Tapeta 10

[Scanman]

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...to-synthetics/

I realize that Mr. Dickinson has an interest in this surface, but the safety of Tapeta 10 at Presque Isle Downs, Wolverhampton and Newcastle are having unparalleled success in reducing equine fatalities.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Scanman

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...to-synthetics/

I realize that Mr. Dickinson has an interest in this surface, but the safety of Tapeta 10 at Presque Isle Downs, Wolverhampton and Newcastle are having unparalleled success in reducing equine fatalities.

Dickinson is focusing on the maintenance and safety level issues of the old synthetic surfaces vs. what he has now (which is understandable), but I think there's still going to be resistance unless he can demonstrate that dirt horses like the Tapeta 10 surface and the races still develop like dirt races.

That was one of the problems last time.

Most of the synthetics were more friendly to turf horses or totally unique and the races did not develop like dirt races. Gambling on them (and probably training horses to run on them) was like learning a new game.

Maybe safety trumps those other issues by so much now it won't matter, but I can see some whining from gamblers and breeders again unless dirt horses are moving to the new surfaces and holding their form.

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Dickinson is focusing on the maintenance and safety level issues of the old synthetic surfaces vs. what he has now (which is understandable), but I think there's still going to be resistance unless he can demonstrate that dirt horses like the Tapeta 10 surface and the races still develop like dirt races.

That was one of the problems last time.

Most of the synthetics were more friendly to turf horses or totally unique and the races did not develop like dirt races. Gambling on them (and probably training horses to run on them) was like learning a new game.

Maybe safety trumps those other issues by so much now it won't matter, but I can see some whining from gamblers and breeders again unless dirt horses are moving to the new surfaces and holding their form.

Great Post. Agree completely.

Many whether they be punters or trainers struggle with change, but the only thing in life that is constant; is change.

Since it's inception, I've always believed that synthetics had a place in racing. Synthetics continue to evolve and improve; no different than how dirt and turf surfaces can be and sometimes are improved.

With the outcry of every equine death on a dirt track, greater emphasis will have to be placed on safety. The discussion of synthetic tracks is not going away, as they have clearly proven (at least in the case of Tapeta 10) to be a much safer surface.

[Tom]

With the history of this stuff, what track would risk the expense of installing it?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

With the history of this stuff, what track would risk the expense of installing it?

That's how I feel about dirt.

Seriously, the history of this "stuff" is that it's much safer than dirt, has worked fine as a racing surface at every track other than one (Santa Anita) where it has been installed, and continues to improve as technological advances occur.

I personally don't think "horsemen hate it" or "handicappers hate it" are valid objections to a safety precaution. Especially since the entire history of artificial surfaces in other sports like track and field, baseball, football, soccer, and tennis is that they get more and more like the "real thing" over time as the technology gets better and better. Eventually they are going to come up with something that is almost exactly like dirt in terms of energy return and consistency.

[Robert Fischer]

We must switch to Fischer Footings. If you love horses, you'd do it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

With the history of this stuff, what track would risk the expense of installing it?

If Belmont goes ahead with the idea to install a synthetic track inside the 2 turf courses eventually, we may learn something.

[Tom]

As a standby for off turf day, I love the idea. Scheduling as many turf races as they do without it is not too bright.
For actual classy racing, forget it.

The surface brings Gr1 horses and Thistledown on the same level.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If Belmont goes ahead with the idea to install a synthetic track inside the 2 turf courses eventually, we may learn something.

Originally Posted by Tom

As a standby for off turf day, I love the idea. Scheduling as many turf races as they do without it is not too bright.
For actual classy racing, forget it.

The surface brings Gr1 horses and Thistledown on the same level.

It isn't (necessarily) a bad idea for a third-surface at Belmont, or Aqueduct.

I really don't/haven't cared to go into that idea, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear debate from both sides that made sense.

The idea that racing must switch from dirt to synth, because Santa Anita chose to; [fire their maintenance guy, got huge increase in rain, opted to seal everything in sight, and happened to be forcing the rainbow-6 program on trainers and vets] all in the same season is generally unwise, but in this specific case is merely an opportunistic 'advertising' for Tapeta Footings.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

It isn't (necessarily) a bad idea for a third-surface at Belmont, or Aqueduct. …..

Saratoga too. It would solve this MTO situation that's been happening lately, which has diluted the quality of the dirt races. I believe TLG mentioned this a few months ago.

I seem to recall that MTOs used to be longshots but the trainer's have gotten smart and are throwing their contenders into the mix. Take Lucky Curlin in today's third race at Saratoga. He's a dirt horse that Casse entered him as a MTO. ML is 8/5. If an off-turf happened and they moved to a synthetic course, it would not be that much of an advantage for a dirt horse. The quality of racing would improve all around.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

As a standby for off turf day, I love the idea. Scheduling as many turf races as they do without it is not too bright.
For actual classy racing, forget it.

The surface brings Gr1 horses and Thistledown on the same level.

Yet somehow Game on Dude and Zenyatta were Grade I horses on both surfaces.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Yet somehow Game on Dude and Zenyatta were Grade I horses on both surfaces.

For every horse like that, there are many more that couldn't run a step on dirt after winning a big race on a synthetic track.

[Tom]

And a lot of horses leterrlay exploded going synth to dirt.
Synth keeps 'em from good performances.

Like a NYRA rider on steroids grabbing out of the gate.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That's how I feel about dirt.

Seriously, the history of this "stuff" is that it's much safer than dirt, has worked fine as a racing surface at every track other than one (Santa Anita) where it has been installed, and continues to improve as technological advances occur.

I personally don't think "horsemen hate it" or "handicappers hate it" are valid objections to a safety precaution. Especially since the entire history of artificial surfaces in other sports like track and field, baseball, football, soccer, and tennis is that they get more and more like the "real thing" over time as the technology gets better and better. Eventually they are going to come up with something that is almost exactly like dirt in terms of energy return and consistency.

No, it's not safer. That is the mantra, and it's false. It was safer at first because they were all newly installed surfaces with new bases competing against a bunch of older installed surfaces with old bases. As the synthetic track gained age, it increased in fatalities to basically be equal to dirt.

It is FALSE that it is more safe.

[Tom]

You HAVE to take into account the base of the tracks.
If you just replaced dirt instead of switching, the tracks would have been safer. AP base was disaster.

I look at Mr. Dickinson as a snake oil salesman.