Turfway Stigma

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by oracle80

And many guys will bet neither.
How do you bet a track where no established speed figures or par times can accurately be made?
Even at Woodbine already the grass horses are winning on it.
I wouldn't bet a quarter at either place on the polytrack. At keeneland only grass will get my action, and I suspect that they will card plenty of grass to insure that they don't get completely killed if handle slips.

Honestly, I wish we had more pure grass meets here in the States. Our excuse for one is that dismal affair at Kentucky Downs.

Why not go to that instead of the poly-track? You don't have to run 5 days a week, just run 2 days and then take a week or two off like in England.

But I know that won't ever happen.

Originally Posted by moodwalker

Honestly, I wish we had more pure grass meets here in the States. Our excuse for one is that dismal affair at Kentucky Downs.

Why not go to that instead of the poly-track? You don't have to run 5 days a week, just run 2 days and then take a week or two off like in England.

But I know that won't ever happen.

Because noone would make money on that idea Moodwalker. Therefore noone woud ever push to market that idea.
Deeper safer dirt tracks are the answer.
Wait until Cali installs it and everyone flocks away.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Because noone would make money on that idea Moodwalker. Therefore noone woud ever push to market that idea.
Deeper safer dirt tracks are the answer.
Wait until Cali installs it and everyone flocks away.

I know that, Oracle. It is just something I would like to see. I don't think there is some conspiracy, or expect that to ever happen.

I agree that a safer dirt surface would be the best route to take, because dirt racing isn't going to stop in America.

The polytrack thing will go bust in my opinion.

Personally, I don't care what they ask those cheap horses to run over. But I don't think it is a solution.

Originally Posted by moodwalker

I know that, Oracle. It is just something I would like to see. I don't think there is some conspiracy, or expect that to ever happen.

I agree that a safer dirt surface would be the best route to take, because dirt racing isn't going to stop in America.

The polytrack thing will go bust in my opinion.

Personally, I don't care what they ask those cheap horses to run over. But I don't think it is a solution.

They will soon find that the tracks who don't install it will have average starters per race increase dramatically.
People who pay good cash to buy and breed horses with dirt pedigrees are not simply going to give up and accept racing on synthetic.
What they will do is ship to a place where dirt racing still exists, and try the horse there.
Already O Neill says he will not be training Lava Man on the synthetic surface at Hollywood. He wants the horse to have the best shot he can have in the classic.
I'm wondering if Stronach isn't being pretty clever here. SA is not required to install it at their upcoming meet. After that meet ends next year, Hollywood and Del mar will be running meets on Polytrack the rest of the year, and state law or no state law, watch how fast the the politicians agree to let him install a safer dirt surface if handle gets crushed at the other two places and the state's cut of the pie takes a hit.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by oracle80

They will soon find that the tracks who don't install it will have average starters per race increase dramatically.
People who pay good cash to buy and breed horses with dirt pedigrees are not simply going to give up and accept racing on synthetic.
What they will do is ship to a place where dirt racing still exists, and try the horse there.
Already O Neill says he will not be training Lava Man on the synthetic surface at Hollywood. He wants the horse to have the best shot he can have in the classic.
I'm wondering if Stronach isn't being pretty clever here. SA is not required to install it at their upcoming meet. After that meet ends next year, Hollywood and Del mar will be running meets on Polytrack the rest of the year, and state law or no state law, watch how fast the the politicians agree to let him install a safer dirt surface if handle gets crushed at the other two places and the state's cut of the pie takes a hit.

Agreed on all counts.

I don't think I want to buy a 7 figure yearling and run him over that surface if he is bred top and bottom to like the dust.

The Astro-turf trend passed, and this will too.

The more and more I think about it, the more I agree that it is a money thing like you have pointed out so many times.

In the end, the higher-ups don't make the safety of $5,000 claimers their top priority.

This "safer for the horses" thing will be cited as the reason over and over again.

The article written by the Janks woman from Arlington summed it up pretty good for me. If we would stop letting redneck trainers enter horses who have been neglected and can barely stand up, the breakdowns would decrease.

Originally Posted by moodwalker

Agreed on all counts.

I don't think I want to buy a 7 figure yearling and run him over that surface if he is bred top and bottom to like the dust.

The Astro-turf trend passed, and this will too.

The more and more I think about it, the more I agree that it is a money thing like you have pointed out so many times.

In the end, the higher-ups don't make the safety of $5,000 claimers their top priority.

This "safer for the horses" thing will be cited as the reason over and over again.

The article written by the Janks woman from Arlington summed it up pretty good for me. If we would stop letting redneck trainers enter horses who have been neglected and can barely stand up, the breakdowns would decrease.

Mood,
Janks spoke what so many people in the business have told me repeatedly.
At the Spa I asked a life long racetrack guy whos trained grade one winners about it and he said the exact same damn thing that Janks said, as if he had read her article.
Bob Fox, now a regular on Steves radio show, replied that he was one of the few outspoken polytrack critics on the record.
Many trainers feel like janks but are afraid to be outspoken about it.
All they need is deeper dirt. And yes mood, catering to the lowest end of your market(cheap claimers) so that they can make more starts makes very little sense to me. At cheap tracks perhaps. But you don't rearrange the whole game to suit the very cheapest group of your overall product.

[tiznowthegreat]

While it's not a great track to visit and watch live racing, I don't understand how people could suggest that the track is done and to stick a fork in it. The handle increased 62% last year with the installation of Polytrack. I see in no way how that signifies the track being done and finished.

You guys are way off base regarding a synthetic surface. Again, some tracks need it and some don't. Turfway, Woodbine are two tracks who needed. Handle was up at Turfway and so was the field size. So far, field size and handle is up at Woodbine. Winter tracks that are C tracks need the stuff. Those type of tracks get the cheap claimers. The owners and trainers cannot afford top notch vet care or to have the horse not race. In this theory, a synthetic surface is good. Saratoga, Churchill, Santa Anita etc etc do not need a synthetic surface. I really feel those surfaces are top notch. Heck, Churchill puts silk in their surface to keep is softer. A synthetic surface is an alternative to dirt racing, just like turf is an alternative. It isnt going to replace dirt. Breeding will be fine. Handle will be fine and field size will be fine.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

You guys are way off base regarding a synthetic surface. Again, some tracks need it and some don't. Turfway, Woodbine are two tracks who needed. Handle was up at Turfway and so was the field size. So far, field size and handle is up at Woodbine. Winter tracks that are C tracks need the stuff. Those type of tracks get the cheap claimers. The owners and trainers cannot afford top notch vet care or to have the horse not race. In this theory, a synthetic surface is good. Saratoga, Churchill, Santa Anita etc etc do not need a synthetic surface. I really feel those surfaces are top notch. Heck, Churchill puts silk in their surface to keep is softer. A synthetic surface is an alternative to dirt racing, just like turf is an alternative. It isnt going to replace dirt. Breeding will be fine. Handle will be fine and field size will be fine.

Euro,

Earlier in the thread I stated that I don't care what they want the cheap horses to run on. It doesn't bother me that the surface is at Turfway per se.

What concerns me is the possibility of it moving to the larger circuits that hold Grade One races and attract genuine stakes performers. I don't think this business model will work if that is the plan.

If I didn't make that clear earlier, I apologize. For Turfway's sake, I hope the rubber track does help their business.

But in a perfect world, I wouldn't mind seeing the numbers of races go down and the bottom level claimers and bad horses phased out of the game.

Less races, higher quality, higher purses, healthier horses, better and accountable trainers.

Just because some guy wants to be a trainer, and some other guy wants to be an owner, doesn't mean that it should be so. A cheap, sore, and slow horse shouldn't have an arena where he is allowed to run in my opinion.

While it may not be the most popular opinion to have, I believe that American Racing suffers from four major problems.

1. Too many races
2. Too many racetracks
3. Too little money to go around
4. Too many Shi tty horses

I think there needs to be a solution to these problems, and when the money runs out the smaller tracks will go out of business and get out of the way.

Slots and state-bred incentive programs are like a life-support system, the brain is dead but the body keeps pumping along.

Let racing stand on its own merits, I say.

And separate the wheat from the chaff.