Nice editorial

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

The "physics of surface composition" (maybe a bit of chemistry too) and gambling are directly connected when the first affects the second.

Of course gambling is affected by gambler's ability to predict results on the (any) surface.

That has nothing to do with my post, however.

[DaTruth]

I wish some tracks would install artificial turf courses.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

I wish some tracks would install artificial turf courses.

oh help me nooooooo! keep that idea quiet. the best horses in the world now almost all run on grass. all weather is a joke...in cali, there is no weather. it gets hot and that crap melts. give me a break. i've seen the track here close , due to heat but it doesn't melt. the article was right and so good. Its just a coincidence that 3 m wanted a fake track...yeah, i'm buying that and the guy that lost all his money in the madoff deal.....had nothing (invested) to do with that pipe dream out there....oh.....ok.

[Riot]

I can imagine the screams of horror if America decided to go to all turf racing, like the majority of the rest of the world.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Riot

I can imagine the screams of horror if America decided to go to all turf racing, like the majority of the rest of the world.

Nice deflection.

[Riot]

Deflection of what? Grade 1's run on synthetic in other countries? Other countries run primarily turf - what does that question show except nothing? That's not comparable to synthetic use in the US. They don't need synthetic for daily racing, they have turf. Synthetic is a weather relief and training surface. Turf - in any country - doesn't have the injury rate our dirt racing has.

I'm looking forward to SA being put back to dirt, and watching the injury rate over the next few years. I think the idea that the bases (faults, holes, frost heaves, etc) on all these old tracks can be the problem is valid. If so, we won't see a "typical dirt injury rate" on the new SA track over the next few years.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Riot

Deflection of what? Grade 1's run on synthetic in other countries? Other countries run primarily turf - what does that question show except nothing? That's not comparable to synthetic use in the US. They don't need synthetic for daily racing, they have turf. Synthetic is a weather relief and training surface. Turf - in any country - doesn't have the injury rate our dirt racing has.

Deflection of the question. Try and follow along. We don't need synthetics either for daily racing. Which is the main point of it all. People have made a lot of money selling the crap here, but there is no need for it.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Riot

Deflection of what? Grade 1's run on synthetic in other countries? Other countries run primarily turf - what does that question show except nothing? .

That's not quite completely true. In Argentina and Chile, many of the major races are run on what they call 'sand' tracks; before 1978, it was 'all the major races' in Argentina.

And by the say, nobody runs for 'grade 1' races but British hurdlers and 'chasers. They run in 'Group 1' (Gruppo 1, etc.). The theory behind determining group and graded races is very different.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Riot

Of course gambling is affected by gambler's ability to predict results on the (any) surface.

That has nothing to do with my post, however.

You're trying to backtrack now and say that your mention of dressage has no connection to racing because surface concerns in the two "sports" are very different. . . ummm. . . then why did you bring it up? I guess your point is that "synthetic surfaces can and are being developed and used at elite levels."

Fair enough, but irrelevant when we're talking about racing for the exact reason that I've mentioned - gambling. People shouldn't be subjected to gambling on surfaces that are still in the testing or development stage. . . especially when there's another option out there that has withstood the test of time and proven to be superior.

"Developing" a synthetic surface for dressage just doesn't involve the same stakes or subject as many people to something that is unfair or not thoroughly researched and perfected.

I have always been against synthetics from the perspective of a fan, because it's clear that they interfere with the exercise of determining which horse is best in a given race. They simply reward mediocrity and often hinder true dirt ability. Richard's Kid is the poster boy for the ridiculousness of synthetics.

I have, in the past, been a fan of them from a gambling perspective--particularly at Keeneland and in the Breeders' Cups at Santa Anita--because they introduce another element into handicapping. But with the way Keeneland has played this meet, the benefits are lost. It has been even more unpredictable and biased.

[Riot]

Fair enough, but irrelevant when we're talking about racing for the exact reason that I've mentioned - gambling. People shouldn't be subjected to gambling on surfaces that are still in the testing or development stage. . . especially when there's another option out there that has withstood the test of time and proven to be superior.

Don't forget what synthetic tracks replaced out there, and the major reason why.

Getting SA back to dirt will be a really revealing project (in a good way), to see what a dirt track created in this day and age can be. Many said the old dirt tracks should just be torn up and have the base redone, then the cushion replaced, rather than go to synthetic. I never could find a good description of what the SA old base looked like as they took it out (how badly it was torn up, holes, etc)

You're trying to backtrack now and say that your mention of dressage has no connection to racing because surface concerns in the two "sports" are very different. . . ummm. . . then why did you bring it up? I guess your point is that "synthetic surfaces can and are being developed and used at elite levels."

Yup. I brought it up because the distaste for synthetic surfaces is most pronounced in America, and appears, for many people, to be unrelated to the science of them.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Riot

Getting SA back to dirt will be a really revealing project (in a good way), to see what a dirt track created in this day and age can be. Many said the old dirt tracks should just be torn up and have the base redone, then the cushion replaced, rather than go to synthetic. I never could find a good description of what the SA old base looked like as they took it out (how badly it was torn up, holes, etc)

.

As I said (in my posts at the time, which I haven't time to go looking for), if the tracks had spent more time and effort and maintaining their dirt courses, the drive for synthetics would have gone nowhere. Instead of which, they took their dirt for granted and let it get hard and uneven, leading to the injury problems that fueled the chorus for replacement with synthetics out west.