Del Mar... NO MORE POLYTRACK

[randallscott35]

If being an advocate for a better game and treatment of bettors is whining than I am all for it. I think Doug whines about it more than I do in fact. And he's right to....But I'm sorry for your loss of Poly. You still have Presque Isle. Enjoy.

[pmayjr]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

If being an advocate for a better game and treatment of bettors is whining than I am all for it. I think Doug whines about it more than I do in fact. And he's right to....But I'm sorry for your loss of Poly. You still have Presque Isle. Enjoy.

In all seriousness, how did bettors get dicked over when tracks went to poly? Please explain.

Also, Doug whines about the place he handicaps for a newspaper? He's an expert on a place that has synthetic (Presque Isle).

I've seen him whine about how much the Cal tracks spent on poly, so he questioned why they're giving up on it for the expense it took to put it in. Those are his tweets from yesterday.

But also, be honest- Do you bet Del Mar? Arlington? Keeneland? Woodbine? Dubai? I bet you devote plenty of your wagering $$$ to those tracks (and don't say "only the turf races")

[randallscott35]

Actually poly was small potatoes for me, I think it was a very silly foray by racing but you are right you vote with your wagering dollars. Rarely bet Del Mar. Do like to bet Keeneland and Woodbine but more for its randomness which is not exactly what handicapping is supposed to be....so yes, being fair I do bet poly but over the course of a year, I doubt it's more than 20% of my action.

[pmayjr]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Actually poly was small potatoes for me, I think it was a very silly foray by racing but you are right you vote with your wagering dollars. Rarely bet Del Mar. Do like to bet Keeneland and Woodbine but more for its randomness which is not exactly what handicapping is supposed to be....so yes, being fair I do bet poly but over the course of a year, I doubt it's more than 20% of my action.

Thing about those tracks with "randomness" is most of the horses that races at those tracks have established form over the surface. Woodbine horses at least the past few years don't need to ship away from their track much because they had such awesome purses before the ONT government yanked that away. Will be interesting to see if it's the same now. The major randomness at Woodbine with with those ONT state-bred maidens and allowances. If you don't know much about their local sires you don't have much to go on, but that's not a surface issue. Those races would be just as random on dirt.

As for Keeneland. The awesome thing with that place is it's always been random. Big wide-open fields. When they replaced dirt there, they actually leveled off the stretch and got rid of the speed bias. The stretch went slightly downhill when it was dirt. Now horses with established synthetic form will ship in to race there because they have solid form over a similar surface (a big part being from your favorite, Presque Isle).

Is it as much randomness as it is full competitive fields? Hmmm.... I think that same level of competition continued to happen at Del Mar after they installed their synthetic surface.

[pmayjr]

let me reiterate a couple things that may have gotten lost in this debate-

I'm with you guys that I was skeptical that changing to synthetic surfaces would have any impact on horse safety numbers. I think it was a waste. But I learned to adapt and even embrace race meets with synthetic. There have been stats and studies that have proven these surfaces are slightly safer, right?

I treat a synthetic surface as a completely independent 3rd surface different from dirt and turf. That's why I've had success with it. That's probably stating the obvious to some of you, but to those who hate it, I wonder if you have yet made that separation?

For those listing all the horses that have all of a sudden woken up running on the surface as it being some sort of side show, that they're worthless because they can't hack it on dirt-
Do you give those same dirt failures crap if they end up having a solid turf career? Is Wee Miss Artie a failure if he runs up the track in the Fountain of Youth but ends up being a good turf horse?

If African Story goes onto win the Dubai World Cup this year, since he's been a monster at Meydan at almost every start there, but never does anything else is he worthless to you?

Are you really just butt-hurt that Swiss Yodeler's value is diminshed, but some random sire named Bartok is worth a lot now because of synthetics?

Just saying, I think the people that don't mind the synthetics are people that see it's value as an independent 3rd surface

[Danzig]

you'd have to think a horse wouldn't be very valuable if he only can run on a couple of tracks, because poly is going the way of the dodo.
has nothing to do with butt hurt. has everything to do with recognizing what the move to poly was all about and viewing it as a complete waste to do so, since the results are pretty much what the people against the changes were expecting.
it was a grand, and failed experiment. horses who are producing synthetic specialists will see their demand go away, because who wants to breed horses for a surface that is going back out of existence.

[ateamstupid]

I've never seen someone defend synthetics so vociferously. No one's saying that there aren't handicapping angles that can be used to success on synth, but there is an undeniable amount of randomness that occurs, particularly at KEE where horses are shipping in from all different surfaces and figuring out who's going to transfer their form (or jump up 30 points) is like throwing darts blindfolded. You need look no further than the list of Blue Grass winners since KEE switched to know that a track which was once the proving grounds for great horses has become one that elevates mediocrities to stars. It's bad for racing and diminishes the amount of ability it takes to win a Grade 1 on dirt or turf when a horse that would've otherwise been a 25k claimer wins the freaking Blue Grass or Spinster b/c none of the other horses could transfer their form to a joke surface.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I've never seen someone defend synthetics so vociferously. No one's saying that there aren't handicapping angles that can be used to success on synth, but there is an undeniable amount of randomness that occurs, particularly at KEE where horses are shipping in from all different surfaces and figuring out who's going to transfer their form (or jump up 30 points) is like throwing darts blindfolded. You need look no further than the list of Blue Grass winners since KEE switched to know that a track which was once the proving grounds for great horses has become one that elevates mediocrities to stars. It's bad for racing and diminishes the amount of ability it takes to win a Grade 1 on dirt or turf when a horse that would've otherwise been a 25k claimer wins the freaking Blue Grass or Spinster b/c none of the other horses could transfer their form to a joke surface.

Do I have to return my Joha poster?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by pmayjr

In all seriousness, how did bettors get dicked over when tracks went to poly? Please explain.

Also, Doug whines about the place he handicaps for a newspaper? He's an expert on a place that has synthetic (Presque Isle).

I've seen him whine about how much the Cal tracks spent on poly, so he questioned why they're giving up on it for the expense it took to put it in. Those are his tweets from yesterday.

But also, be honest- Do you bet Del Mar? Arlington? Keeneland? Woodbine? Dubai? I bet you devote plenty of your wagering $$$ to those tracks (and don't say "only the turf races")

Not sure what Doug was going for with that CA comment. How was California supposed to see the synthetic initiative through when 1 of the 4 major ovals closed, 1 had a faulty product and 1 now needs to be replaced?

Hollywood utilized their OK Cushion surface through to the end of the track's life; Del Mar explained that after 7 years the Poly is falling apart (issue Polytrack has had at WO and TP) and would have needed to be replaced anyway even if they weren't shooting for BC; Santa Anita's Pro-Ride was improperly mixed and installed and wouldn't drain properly necessitating cancellations; Golden Gate's Tapeta (the best of the synths) is staying.

The CA synthetic push was a rush to judgement mistake by Richard Shapiro and the CHRB and most of the purported attributes of synthetic have turned out to be false. It was a pig in a poke.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The CA synthetic push was a rush to judgement mistake by Richard Shapiro and the CHRB and most of the purported attributes of synthetic have turned out to be false. It was a pig in a poke.

[pmayjr]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Hollywood utilized their OK Cushion surface through to the end of the track's life; Del Mar explained that after 7 years the Poly is falling apart (issue Polytrack has had at WO and TP) and would have needed to be replaced anyway even if they weren't shooting for BC; Santa Anita's Pro-Ride was improperly mixed and installed and wouldn't drain properly necessitating cancellations; Golden Gate's Tapeta (the best of the synths) is staying.

I do remember when you had Baffert on your show in the weeks before Hollywood was closing, he said the reason he hated that it was closing the most, was he loved training horses over the racing surface. He said it was a great racing/training surface. So too bad that SoCal racing lost that surface (and of course the track itself) for reasons not having to do with the surface. I probably wouldn't be whining as much about the Del Mar switch if Hollywood was still open.

Excerpt from the recent Bloodhorse article
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-era-nears-end

Joe Harper, president of the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, cited that fact as one of the reasons Del Mar plans to return to dirt.

"With all the other tracks in Southern California (racing on) dirt, it's time," Harper was quoted as saying by the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Plus, our track is falling apart. They said the life of Polytrack was seven years, and guess what, we're seeing it.

"The asphalt (foundation) is disintegrating because of the petroleum base in the wax. We had no other choice. This is the safest decision we could make."

Harper could not be reached for further comment. But Dr. Mick Peterson, executive director of the Racing Surface Testing Laboratory, said he was unfamiliar with a track foundation's disintegration as described by Harper.

"I don't understand it all. I've never seen it before," said Peterson, widely considered to be the foremost authority on track surfaces, by phone from Maine Feb. 19. He said if the asphalt base was breaking down, "the wax would actually help seal" the problem areas.

Does Dr. Mick Peterson have a bias towards synthetics when offering his opinion? I'm just saying it looks like he's poking a hole in Joe Harper's explanation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Turfway was the first to install synthetic (poly) in the U.S. They replaced their synthetic surface a year into it, to perfect the formula after it wasn't holding up to the harsh winter conditions. Since then, link me an article saying where they've had issues? Yes they still have cancellations due to weather, but I don't think it's due to track condition as much as it's due to the weather just being to shitty in general. When did

Did Woodbine have to replace or repair theirs? I also like that Woodbine specifically tells you between which races they treat/groom their track.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pmayjr

I do remember when you had Baffert on your show in the weeks before Hollywood was closing, he said the reason he hated that it was closing the most, was he loved training horses over the racing surface. He said it was a great racing/training surface. So too bad that SoCal racing lost that surface (and of course the track itself) for reasons not having to do with the surface. I probably wouldn't be whining as much about the Del Mar switch if Hollywood was still open.

Excerpt from the recent Bloodhorse article
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-era-nears-end


Does Dr. Mick Peterson have a bias towards synthetics when offering his opinion? I'm just saying it looks like he's poking a hole in Joe Harper's explanation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Turfway was the first to install synthetic (poly) in the U.S. They replaced their synthetic surface a year into it, to perfect the formula after it wasn't holding up to the harsh winter conditions. Since then, link me an article saying where they've had issues? Yes they still have cancellations due to weather, but I don't think it's due to track condition as much as it's due to the weather just being to shitty in general. When did

Did Woodbine have to replace or repair theirs? I also like that Woodbine specifically tells you between which races they treat/groom their track.

but another issue is climate. southern cal is far different from woodbine and turfway. what works in one area geographically and climate wise won't necessarily work elsewhere.