Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Of course the land was more valuable. But why go through the motions of trying to race on dirt if they didn't plan to do it? I'm sure it would have been sold eventually but I don't think it was imminent before the synthetic mandate. Can say the same of a lot of tracks out there now.
|
The basic approach of the Bay Meadows Operating Company, with both Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park, was to take the time necessary to put together a lucrative development deal. They didn't want a fire sale. In the meantime, they held a horse racing license, so why not race? And that's what they did. They raced at San Mateo until they put together a lucrative deal, and they also raced at Hollywood until they put together one.
The obvious reason to try to race on dirt was it was cheaper. It cost several million dollars to put in a synthetic track, and that wasn't cost-effective up north because they were going to close earlier. It was cost-effective at Hollywood, so they did it.
Quote:
|
As for Arlington, switching to synthetic dropped it off the radar for a lot of handicappers in my opinion. It is one thing when the whole circuit is synthetic like SoCal was or for tracks that are isolated like Woodbine and Presque Isle. But people lose interest when horses are switching back and forth from dirt to synth every few months and it becomes more of a guessing game than handicapping.
|
While I don't doubt there's truth to this, it's also a bit weird. Handicappers should welcome things that make the game more difficult, because these are the sorts of things that produce betting angles.
