Turfway Stigma
 

Does anyone else feel like Turfway is bottom-rung and embarrasing to run at?

I remember last year when Biancone started running a bunch there and I wondered if he was hard up for some quality horses or slipping down a notch, etc...

It just seems like it is really s hitty, and I'm not sure I would be thrilled about being up there if I were a trainer/owner.

Well Biacone, Pletcher, Lukas, Baffert, Romasn, Blasi/Asmussen all have stalls at Turfway for the fall meet. They have done several changes that I listed in a earlier post. I think the fall meet has tons to offer to trainers for their 2nd tier crop of horses. Should be a good fall meet.

About 6 or 7 years ago, it was a decent Fall meet, now they are the lowest of the low, I would rate River Downs in front of them. There were some nice horses that would ship in for the Kentucky Cup: Silver Charm, Thunder Gulch, Congaree, Caller One, Captain Steve, Point Given, Cash Run, Vindication, Alley's Ally etc...But no more, the place is a dump and would be better served being used for retail, which it will become in the next couple of years, the property is much more valuable than that piece of crap track that stands there...

Its pretty depressing watching a race there with Mike Battaglia calling. Seems like such a morbid place and his calls are an utter mess.
"And gaining ground."

I dont recall any other track that yields such lopsided victories and spread out fields as much as Turfway.

Bottom line is this place stinks. Real bad. Stick a fork in it.

It depends. The fall meet is pretty solid. No, its not CD or Kee, but its better than what Ellis runs. And December isn't too bad. But after New Year's, the quality really gets bad. Any decent horse in KY has shipped to either Florida, New Orleans or Oaklawn.

The old surface produced the runaway victories. Definitely don't see that much of that on the Polytrack.

I read your post about the changes, Euro. Thanks.

It still seems like it is terrible to me when I go visit. I won't even drive the 70 miles to go see live racing because the atmosphere and horses are so sub-par compared to Churchill-Keeneland.

The place stinks-literally, the last time I was there was in December, it was really windy and that poly track was blowing all over the parking lot, Scuds described it best, it looks like the stuff that comes out of your sweeper and it smells very badly...

Honestly, can you go to any track in the Midwest in December and expect a great atmosphere, especially if there's worse than normal weather? It is what it is.... winter runners in the worst climate they run in anywhere in Dec/Jan. I suppose it gives the owners somewhere to run their nickel claimers and ultra-cheap maidens. If people want to bet on those races, then Turfway serves a purpose. The fact they run on those insulation chips won't stop people from betting.

True, but Aqueduct is further North and they have a much better meet. The Winter Meet at Turfway is bad, but the Fall Meet before Keeneland kicked off was pretty good and some nice horses would run there...

Aqueduct rocks. What else you going to do on a Sat or Sunday in the middle of winter. Theres nothing better than burning your paycheck and looking out at all the snow in the middle of the Aqueduct oval.

From a live racing perspective, I think you guys are right. I went to Turfway last December, the day after Keeneland's Handicapping contest. My flight was out of Cincy, so Turfway wasn't too far from the airport. Walking through it, the place looked tacky... really tacky. It was clean, but still really tacky. So in terms of watching live racing there, I bet that would be no fun.

But I love betting the place when I'm at Canterbury in the fall and winter. I'm a longshot bettor, and the best chance IMO to get those is betting really ****ty claiming races. Mountaineer, Evangeline, Turfway, Sam Houston, Chuck-town, etc etc etc. Those places are always really good for hitting bombs. So that's why I like those tracks.

One other thing- I don't think they'd tear the place down, or sell it for it's property value since they installed poly-track. Installing that surface isn't a cheap thing to do. So if they were to sell the place off, why install the new surface? I know a few years ago they had to cancel over a week's worth of racing because the track was so beat up (due to really bad wetaher conditions), but still why bother spending the extra $$$ if you're gonna sell it?

You have to keep in mind that Turfway is going to be used as a "testing" or "experimental" track for Keeneland.

And many guys will bet neither.
How do you bet a track where no established speed figures or par times can accurately be made?
Even at Woodbine already the grass horses are winning on it.
I wouldn't bet a quarter at either place on the polytrack. At keeneland only grass will get my action, and I suspect that they will card plenty of grass to insure that they don't get completely killed if handle slips.

Honestly, I wish we had more pure grass meets here in the States. Our excuse for one is that dismal affair at Kentucky Downs.

Why not go to that instead of the poly-track? You don't have to run 5 days a week, just run 2 days and then take a week or two off like in England.

But I know that won't ever happen.

Because noone would make money on that idea Moodwalker. Therefore noone woud ever push to market that idea.
Deeper safer dirt tracks are the answer.
Wait until Cali installs it and everyone flocks away.

I won't bet a single race at Turfway this year, just like last year.

And I haven't bet a race at Woodbine since the Atto Mile last year with Leroidesanimaux.

Only places that I put real money into when wagering is NYRA and Churchill/Keeneland. And maybe a little Australia when I see some huge value.

I know that, Oracle. It is just something I would like to see. I don't think there is some conspiracy, or expect that to ever happen.

I agree that a safer dirt surface would be the best route to take, because dirt racing isn't going to stop in America.

The polytrack thing will go bust in my opinion.

Personally, I don't care what they ask those cheap horses to run over. But I don't think it is a solution.

They will soon find that the tracks who don't install it will have average starters per race increase dramatically.
People who pay good cash to buy and breed horses with dirt pedigrees are not simply going to give up and accept racing on synthetic.
What they will do is ship to a place where dirt racing still exists, and try the horse there.
Already O Neill says he will not be training Lava Man on the synthetic surface at Hollywood. He wants the horse to have the best shot he can have in the classic.
I'm wondering if Stronach isn't being pretty clever here. SA is not required to install it at their upcoming meet. After that meet ends next year, Hollywood and Del mar will be running meets on Polytrack the rest of the year, and state law or no state law, watch how fast the the politicians agree to let him install a safer dirt surface if handle gets crushed at the other two places and the state's cut of the pie takes a hit.

Agreed on all counts.

I don't think I want to buy a 7 figure yearling and run him over that surface if he is bred top and bottom to like the dust.

The Astro-turf trend passed, and this will too.

The more and more I think about it, the more I agree that it is a money thing like you have pointed out so many times.

In the end, the higher-ups don't make the safety of $5,000 claimers their top priority.

This "safer for the horses" thing will be cited as the reason over and over again.

The article written by the Janks woman from Arlington summed it up pretty good for me. If we would stop letting redneck trainers enter horses who have been neglected and can barely stand up, the breakdowns would decrease.

Mood,
Janks spoke what so many people in the business have told me repeatedly.
At the Spa I asked a life long racetrack guy whos trained grade one winners about it and he said the exact same damn thing that Janks said, as if he had read her article.
Bob Fox, now a regular on Steves radio show, replied that he was one of the few outspoken polytrack critics on the record.
Many trainers feel like janks but are afraid to be outspoken about it.
All they need is deeper dirt. And yes mood, catering to the lowest end of your market(cheap claimers) so that they can make more starts makes very little sense to me. At cheap tracks perhaps. But you don't rearrange the whole game to suit the very cheapest group of your overall product.

You guys are way off base regarding a synthetic surface. Again, some tracks need it and some don't. Turfway, Woodbine are two tracks who needed. Handle was up at Turfway and so was the field size. So far, field size and handle is up at Woodbine. Winter tracks that are C tracks need the stuff. Those type of tracks get the cheap claimers. The owners and trainers cannot afford top notch vet care or to have the horse not race. In this theory, a synthetic surface is good. Saratoga, Churchill, Santa Anita etc etc do not need a synthetic surface. I really feel those surfaces are top notch. Heck, Churchill puts silk in their surface to keep is softer. A synthetic surface is an alternative to dirt racing, just like turf is an alternative. It isnt going to replace dirt. Breeding will be fine. Handle will be fine and field size will be fine.

Euro,

Earlier in the thread I stated that I don't care what they want the cheap horses to run on. It doesn't bother me that the surface is at Turfway per se.

What concerns me is the possibility of it moving to the larger circuits that hold Grade One races and attract genuine stakes performers. I don't think this business model will work if that is the plan.

If I didn't make that clear earlier, I apologize. For Turfway's sake, I hope the rubber track does help their business.

But in a perfect world, I wouldn't mind seeing the numbers of races go down and the bottom level claimers and bad horses phased out of the game.

Less races, higher quality, higher purses, healthier horses, better and accountable trainers.

Just because some guy wants to be a trainer, and some other guy wants to be an owner, doesn't mean that it should be so. A cheap, sore, and slow horse shouldn't have an arena where he is allowed to run in my opinion.

While it may not be the most popular opinion to have, I believe that American Racing suffers from four major problems.

1. Too many races
2. Too many racetracks
3. Too little money to go around
4. Too many Shi tty horses

I think there needs to be a solution to these problems, and when the money runs out the smaller tracks will go out of business and get out of the way.

Slots and state-bred incentive programs are like a life-support system, the brain is dead but the body keeps pumping along.

Let racing stand on its own merits, I say.

And separate the wheat from the chaff.

A synthetic surface will not go to the best tracks. Gulfstream, all New York Tracks, Oaklawn wont go to it. I really think that Cali has jumped the gun her. But we need to let cheaper horses race. People deserve jobs and the dream of owning a horse. I dont make much money, but cheaper horses has enabled me to be a part owner of a horse. The business shouldnt only be for the rich. However, I agree there is too much racing and too many tracks.

Euro you aren't making sense.
Of course its intended to be a dirt replacement and you know why.
No track that currently exists has the room to simply add a polytrack strip. There is no dirt option at any track that uses poly. Its ripped up to be replaced by Poly.
Since no track exists with the room to do this, it most certainly is marketed and intended to be a dirt replacement.
Turfway and Woodbine no longer offer the option of dirt racing to horsemen, I'd say that makes it a replacement.

If I was racing secretary. I would race 4 times a week. I would have 9 races per card. I would race on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Thursday would be dedicated to maiden claiming and claiming races. Firday I would have claiming and maiden claiming and throw in a couple of low level allowance races. Saturday would be nothing but high level allowance and stakes races. On Sunday I would run mid level allowance races with one nice stake and I would always end the day with a MSW to close out the pick 6.

[quote=oracle80]Euro you aren't making sense.
Of course its intended to be a dirt replacement and you know why.
No track that currently exists has the room to simply add a polytrack strip. There is no dirt option at any track that uses poly. Its ripped up to be replaced by Poly.
Since no track exists with the room to do this, it most certainly is marketed and intended to be a dirt replacement.
Turfway and Woodbine no longer offer the option of dirt racing to horsemen, I'd say that makes it a replacement.[/QUOTE I dont see it that way at all.

While it's not a great track to visit and watch live racing, I don't understand how people could suggest that the track is done and to stick a fork in it. The handle increased 62% last year with the installation of Polytrack. I see in no way how that signifies the track being done and finished.

I don't think it is anywhere close to done....

I just think it is unfortunate that it exists. But, as always, that is just an opinion. And I could change that opinion in 3 days or 3 years.

It increased only because they had less cancellations, also the Winter of 2004-2005 was bad, so they missed alot of days that year, massive snowstorm(for Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky hit that year), so the increase is due only to weather related, not because of the business model, I have said this many times...Also, the property that Turfway sits on is very valuable for retail, it sits right off of I-75 and many people are moving out that way, once this Poly-Track fails miserably, they will be a Super Wal-Mart in less than 5 years...

I'll quote myself here.

I think the above post was a bit harsh. I don't think it is unfortunate that it exists as a racetrack.

I think the "state of the industry" as a whole is unfortunate as I outlined earlier in the thread.

I wouldn't like to steal anyone's joy of having a lower level horse win at Turfway, but overall I don't agree with the current state of affairs.

And D. Wayne and Dallas Stewart aren't stabled up there because it is some great place to be.

They are needing wins for their expensive stock against lesser competition.

Anybody got the over/under on how many wins those two combine for over the meet?

Highest and best use........

It sure isn't Turfway Park.

Ok... well say Trufway were to close for whatever reason. Would there be another KY track to take it's place? Trufway is tacky, but I love those crud claimers. I hope it doesn't close.

It is incorrect to say it is just because of weather. That was the reason in such a drastic increase, but the handle per day was up quite a bit as well. Like it has been said, there is not much racing going on when Turfway is active in the midwest, and it serves it's purpose as a second tier racetrack for some very good trainers. It is in now way anywhere close to becoming a Walmart in 5 years.

Besides... and I swear I'm serious about this.... there's a Walmart already there... like within a half-mile of where the track is. No joke hehe. But is it a Super-Walmart? No. Maybe if it were a Super Wal-mart lol

there is actually a super walmart that was just built pretty close...lol no joke. I watched Likely work on the 5th and he looked pretty sharp over the track, think he worked 4F.