![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?"
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
isnt the belmont turf the original surface..id hate to let that history get ripped out.......do it at the big a..
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here a suggestion from someone who actually doesn't have POLYPHOBIA:
rather than going to all that trouble/expense, invest a miniscule amount in some XTRA RAIL and RUN the ****IN RACES on turf. Can't be any more dangerous than running on dirt (and it might just break some of the jocks from their WIDE TURF TRIP habits) and maybe it's time to stop BABYING the courses. Gee, they do it in Europe all the time; and it's not like they run on them all year. Problem solved. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|