloping on a cloud."

2) It has cut veterinary bills by 50%.

3) It has increased field size.

4) It saves $500,000 a year on track maintenance. (for a non-profit that money might be used for purses)

5) Don't have to worry about muddy racetracks.

6) It makes horse racing more international. Europeans are more likely to come to America to race over a surface they are familiar with.

Point #1 - most likely will cutdown on breakdowns a large degree
Point #2- Vet bills overall should decrease but I dont know if 50% would be accurate
Point #3- It has absolutely increased field size at Turfway and Keeneland.
Point #4- It will cut down on track maintenance costs but I doubt that money will be flowing elsewhere.
Point #5- No more mud or slop, which will help the breakdown numbers
Point #6- Foreign horses are more apt to try our bigger races if run on Poly.