Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Of course gambling is affected by gambler's ability to predict results on the (any) surface.
That has nothing to do with my post, however.
|
You're trying to backtrack now and say that your mention of dressage has no connection to racing because surface concerns in the two "sports" are very different. . . ummm. . . then why did you bring it up? I guess your point is that "synthetic surfaces can and are being developed and used at elite levels."
Fair enough, but irrelevant when we're talking about racing for the exact reason that I've mentioned - gambling. People shouldn't be subjected to gambling on surfaces that are still in the testing or development stage. . . especially when there's another option out there that has withstood the test of time and proven to be superior.
"Developing" a synthetic surface for dressage just doesn't involve the same stakes or subject as many people to something that is unfair or not thoroughly researched and perfected.
I have always been against synthetics from the perspective of a fan, because it's clear that they interfere with the exercise of determining which horse is best in a given race. They simply reward mediocrity and often hinder true dirt ability. Richard's Kid is the poster boy for the ridiculousness of synthetics.
I have, in the past, been a fan of them from a gambling perspective--particularly at Keeneland and in the Breeders' Cups at Santa Anita--because they introduce another element into handicapping. But with the way Keeneland has played this meet, the benefits are lost. It has been even more unpredictable and biased.