Rush to Resurface

[jma11473]

I would guess full-time grass racing is out because there is now so much money tied up in breeding horses to race on the dirt---making those sires worthless isn\'t going to happen without a long fight.

I\'m a novice compared to most of you, but I don\'t see the evidence that Polytrack is a great savior in any respect. So far all we\'ve seen is that it MIGHT be safer than some dirt tracks (if Turfway ends up with as many breakdowns as they used to have on \"regular dirt\" then what\'s the point?), and it MIGHT not hurt betting handle. Even accepting that the first point is more important, I don\'t see the proof in favor of Polytrack yet. Why not take it slowly? Maybe with some tinkering it will turn out to be safer, but I keep thinking of artificial turf in professional sports and how that turned out...grass truly is the real \"natural\" surface, isn\'t it?

[bobphilo]

Tony,

Good question. As I said in my post, the reason that more races ae not contested on grass is that grass cannot stand up to the high volume of racing on U.S. tracks without being torn to shreds. That\'s why some meets in Europe only last a few days and the race cards are much shorter. The reason dirt tracks were invented was to allow almost limitless racing. The problem is that dirt is a lot harder on the horses\' legs.
The advantage of Polytrack is that it\'s shock absorbing qualities and return of energy profile is very similar to grass but can stand up to to stress of high volume racing much better, so its easier on both the horses and itself as well as being as durable as dirt without all the maintenance that dirt requires.

Bob

[bobphilo]

From a statisticians viewpoint the evidence is overwhelming that Polytrack is safer. The Turfway experience showed that catostrophic breakdowns dropped from 24 to 3 at Turfway and only went sligthy up to 5 when they meddled with it to make it more dirt like. In any case the Poly numbers for both seasons are much better than the dirt despite the fact that there were more entries in the Poly races. The results are similar for other tracks installing the new surface.

The rush is because horses are breaking down at an alarming rate when we have something available that has been shown to a high degree of statistical significance that it can prevent them. How many more horses have to die before a proven safer surface is brought in. The decissions are on a track by track basis but every track that has installed Poly looked very carefully at the results of the previous tracks to race on it before installing it and they all liked what they saw.
Just to give an example of how new drugs or medical procedures are tested and approved for use. Subjects are divided into different groups where one gets the new treatment and another gets the traditional treatment or a placebo. If partway into the experiment it is clear that the new treatment is significantly better than the others, the experiment is stopped and everyone is swithced to the new treatment for ethical reasons. When lives are at stake delays kill. When lives are at stake, quick desisive action is needed if the evidence supports it. The only problems with Ploy has been when the people mess with the correct the formula to make it more dirt-like in its early speed properties and even then, it\'s still safer than dirt.

Bob

[NoCarolinaTony]

In addition to all of those things...the real reason racing has declined is because the states and municipalities that govern every race track, raped those races tracks, the horse owners, and their bettors of return on investment, using racing as a cash cow to milk, tax, ..until the \"udder runs dry\". There is no national interest, no national rules on drugs, drug use, no uniformity in wagers, betting formats, take out, suspensions nothing. Nothing about racing is uniform anywhere. To each his own. I got mine, now you get yours if you can. Can\'t even get the only two TV channels devoted to racing cannot even agree to coexist

Throw all that into the mix, and now surface changes...racino\'s etc etc...The product is on a steady national decline and lacks any interest of the common man.

Barbaro was the closest thing racing had to National interest. Regardless of the reason why.

The only thing that can save the industry longterm, is an official league of racing so to speak, an NBA or NFL type of ruling body, but the states will never give up their little cash cows, but will have to if they all go bankrupt and sell the property the current reside on...(in real dollars, not tax positioning such as NYRA).

Poly is good in my opinion, but it\'s only a very very small piece of the problem. All those that wine about betting on it are not trying hard enough.

NC Tony

[bobphilo]

Mike there is no evidence that Polytrack will hurt racing. Yes much of racing is losing corporate endorsements and that is due in large part to the increasing rate of catastrophic breakdowns that are driving away many fans or would be fans.
Before tracks make these major decisions they do careful research with focus groups including the whales and have found that the issue of breakdowns is making racing a poor product. Switching to a safer surface is not only the ethical thing to do but makes sound business sense. If people are already betting more despite the "chaotic" outcomes you describe they will bet even more when Poly form becomes established – the more difficult test period for Poly has passed and all the evidence is that this improvement will only increase in the future.
Racing is in bad shape and desperately needs some radical changes to come out of its coma. The problems that the racing industry faces are multiple and no one thing will make everything perfect. However, Polytrack offers some very positive improvements, both alone, and especially if combined with other solutions like stricter drug enforcement and breeding sounder horses. It is just one, but a very important, part of the picture to revive racing. We cannot let clinging to outdated tradition of anger over a few lost bets obscure the benefits of the surface. We can get used to a new and better tradition of safer tracks and adjust to a change in playing Poly form.

Of course, time will be the judge of this issue and since building on the success of tracks that have installed synthetic many more will install it in the future, we will see the results in numbers of lives saved as well as a boost to the sport overall. In any case, thanks for the discussion - it has brought out a lot of facts on both sides of the subject.

Bob

[RICH]

Great stuff. I work with 80 women, and know a few in my personal life. Many of these talk racing with me and alot visit tracks or teletheatres in the area (ny,ct). I can tell you truthfully that breakdowns are not stopping anyone who enjoys the sport from continuing to do so. As far as poly at Keeneland, that was a no brainer. The old dirt track stunk,period.

[miff]

\"Poly is good in my opinion, but it\'s only a very very small piece of the problem. All those that wine about betting on it are not trying hard enough\"

NC Tony



NC Tony,

Poly is not significant enough to change the game for the good, imo.I do not whine about gambling on it, I simply don\'t bet on it. I leave that to the suckers being carried out.

Mike

[fkach]

\"The rush is because horses are breaking down at an alarming rate when we have something available that has been shown to a high degree of statistical significance that it can prevent them.\"

You seem to be missing the point.

I don\'t think many people would disagree with you about the short term safety statistics. They seem straight forward enough.

If the only goal was to improve horse safety in the \"short term\", then poly would seem to be a good solution. What we don\'t have is LONG TERM statistics on safety (human also) or many of the other considerations I mentioned prior that should go into a huge investment and transition within the industry. Very few \"smart\" businessmen totally overhaul themselves without careful consideration of \"every implication\" of what they are doing over the \"long haul\" and without observation of how things are going in test markets \"over time\". It\'s a huge risk.

Suppose reducing breakdowns via poly has huge negative impacts elsewhere that hurt the industry far more than reducing breakdowns help but we don\'t know it yet?

Suppose we can reduce breakdowns equally via other methods without making such a huge investment and change?

I could easily make a list of 10 questions that haven\'t been answered yet and several of them have to do with safety.

Perhaps poly will work out fine and spread to every track in a few years, but perhaps there are better alternatives to come. All too often haphazzard and rushed invesments like this turn into disaster. It\'s often very foolish to rush until you actually know what you are doing. I see no evidence that this industry EVER knows what its doing.

[fkach]

It looks like Turfway is going to have to cope with large amounts of questionable kickback and a slower track or horses on stilts.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/82487.html