Synthetic at Belmont inside the Inner
 

Pletcher suggested it yesterday. Put a synthetic inside the inner at Belmont that could be used for training and then potentially you could move off the turf races to it down the line which would drastically reduce scratches. Maybe eventually there will even be demand to card races on all three surfaces. Looks like a mile or mile and a sixteenth oval would fit in there. What do people think? I think it's a good compromise, much better than replacing the main track. While I much prefer capping dirt or turf to synthetics if a race gets taken off the turf late I'd much prefer it go on synthetic than onto the dirt.

Yeah, I hear you, I'd just hope they wouldn't do that. I think NY bettors are more likely to bet the race on the turf than on the synthetic so if handle is going to drop then they'll have more incentive to keep them on. People still betting the Keeneland turf races are probably a high percentage of people also betting the poly so handle won't suffer as much when their races are taken off. So we won't really know what will happen at a track with all three surfaces until someone has it.

...and eventually winter racing there as well. I think it's a reasonably good idea.

I'm not sure that's true, but Keeneland has a great turf course for draining from what i've been told so they can handle a lot more rain than the NY courses (especially Belmont)...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

The idea is not to completely eat up the grass course. So, save the XTRA WIDE rails for those days when you'd typically take the races off the turf. Who cares if the outside half of the turf is eaten up eventually? Bad turf == wet/off dirt. And, I'd imagine there'd be the odd time or two when Channing Hill goes over the OUTER RAIL. **** happens.

As for number 1: I'd imagine areas with atypically high rainfall dictated the need for an alternative surface.

The jocks wont ride if it is too deep

Higher boots. Or exchange the slop boot for the swamp boot.

I personally don't like. But you would think that the whores at the Breeders cup would love the idea. Think about how many more races they would be able to add. Thursday could now be polyday, Friday the ladies run, and Saturday is for the boys. It's kind of nauesating, but I think it is very realistic if they should add a synthetic track to Belmont. Who knows maybe it would even be the permanate home to the BC, because of the arrangement.

I think the verdict is still out on synthetic surfaces, and with that I think people on both sides of the debate can agree to disagree, for now at least. Perhaps forever. LOL. That being said, the comments regarding how different the Del Mar track was playing from morning to afternoon last year are very valid and concerning. This year appears to be an improvement. The deviation from morning to afternoon is much tighter and the track is much truer. Sure, again, that verdict is still out as it relates to longer term time frames (an entire meet) and changes in the weather.

However, just addressing "the track" and "the surface" so to speak, while very easy, can also be very myopic. The breeding aspect must be addressed as well. Many other factors must be addressed as well.

Eric

That absolutely is true. I would guess more turf races were taken off since polytrack was installed than in the FIVE YEARS prior.