Polytrack vs Dirt Debate

[Revolution]

This is a serious thread. I am very interested to see legitimate arguments for each surface. I am going to make the argument for polytrack (which is 90% sand).

1) Data from Europe and the US shows it has drastically cut down on breakdowns. "It's like galloping on a cloud."

2) It has cut veterinary bills by 50%.

3) It has increased field size.

4) It saves $500,000 a year on track maintenance. (for a non-profit that money might be used for purses)

5) Don't have to worry about muddy racetracks.

6) It makes horse racing more international. Europeans are more likely to come to America to race over a surface they are familiar with.

[dellinger63]

I would like to see the articles and facts you base your points (footnotes)

I don't have a dog in this fight and am open minded to the change but I don't see any field size change at KEE (only poly I play with regularity) and haven't seen any change in breakdowns.

I will agree though the maintainance costs are cheaper (for the track owners) and this may be the number 1 factor in going poly.

By the way I also prefer to see football and baseball on grass instead of astroturf but 'the times they are a changing'.

Hope we never see the day when hockey is played on soft plastic rather than ice which is camparible IMO.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I would like to see the articles and facts you base your points (footnotes)

I don't have a dog in this fight and am open minded to the change but I don't see any field size change at KEE (only poly I play with regularity) and haven't seen any change in breakdowns.

I will agree though the maintainance costs are cheaper (for the track owners) and this may be the number 1 factor in going poly.

By the way I also prefer to see football and baseball on grass instead of astroturf but 'the times they are a changing'.

Hope we never see the day when hockey is played on soft plastic rather than ice which is camparible IMO.

This article has most of my data. There are others and I will see what I can post, but this article is excellent for data. I believe in facts, not worthless opinion based on nothing.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horse...eeneland_x.htm

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Revolution

This is a serious thread. I am very interested to see legitimate arguments for each surface. I am going to make the argument for polytrack (which is 90% sand).

1) Data from Europe and the US shows it has drastically cut down on breakdowns. "It's like galloping on a cloud."

2) It has cut veterinary bills by 50%.

3) It has increased field size.

4) It saves $500,000 a year on track maintenance. (for a non-profit that money might be used for purses)

5) Don't have to worry about muddy racetracks.

6) It makes horse racing more international. Europeans are more likely to come to America to race over a surface they are familiar with.

Point #1 - most likely will cutdown on breakdowns a large degree
Point #2- Vet bills overall should decrease but I dont know if 50% would be accurate
Point #3- It has absolutely increased field size at Turfway and Keeneland.
Point #4- It will cut down on track maintenance costs but I doubt that money will be flowing elsewhere.
Point #5- No more mud or slop, which will help the breakdown numbers
Point #6- Foreign horses are more apt to try our bigger races if run on Poly.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Revolution

This article has most of my data. There are others and I will see what I can post, but this article is excellent for data. I believe in facts, not worthless opinion based on nothing.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horse...eeneland_x.htm

Thanks for posting the proof in the article. It did open my eyes further. Guess I can put aside my need for nostalgia for the sake of the T-breds's health.
Very good post

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I was hoping we could have another one of these threads around here. There really hasn't been enough poly debate, thanks!!

Actually there has been little debate. Just opinions without facts. I am still waiting for the other side of the argument against poly. Apparently there is none.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Revolution

Actually there has been little debate. Just opinions without facts. I am still waiting for the other side of the argument against poly. Apparently there is none.

Check the other ten threads...

[Gander]

Ahhh, yet another polytrack thread! I am so stoked I logged on this morning.

[disappearingdan_akaplaya]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Point #1 - most likely will cutdown on breakdowns a large degree
Point #2- Vet bills overall should decrease but I dont know if 50% would be accurate
Point #3- It has absolutely increased field size at Turfway and Keeneland.
Point #4- It will cut down on track maintenance costs but I doubt that money will be flowing elsewhere.
Point #5- No more mud or slop, which will help the breakdown numbers
Point #6- Foreign horses are more apt to try our bigger races if run on Poly.

ive been a supporter of polytrack but field sizes have been and always will be large at keeneland regardless of the surface.......the horsemen arent gonna hide from running for that much money! vet bills obviously will decrease as far as injuries go but i think thats dependent on the trainer becuase some trainers will use the vet more than others every month on the animal whether he or she is sound or not and for legal and illegal purposes. track maintenance is less costly but here in illinois atleast with arlington one of their gripes with poly is the initial coast of installing it

[JJP]

Rumor has it Arlington will announce tomorrow that it will be installing a synthetic surface.

[Crown@club]

What?! This is not in the Polytrack room?! How dare ye!

LOL! j/k

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

What?! This is not in the Polytrack room?! How dare ye!

LOL! j/k

I suspect it will be there soon enough. My over/under estimate is 9:30pmEST

--Dunbar