| |
|
|
|
Synthetic
Tracks - One Man's Opinion
When posed the
question of whether the implementation of synthetic surfaces
at
tracks throughout the country is a good thing, the in-vogue
answer would be to say that it’s the greatest thing since
sliced bread. Unfortunately I can’t give that answer
with
any kind of honesty. I’ll start out by saying that I
believe that the safety of the horse and the jockey are of
paramount importance. But to swap out an entire racing
surface is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. By
completely eliminating the dirt and replacing it with any
new surface takes the horsemen and the horse players and
throws them under the bus, in my opinion. The gambler,
without whom we’d have no industry, is completely without a
clue as to the handicapping and playing of races run over
the synthetic surfaces. The fact that there are
$100,000-plus pick-6 carryovers every other week in
California is proof of that. For the horse industry it’s,
in my opinion, far worse.
You have an entire industry built
around billions of dollars being invested into the
development of excellent dirt horses. This industry has now
been stood on its head. There seems to be some common
consensus that synthetic surfaces play to favor turf
horses. So let’s examine the logic. You have turf courses
and you have synthetic “dirt” courses that favor turf
horses. Well, where exactly are the dirt horses supposed to
run? You have breeding operations and racing operations
that have invested millions of dollars into building a
product around dirt racing only to have the dirt surfaces
taken away. If it turns out that their particular horses
don’t fit in the synthetic world, how is that to be
reconciled? By saying, “Oops, sorry”? Imagine if the NHL
suddenly announced that there have been too many injuries so
all teams in California, Chicago and Tornoto will now play floor
hockey on wood. The thought is too absurd to even continue
with the discussion. But that’s exactly what’s happened in
our industry.
To unilaterally do away with and replace
something as fundamental as the surface over which our
horses run just seems incredibly irresponsible. The running
of such prestigious races as the Lexington Stakes at Keeneland and the Pacific Classic at Del Mar were reduced to
laughing stocks earlier this year. Additionally, the
long-term health effects of exposure to the synthetic
material for both horse and man have yet to be determined.
Again, the whole undertaking seems very irresponsible. I
think, assuming that there is any validity to the suggestion
that the synthetic surfaces are safer than traditional dirt,
the obvious solution is to install these surfaces on the
training tracks while leaving the racing surfaces intact.
This would allow the horses to train 29 out of 30 days on
the synthetic surface while maintaining the integrity of
racing on the surface over which our industry has been
built. We could then divert the millions of dollars that
were spent on replacing the dirt with the synthetic into
research and development on making traditional dirt surfaces
as safe as possible. That approach seems to be the least
disruptive and make the most common sense.
|
|
