Keeneland late surface change discussion.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thespaah

I was driving and listening to the HRRN broadcast on Sat radio.. Jude Feld commented he had no memory of Keeneland management taking a grade 1 off the turf. He speculated that it could have been there was damage to a part of the course due to the recent heavy rains. The other hose who's name escapes me, stated perhaps the course had taken on so much water that the track management was concerned about safety.

I think the "real" reason it was off turf is because the reigning horse of the year was going to scratch if it stayed on. I don't buy the safety argument, they've had much worse in the past than they did on Saturday weather wise.

[Some_One]

I've always heard Kee is one of those tracks that never takes races off the turf, anyone with a database that can look that up?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Some_One

I've always heard Kee is one of those tracks that never takes races off the turf, anyone with a database that can look that up?

At one time that was true, but not since the installation of polytrack. They take them off often now.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by cj

I think the "real" reason it was off turf is because the reigning horse of the year was going to scratch if it stayed on. I don't buy the safety argument, they've had much worse in the past than they did on Saturday weather wise.

If that's the case, Wise Dan's connections letting mgmt know they had intended to scratch, then I get it.
I'm curious, which way do you think Keeneland should have gone.
Keep it on the grass or take it off the turf?

[cj]

Originally Posted by thespaah

If that's the case, Wise Dan's connections letting mgmt know they had intended to scratch, then I get it.
I'm curious, which way do you think Keeneland should have gone.
Keep it on the grass or take it off the turf?

Either the course was safe for racing, or it wasn't. For a few decades it was deemed safe, so unless there was something different this time than in years past, it should have been left on the turf. If Wise Dan scratches, he scratches, and I've heard from multiple sources that is what was going to happen.

[rastajenk]

It was a really big rain for a sustained period of time. I was there, it was a doozy. While it may be literally true that it has been worse in the past (as in, all it takes is one really bad storm to make it a true statement), there was no reason to even try to keep it on the grass.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by BillW

The industry has decided that there will be one track condition for synthetic tracks. That is Fast. The individual tracks do not determine that on a race to race basis. Saying that this is Keeneland's fault is certainly not based on fact.

Maybe, but its incredibly stupid. The track loses credibility when there are puddles several inches deep on the surface and they still list it "fast".

[cj]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

It was a really big rain for a sustained period of time. I was there, it was a doozy. While it may be literally true that it has been worse in the past (as in, all it takes is one really bad storm to make it a true statement), there was no reason to even try to keep it on the grass.

In years past, they would have left a NW1 allowance race on. This wasn't about the course, or the weather, it was about keeping Wise Dan in the race.

[Valuist]

What Keeneland reminded me of was when Santa Anita was going thru that period of heavy rains with the Pro Ride, and they couldn't get it to drain and there were puddles on the track. They cancelled a number of race cards.

I've heard jockeys say that there's a different feel to the Poly as opposed to dirt or grass. Even though there was no mishaps, have to think that the Poly was slippery, and it could've been more unsafe then running over a soggy grass course. Wise Dan may have been unwilling to fully extend to outfinish Silver Max due to the poor condition of the surface.

[BillW]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Maybe, but its incredibly stupid. The track loses credibility when there are puddles several inches deep on the surface and they still list it "fast".

The way to change these things is to address the issue with the people making the decision at the time the decision is made. Throwing a fit on a forum calling a policy that has been in place for a few years stupid won't accomplish anything. I doubt that the decision makers are reading this forum.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by BillW

The way to change these things is to address the issue with the people making the decision at the time the decision is made. Throwing a fit on a forum calling a policy that has been in place for a few years stupid won't accomplish anything. I doubt that the decision makers are reading this forum.

On a slightly different note, Bill, how do you feel about Keeneland having an extended inquiry on opening day, yet NEVER showing the head-on, or even the pan, replay during the inquiry? Also, when they showed the head-on replay, after the inquiry was over and after the pan, they cut it off before the possible infraction(s) occurred. Just curious, do you think that is a bettor friendly decision?

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by BillW

The way to change these things is to address the issue with the people making the decision at the time the decision is made. Throwing a fit on a forum calling a policy that has been in place for a few years stupid won't accomplish anything. I doubt that the decision makers are reading this forum.

You know, Bill, the more I read this, the more it troubles me. You would be surprised at the number of people in the industry that read this board, and if they aren't, I think they should be. This is a very good place to see what is on the minds of horseplayers, and while I don't agree with everything I read here, there have been many times over the past decade that I have brought things said here to the attention of track management. It doesn't change the world, but it also doesn't hurt, and if nothing else, it is a good way to try to get closer to our customers.

I am surprised that you, a representative of HANA, would admonish people for complaining here, and even going so far as to suggest they are wasting their time. You are wrong on both counts. Plus, I would like to think that in your supposed position, you would be interested in helping horseplayers' gripes get heard, as after all, isn't HANA supposed to be representing horseplayers?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by BillW

The way to change these things is to address the issue with the people making the decision at the time the decision is made. Throwing a fit on a forum calling a policy that has been in place for a few years stupid won't accomplish anything. I doubt that the decision makers are reading this forum.

Its funny that there are people here posting who forgot more about this game than some of the "decision makers" will ever know, it would beHOOVE them to read and take notes.

Now, knowing the "State" of the industry, you could be right that very few of them want to surf here and even the ones who surf here, are they really going to make decisions based on what people say on the internet?

Andy has a point though, this is 2013, you never know who's reading, same goes true for Paulick Report, that's a site that many industry insiders read, if you have a complaint there and post it, there's a good chance someone in the game who is a "higher up" might read it.

[BillW]

Originally Posted by the little guy

You know, Bill, the more I read this, the more it troubles me. You would be surprised at the number of people in the industry that read this board, and if they aren't, I think they should be. This is a very good place to see what is on the minds of horseplayers, and while I don't agree with everything I read here, there have been many times over the past decade that I have brought things said here to the attention of track management. It doesn't change the world, but it also doesn't hurt, and if nothing else, it is a good way to try to get closer to our customers.

I am surprised that you, a representative of HANA, would admonish people for complaining here, and even going so far as to suggest they are wasting their time. You are wrong on both counts. Plus, I would like to think that in your supposed position, you would be interested in helping horseplayers' gripes get heard, as after all, isn't HANA supposed to be representing horseplayers?

Equibase spent a great deal of time collecting data on wet synthetic surfaces (maybe 7 or 8 months, I forget now). They concluded that wet fast designator was without merit. While I was a supporter of adding the WF designator, I accepted their decision as I felt they put in a sincere effort in analyzing it. But that is not the point. I have found in general that the industry is willing to discuss in good faith any reasoned request. Calling them stupid usually doesn't elicit the same response and in some cases result in the exact opposite.

And by the way I no longer respresent HANA, I am retired from the board but still a staunch supporter.

[iceknight]

Originally Posted by cj

I think the "real" reason it was off turf is because the reigning horse of the year was going to scratch if it stayed on. I don't buy the safety argument, they've had much worse in the past than they did on Saturday weather wise.

I think it makes sense they switched the surface. Otherwise, they would have had yielding or good turf and I think very recently we had a top notch turf horse run on yielding/questionable turf and get injured. POE. It is a tough call to make but I am really hoping that the graded stakes committee accords Gr 1 to this race. Silver Max beat Wise Dan fair and square and I am hoping for bigger things and possibly a no-doubt-about it Gr 1 win in the near future. Meanwhile, it would be nice to see Wise Dan in a real race - BC Classic instead of the current campaign..