Synthetic at Belmont inside the Inner

[Antitrust32]

Nice, spend 10 million to put in a track just for off the turf races...

Maybe once Aqueduct (if ever) gets slots NYRA would have the extra cash for this.

[hockey2315]

I think this becomes a slippery slope - if NYRA installs a polytrack course isn't that in a way an indictment of dirt and a support of synthetics? Then if a horse breaks down on the dirt doesn't that make it easier to point the finger at NYRA and say "you clearly believed synthetic courses are safer, so why didn't you replace the dirt?"

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I think this becomes a slippery slope - if NYRA installs a polytrack course isn't that in a way an indictment of dirt and a support of synthetics? Then if a horse breaks down on the dirt doesn't that make it easier to point the finger at NYRA and say "you clearly believed synthetic courses are safer, so why didn't you replace the dirt?"

I think it will work the other way. It shows they aren't totally shunning the synthetics so people can't complain. Plus once they spend $8 million to put the new track in there is no way before ten years have passed that they'll be asked to tear it up and put synthetics on the main track. By then hopefully the synthetic craze will be dead.

[Swale84]

If my memory is correct, when Steve interviewed John Nerud about a year ago Nerud predicted that many turf courses would eventually disappear as the number of all weather tracks increased. His reasoning was that a track could save money by not having to maintain a turf course and secondly did not have to suffer short fields when races were off the turf.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

isnt the belmont turf the original surface..id hate to let that history get ripped out.......do it at the big a..

[the_fat_man]

Here a suggestion from someone who actually doesn't have POLYPHOBIA:

rather than going to all that trouble/expense, invest a miniscule amount in some
XTRA RAIL and RUN the ****IN RACES on turf. Can't be any more dangerous than running on dirt (and it might just break some of the jocks from their WIDE TURF TRIP habits) and maybe it's time to stop BABYING the courses. Gee, they do it in Europe all the time; and it's not like they run on them all year.

Problem solved.

[hockey2315]

Maybe that would make sense if there was an incredible problem with races coming off the turf. . . But, from what I gather, the main reason for the track would be for training - the added plus of being able to move races from the turf to the synthetic is more an extra selling point than the purpose for the whole thing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Here a suggestion from someone who actually doesn't have POLYPHOBIA:

rather than going to all that trouble/expense, invest a miniscule amount in some
XTRA RAIL and RUN the ****IN RACES on turf. Can't be any more dangerous than running on dirt (and it might just break some of the jocks from their WIDE TURF TRIP habits) and maybe it's time to stop BABYING the courses. Gee, they do it in Europe all the time; and it's not like they run on them all year.

Problem solved.

1. Europe is where synthetics were invented
2. They rarely have meets that are more than 4 or 5 days at a time
3. if you make the turf wider wont the jockeys just go wider?

[Quiet Chris]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Nice, spend 10 million to put in a track just for off the turf races...

Maybe once Aqueduct (if ever) gets slots NYRA would have the extra cash for this.

It would be more for training than anything else.

They will eventually do it and they will eventually have all three surfaces. The interesting thing will be to compare injuries from all three surfaces at the same track with the same quality of animal.