Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
i think you and I are saying the same thing.
to me its, whatever the benefits or shortcomings are for polytrack, lets not exagerate them one way or the other. as they say "just the facts maam"
|
I agree basically with everything you have said. The good argument, and the typical self-aggrandizing by others has obscured this, is that Polytrack was falsely billed, and defended, as being safe where dirt was not. These same arguments, which I believe, from Wolverhampton could have been made concerning the breakdowns at Del Mar last summer. Yet, of course, the Hari Polytracknas used that as more ammo for their arsenel. Those same horses would have broken down on Polytrack. The simple fact is the jury was still out last year on whether or not this surface is safer just as it is now. Ultimately, if it is used as just another mask by this screwed up industry to continue to ignore the real problems, it will do way more harm than good in the long run.
The problem is that once again the desires and concerns of the bettors, the ones who pay the bills, were completely ignored. We fuel the game yet have no say. When our biggest ally, Andy Beyer, attempts to voice our concerns he is met by the usual " you're only thinking about yourself, and not the horses, like we are " BS. These people, whomever they are, need to realize that we have more than a right to " think about ourselves ", just as the owners have a right to think about themselves when retiring horses early, as we pay the bills. Wouldn't it have been nice if these synthetic tracks had not been insidiously forcefed upon us and instead had received a better wait-and-see approach as many bettors would have encouraged?