Synthetics why?

[Lasix67]

I was just wondering why the synthetic tracks in California have the troubles that they have had with the animals, trainers, betters, etc. as opposed to the tracks in the Midwest or out East such as Arlington, Woodbine, Turfway, etc.. Just a curious thought this morning while sitting here drinking my coffee that I would like to have fair opinions about.

[Charlie D]

I've bet races run on fibresand, polytrack, cushion track, Pro-Ride, Tapeta, turf (under a variety of conditions) and Dirt. So surface is no problem from a betting point of view for me. However, it may be an issue for others for a variety of reasons and if they want to tell us about them then thats fine.

The comments from trainers are interesting and maybe more important as thier comments are regarding these fine warriors health and well being.

[ArlJim78]

I think that climate is one reason they have more trouble with the actual surfaces. You hear more about it because its a higher profile circuit than Arlington-Woodbine-Turfway.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You hear more about it because its a higher profile circuit
than Arlington-Woodbine-Turfway.

I agree. Arlington - Woodbine - Turfway have also had their share of troubles
over the past three years.

Turfway Park though takes the cake, by changing their night dates into afternoon in order to get "more sunlight" (and heat) on to the racing surface.

That way clods of frozen polytrack would become less of a liability.

But we've all seen the scattered chunks of TP polytrack when the horses round into the first turn, haven't we?

Let us not forget Keeneland.
Their polytrack racing continues to suffer from handle declines also.
Their solution? Lower the purses.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I think that climate is one reason they have more trouble with the actual surfaces. You hear more about it because its a higher profile circuit than Arlington-Woodbine-Turfway.

I agree that climate and larger media markets are major factors (though there was a article on unhappiness with Arlington's surface last December that was talked about here). The other thing that makes a difference is feeling trapped. If you're in the midwest and you don't want to run on synthetics, you have a few more options without going too far from home.

But, the botched installation of Cushion Track at Santa Anita has got to be the cherry on the sundae. Since the installers used too fine a sand, which clogged the permeable membrane, the track just won't be right until they strip it down totally and restart from scratch.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Lasix67

I was just wondering why the synthetic tracks in California have the troubles that they have had with the animals, trainers, betters, etc. as opposed to the tracks in the Midwest or out East such as Arlington, Woodbine, Turfway, etc.. Just a curious thought this morning while sitting here drinking my coffee that I would like to have fair opinions about.

The difference is probably only in perception.
I don't think they have had more problems than anywhere else (including dirt tracks), it's just that synthetics in California is where the media is focusing on.
For such a new product, I think they've done just fine. Santa Anita was my favorite, followed by Golden Gate and Woodbine.

Here in England, there were some problems at first as well, but now they are ticking along nicely. The only one I really can't stand is Southwell.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Lasix67

I was just wondering why the synthetic tracks in California have the troubles that they have had with the animals, trainers, betters, etc. as opposed to the tracks in the Midwest or out East such as Arlington, Woodbine, Turfway, etc.. Just a curious thought this morning while sitting here drinking my coffee that I would like to have fair opinions about.

They have some of the same problems but in California there are more people following the circuit and writing about it. Out here other than Golden Gate there is good weather most of the time. Synthetic surfaces are innapropriate for southern California.

[Charlie D]

As people say Socal is high profile, but so is Keeneland ii believe.


Are bettors in a similar mindset with that track and are trainers shouting for the surface at Keeneland to be removed or refusing to race thier because it's tough on horses?

[andymays]

West Coast stars thrive on dirt tracks

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/

Excerpt:

You might want to think twice before diminishing California horses' success over synthetics. Turns out many of them are even better on dirt and the synthetics have been dulling their brilliance.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by andymays

West Coast stars thrive on dirt tracks

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/

Excerpt:

You might want to think twice before diminishing California horses' success over synthetics. Turns out many of them are even better on dirt and the synthetics have been dulling their brilliance.

or has dirt been flattering the dirt champions' brilliance? the moment they have to leave their comfort zone (for the mud, turf or poly), they look very limited for a champion

[Charlie D]

Originally Posted by andymays

West Coast stars thrive on dirt tracks

http://www.insidesocal.com/horseracing/

Excerpt:

You might want to think twice before diminishing California horses' success over synthetics. Turns out many of them are even better on dirt and the synthetics have been dulling their brilliance.

Do CJ numbers back the statement in blue and red up??

[JohnGalt1]

Does anybody remember any issues/troubles at Golden Gate or Presque Isle?

They are the only two with Tapeta, I think.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Do CJ numbers back the statement in blue and red up??

FWIW, in my own performance figure database there are close to 50 horses that have won or placed at least twice in graded races on both surfaces. Excluding races for two-year-olds, the breakdown is as follows:

Measurably better on dirt: 42%
About equal on both: 36%
Measurably better on an AWS: 22%

[Charlie D]

Thank you Steve , just wondered if numbers backed up what was being stated.

[Stillriledup]

This isnt comparing east Poly to west Poly, but my opinion on the synthetics is this. There's too much TRACK involved in handicapping. On dirt tracks, its all about the horses, those horses travel over the dirt in such a way that you can evaluate that athlete's talent and proceed accordingly. With plastic, especially Polytrack, the surface of the track plays too big of a factor. Here's a bad analogy.

Lets say the NFL decided to get rid of grass/artificial turf and install marshmallows. Players had to play on a 10 inch thick cushion of marshmallow. The games wouldnt necessarily be decided by the players, but they would be decided on which players were able to perform to their capabilities on marshmallows. The team who wins the super bowl wouldnt be the best team, but they would be the team who plays best on marshmallow....so, the only thing we would know is that the winning team is the team who adapted best to the surface. This ability to translate marshmallow into winning football games can change overnight, one day team A would be the best on that surface and then the next day team B would be the best without warning with no rhyme or reason.

I don't want the surface to come into play. Plastic tracks are like umpires or refs in sports. People say that if the ref/ump is doing his job, he'll never get noticed or talked about.