Synthetic vs Dirt, the REAL reason people hate the fake stuff.

[Imriledup]

My opinion on synthetic tracks is that the people who are critical are critical not because dirt is necessarily better, but because they are different. Horseplayers, for the most part, are crusty old men in their 40s, 50s and 60s and as crusty old men, we are mostly set in our ways. Because we are set in our ways, we don't like change. If we lose a bet, we say we lost because of the track.

If racetracks were synthetic from day 1 and someone came along in 2005 and said, "hey, i know....here's an idea...... we run on rubber tires and glue, but why not try running on regular dirt? Lets give this a shot. I know no one has ever thought of running on actual dirt you find on the ground, but this might work"

So, what happens....tracks experiment with regular dirt and tons of people come out and say "i hate dirt, give me the synthetic anyday. Speed wins too many races, i want it the way it used to be, where there were an even bias and some days where closers dominated"

Horseplayers are a resiliant group, you gotta adapt to change. Racing is at a crossroads now and racing needs to at least TRY different things. If this synthetic experiement doesn't work it doesnt' work and we might be back to all dirt track in 5 or 10 years from now. But, don't you think we ought to try something different? Racing needs change. There are a lot of things that need to be changed. Personally, i didn't want to see dirt tracks leave us because i was a winning handicapper on dirt and if it ain't broke i didn't need it fixed. But, as a handicapper, i just gotta adjust to whatever they throw at me, i can't pull a Burger King and have it my way, i gotta adapt to whatever it is the racing industry decides to do.

I'm for change and trying new things. You know the old saying, if you are not getting better, you're getting worse and if the racing industry just keeps the status quo, they are getting worse.

[Capper Al]

My opinion on synthetic tracks is that the people who are critical are critical not because dirt is necessarily better, but because they are different. Horseplayers, for the most part, are crusty old men in their 40s, 50s and 60s and as crusty old men, we are mostly set in our ways. Because we are set in our ways, we don't like change. If we lose a bet, we say we lost because of the track.

If racetracks were synthetic from day 1 and someone came along in 2005 and said, "hey, i know....here's an idea...... we run on rubber tires and glue, but why not try running on regular dirt? Lets give this a shot. I know no one has ever thought of running on actual dirt you find on the ground, but this might work"

So, what happens....tracks experiment with regular dirt and tons of people come out and say "i hate dirt, give me the synthetic anyday. Speed wins too many races, i want it the way it used to be, where there were an even bias and some days where closers dominated"

Horseplayers are a resiliant group, you gotta adapt to change. Racing is at a crossroads now and racing needs to at least TRY different things. If this synthetic experiement doesn't work it doesnt' work and we might be back to all dirt track in 5 or 10 years from now. But, don't you think we ought to try something different? Racing needs change. There are a lot of things that need to be changed. Personally, i didn't want to see dirt tracks leave us because i was a winning handicapper on dirt and if it ain't broke i didn't need it fixed. But, as a handicapper, i just gotta adjust to whatever they throw at me, i can't pull a Burger King and have it my way, i gotta adapt to whatever it is the racing industry decides to do.

I'm for change and trying new things. You know the old saying, if you are not getting better, you're getting worse and if the racing industry just keeps the status quo, they are getting worse.

I agree. Handicappers don't like to be forced to change their handicapping methods that took them years to develop. The bottom line is that poly is here to stay. There's fewer injuries to both horses and jockeys. In the end, this is what should count. Handicappers will find new methods of analysis. They have for centuries.

[Bobzilla]

Hi Riled up one, I guess I would ask why is it so imperitive we try something new in regard to main track surfaces. Undoubtably the old dirt surfaces were in need of better maintenance in the interest of consistency and animal welfare, but the stretch to using synthetics as a replacement and reinventing the game itself doesn't seem to me to be an example of where racing needed to change.

Don't get me wrong as I'm not entirely anti-synthetic; I do believe a third surface makes the game more of a challenge and that plays well to my contrarian approach to handicapping. I'd actually feel a little bad to see them all disappear. Anything that increases the variables to weigh and creates mass confusion in the minds of the lumpen is usually a positive force towards better payoffs. High payoffs can be an enticement for the gaming dollar. It needs to be recognized, however, that racing will probably want to get back to only two surfaces in the long run and this will happen at the expense of our conventional dirt tracks. There seem to be many reasons why there is a resistence to the synthetic movement and I guess it depends on who you ask. Personally I recognize the different varieties of conventional dirt surfaces, collectively speaking, as the true medium by which we gauge and compare our historical, present and hopefully future main track performances. Energy is expended in an entirely different way on grass and AWSs than on dirt, and although the casual fan probably doesn't detect it, to the more discriminating examiner of races the dynamics of AWS racing represent a different game entirely. If we should have another triple crown winner in the future I would hope he/she had accomplished the feat playing the same game as previous triple crown winners. Tradition and continuity are two of the most overlooked and underappreciated assets the game has to offer.

I also resent the disingenuous approach the industry has sold the idea of synthetic racing to its fans and bettors. Many of the younger mebers of the turf media are falling all over themselves to let the world know they're on the right side of history on this issue, to the detriment of their own jounalistic credibility. Thank God for people who can think for themselves like Crist, Beyer and Haskin. Safety, albeit an important concern for the industry for reasons that are self-evident, has been used as a red herring while the quest to establish an universal racing surface to better facilitate the internationalization of the sport was more than likely the true impetus behind the drive to convert.

Everyone is thinking we'll see a BC on dirt in two years at CD. But, with the way things are going should any of us really be surprised if CD announces over the next year that they will be converting in time for the 2010 BC?

[Bubba X]

No. At least imo.

I think the justifiable and very significant reason to dislike synthetics is that our horses in the U.S. have been bred for decades to:

1. Have speed
2. Excel on dirt.

Neither of these commodities were of substantial value in this year's BC and I suspect will be of even less value next year. I do not know how the handle for this year will compare to prior years, but my guess is it will be down significantly.

While it's true that synths are just another surface and that makes betting on those races more challenging and they provide opportunity for people who are willing to put in the time to handicap, there is something arguably wrong about having the BC run over synthetics.

When the decrease in handle at Keeneland is far greater than at other tracks overall, that says something about how bettors feel about the artificials.

Personally I don't mind them running over synthetics in the BC. But when grass horses, which are traditionally in the US horses who fail to run well on dirt, fairly dominate main track races, there is a LOT of validity to the arguments those opposed to synthetics offer.

I would think owners and breeders of top horses are pulling their hair out at the main track results and we'll see fewer dirt horses enter next year. And I'd expect handle to be down as well.

Curlin might have lost yesterday no matter where he ran. He made the kind of wide sweeping move that many if not most of the winners this weekend made. It's no disgrace to lose, either. But when a horse like Curlin gets outclosed by a horse like Tiago, it is almost impossible for me not to think the surface did him in. On dirt, Curlin beats Tiago on three good legs.

Anyway, it was fun to watch but I think we will see fewer US dirt horses running because, for the most part, they just can't win the dirt races. And that doesn't make sense.

[PaceAdvantage]

Using Tiago as an example is poor. If you look at Tiago's record, his BEST Beyer speed figure EVER is 110. That came on the DIRT at Oaklawn, when he won the Oaklawn handicap.

A 110 Beyer puts him right at Curlin's throat latch on the DIRT! Curlin, since returning from Dubai, has run the following dirt Beyers (110, 112, 111).

Tiago beating Curlin wasn't so much of a stretch on any surface, in my opinion.

[Imriledup]

Hi Riled up one, I guess I would ask why is it so imperitive we try something new in regard to main track surfaces. Undoubtably the old dirt surfaces were in need of better maintenance in the interest of consistency and animal welfare, but the stretch to using synthetics as a replacement and reinventing the game itself doesn't seem to me to be an example of where racing needed to change.

Don't get me wrong as I'm not entirely anti-synthetic; I do believe a third surface makes the game more of a challenge and that plays well to my contrarian approach to handicapping. I'd actually feel a little bad to see them all disappear. Anything that increases the variables to weigh and creates mass confusion in the minds of the lumpen is usually a positive force towards better payoffs. High payoffs can be an enticement for the gaming dollar. It needs to be recognized, however, that racing will probably want to get back to only two surfaces in the long run and this will happen at the expense of our conventional dirt tracks. There seem to be many reasons why there is a resistence to the synthetic movement and I guess it depends on who you ask. Personally I recognize the different varieties of conventional dirt surfaces, collectively speaking, as the true medium by which we gauge and compare our historical, present and hopefully future main track performances. Energy is expended in an entirely different way on grass and AWSs than on dirt, and although the casual fan probably doesn't detect it, to the more discriminating examiner of races the dynamics of AWS racing represent a different game entirely. If we should have another triple crown winner in the future I would hope he/she had accomplished the feat playing the same game as previous triple crown winners. Tradition and continuity are two of the most overlooked and underappreciated assets the game has to offer.

I also resent the disingenuous approach the industry has sold the idea of synthetic racing to its fans and bettors. Many of the younger mebers of the turf media are falling all over themselves to let the world know they're on the right side of history on this issue, to the detriment of their own jounalistic credibility. Thank God for people who can think for themselves like Crist, Beyer and Haskin. Safety, albeit an important concern for the industry for reasons that are self-evident, has been used as a red herring while the quest to establish an universal racing surface to better facilitate the internationalization of the sport was more than likely the true impetus behind the drive to convert.

Everyone is thinking we'll see a BC on dirt in two years at CD. But, with the way things are going should any of us really be surprised if CD announces over the next year that they will be converting in time for the 2010 BC?

good post, i agree with what you say.

[DeanT]

I'm almost through Finley's book on Synth and it was eye-opening to me. Has anyone read it yet?

I think the main point is that this is new. The track supers do not really know how to groom it, the mystery surrounding it is something that is going to take time, especially in terms of temperature changes and watering.

I think we are criticizing something that we are on the low end of the learning curve with. It will get better, imo.

I don't blame Baffert and a few others speaking of the changes from the morning and afternoon and all that, but the big picture that has been answered by trainers is that horses get less sore on the surfaces. In the long run, if they get grooming right, I think this will end up meaning more formful races with less sore horses, and bigger fields. Less cancellations are a good thing too.

They are here to stay, but I will give it a few more seasons to make a judgment based on horseplaying. If I had to bet, I bet you see these surfaces play much better to pure dirt horses in the coming years.

[happycapper]

Bring back the dirt I say. The synthetic varies in depth from race to race, and that is what is making it the real crapshoot that it is. And no, I'm not old, I'm in my twenties.

[Norm]

Horseplayers, for the most part, are crusty old men in their 40s, 50s and 60s.
It seems like a really bad time to alienate these crusty old men who have been supporting this sport for the past four decades. This new surface is driving a wedge into a sport that cannot afford to lose another 20% or more of its fan base.

The economy will keep away the young techno-yuppies that the industry is trying to attract and the industry's cavalier attitude towards crusty old men is going to leave a gaping hole in the support system for the sport. It's a really bad time to be doing this.

[Charlie D]

It seems like a really bad time to alienate these crusty old men who have been supporting this sport for the past four decades. This new surface is driving a wedge into a sport that cannot afford to lose another 20% or more of its fan base.

The economy will keep away the young techno-yuppies that the industry is trying to attract and the industry's cavalier attitude towards crusty old men is going to leave a gaping hole in the support system for the sport. It's a really bad time to be doing this.


I'm in my 40's and i don't feel alienated

[so.cal.fan]

I found it most interesting that during the BC coverage from Santa Anita, several European trainers commented on the new synthetic tracks being "turf courses".
Meaning races are run like turf races and most often won by good turf breeds or good turf runners.
I am tending to agree with this thinking, and am adjusting my handicapping.
I'm doing better. :jump:

[cj]

I found it most interesting that during the BC coverage from Santa Anita, several European trainers commented on the new synthetic tracks being "turf courses".
Meaning races are run like turf races and most often won by good turf breeds or good turf runners.
I am tending to agree with this thinking, and am adjusting my handicapping.
I'm doing better. :jump:

Come on so.cal.fan, I've been saying this for three years now! :)

[so.cal.fan]

That you have, CJ
Just wanted to point out that European trainers like John Gosden agree with you.
I've been playing Del Mar as a turf course since it's inception, more or less Hollywood and Santa Anita as well.
One thing for sure, these blocky short coupled sprinter types do not fare well.
Several former top stallions in California such as Swiss Yodeler are pretty much useless on these surfaces.
I know a few owners who have sent these runners out of state.
Other sires like the great Unusual Heat (a stallion standing in Cal.) are doing great, bred to "billy goat" mares, many of his runners are being trained by low percentage trainers, and they are still winning.
Of course, Unusual Heat is not " inbred" which is also a factor.
Another thing in regards to the European success last weekend......Cal banned steroids a few months ago......in my opinion.......it was very effective.......our horses are a notch below most of these Euro stars, class wise and without the help of steroids........they faltered.

[cj]

Who do you think told Gosden? :lol:

Just teasing on both these posts. Despite what some think, as a bettor I'm not against synthetics. As a fan, I could take them or leave them. It will be interesting to see if some turf courses go by the wayside. Why waste the money maintaining another course?

[Charlie D]

our horses are a notch below most of these Euro stars

This year they are

English Channel took advantage when Dylan Thomas met ground that didn't suit

Invasor and Curlin put top 8f horse George Washington in his place over 10f

Next year could see US horse(s) as Top dog

Great game innit

[Grits]

George Washington should have never left the barn, much less boarded the plane, and loaded into the gate!!!

[Charlie D]

George should have run in Mile, but :ThmbUp: to connections for having a crack

[cj's dad]

I'm in my 40's and i don't feel alienated

Yeah- but living in the UK ?? you gotta feel 60:D

[Charlie D]

Yeah- but living in the UK ?? you gotta feel 60:D


:D

[BIG49010]

I think you see way too much bumping, and weaving on this crap. I have been taken down several times on horses that were the best, but they can't hold a staight course on the crap. I can't speak for California but Keeneland and Arlington this sure happens quite often, so maybe it is a poly track problem.

Based on the stats for Keeneland the players are against.

[Bobzilla]

I think you see way too much bumping, and weaving on this crap. I have been taken down several times on horses that were the best, but they can't hold a staight course on the crap. I can't speak for California but Keeneland and Arlington this sure happens quite often, so maybe it is a poly track problem.

Based on the stats for Keeneland the players are against.


It does appear that Martin Collins' Polytrack is the least popular of the all-weather varieties. Keeneland must love that. I've noticed all the intra-field chaos as well and does seem to contribute to a less than safe environment........ ironically. I heard about Dr. Pleasure's mishap in the Fayette this past weekend but didn't see it. Did the zigzaggy tendancies of Polytrack contibute to his clipping heels? Sounds like he's okay.