Synthetic at Belmont inside the Inner

SniperSB23 · #1 07-30-2008, 01:21 PM

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.

philcski · #2 07-30-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

My problem with this, and it's been mentioned before is races will come off the turf much more I think. Look at Keeneland, they NEVER took races off the turf and they do a lot more know.

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)...

cmorioles · #3 07-30-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

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)...

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

blackthroatedwind · #4 07-30-2008, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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

Try since the course was put in ( in 1988 I believe ).

cmorioles · #5 07-30-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Try since the course was put in ( in 1988 I believe ).

I was too lazy to look up the stats, so I made sure I was right. I am pretty sure you are as well.

blackthroatedwind · #6 07-30-2008, 10:55 PM

The course fell apart in the fall of 1995 when it was cold and very rainy and a few races came off the last days. That is the only time I believe it happened after I started following their races in 1994.

Hell, when Tribulation won the QE II it was during a driving snowstorm.

joeydb · #7 08-01-2008, 06:33 AM

Will Belmont change from "Big Sandy" to "Big Rubberbandy"?

Seriously -- I hope the Triple Crown tracks never change.

philcski · #8 07-31-2008, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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

It certainly isn't a ridiculous statement, and I have no way to prove otherwise, so I'll take your word on it.

SniperSB23 · #9 07-31-2008, 08:09 AM

Really, it is pretty simple. In situations where people feel they are taking it off the turf just cause there is a synthetic to fallback on then just don't bet the race. You can bet if handle drops they'll stop doing it quick. If people keep betting them when they come off then it really isn't NYRA's problem.

Danzig · #10 07-31-2008, 07:41 PM

they have an alternative to turf-without having the problem of losing much of a field, and losing betting money on top of it. of course they won't be as hesitant to pull a turf off if they have a viable back up plan.

but i think adding an AWT at belmont is a silly idea. but they never ask me, so it doesn't matter.

SniperSB23 · #11 07-30-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

My problem with this, and it's been mentioned before is races will come off the turf much more I think. Look at Keeneland, they NEVER took races off the turf and they do a lot more know.

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.

Antitrust32 · #12 07-30-2008, 01:55 PM

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.

hockey2315 · #13 07-30-2008, 02:14 PM

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?"

SniperSB23 · #14 07-30-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

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.

Swale84 · #15 07-30-2008, 04:14 PM

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.

Quiet Chris · #16 07-30-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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.

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.