Yep.
I think once horses establish form on synthetic surfaces - they're every bit as formful as any other surface.
But any true racing fan that has witnessed enough of these synthetic races - just has to hate seeing synthetic replacing dirt on great circuits like in Southern Cal .. and especially in events like the Breeders Cup.
The people who don't dislike seeing synthetics at all 3 So Cal tracks - and don't dislike seeing no dirt at a Breeders Cup event - I have no idea in hell how any of them ever became horse racing fans.
Dirt racing is fascinating because of the demanding nature of it - and because of the complexities and the extreme impacts pace and bias have on it. It's the ultimate surface for a serious racing fan.
Turf racing is fascinating because of the big field sizes, the pedigree elements that come into play, and the strong impact trips have on outcomes. It's the preferred surface for a serious bettor.
Synthetic racing is mostly about how strong you can finish. All the variables that make the game so fascinating don't impact the outcome as strongly. It's a better surface than dirt for bettors because the betting public is going to screw up a lot more .. but it's a terrible surface for fans unless they are litterally just fans of watching big animals run in a circle with small people on their back.
It's a surface that belongs in Northern type places that run at times of the year when extreme weather causes cancellations.
|