|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
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.
|
|
#2
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.
|
|
#3
07-31-2008, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
When I saw the comment attributed to Pletcher in today's DRF, I actually thought that it made sense. Not because Belmont would have dirt/turf/Poly to race over, but rather because many prior conversations around synthetics in NY have focused on the Belmont training track. As it stands now, it is the sole place to train during the winter for the vast majority of the NY horse population. To replace the current training track with a synthetic surface would force all horsemen stabled at Belmont to train over the synthetic. If they adopted this idea (and I know it's a long ways away due to finances), horsemen would effectively have a year-long choice between conventional dirt or a sythetic track over which to train their horses. That would be a good thing.
|
Hybrid Mode
