Why SA stayed with synthetic

[BitPlayer]

Interesting post on Ray Paulick\'s new site:

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/why-santa-anita-stayed-synthetic/

[fkach]

At least this kind of survey addressed the marketplace and was not mandated by imbeciles in government or other bought and paid for people in power etc...

There were two shortcomings that I can see.

1. They didn\'t ask regular customers what they prefer to bet on and whether they have altered their daily handle because of the artificial surfaces. Looking at the raw increase/decrease in handle does not really give you the answer because lots of things cause fluctuations in the handle that have nothing to do with surface considerations (economy, income growth or lack thereof, other wagering opportunities, new sources of money into the pools, population growth in the area etc..)

2. They didn\'t ask trainers from other parts of the country/world with top horses whether or not they would skip the Breeder\'s Cup because there is no dirt racing.

[colt]

Lets face it - The real REASON why they are going with the Pro-Ride surface is because they had already  committed to a hush-hush-behind-the-scene deal with Pro-Ride to get them to save the last meet.  Has anyone followed the current Hollywood Park meet?  There are breakdowns every other day.  

If we raced on cotton balls, horse will still breakdown.  The idea that synthetic tracks are the answer is nothing more than BS.

[richiebee]

Based on Paulick\'s stats, should we also abandon turf racing because it
allegedly results in more breakdowns than synthetic?

[BitPlayer]

Fkach –

As to your first point, I have no doubt that Magna took likely effects on handle into account in making their decision.  I don\'t know any race track execs, but I suspect they\'re a lot savvier than one would think from reading this board (not a very high standard).  They can get a handle on betting patterns of \"whales\" by looking at the amount coming into their pools from rebate shops.  They also have access to rewards program data to look at the patterns of individual bettors.    To get a handle on the \"synthetic\" effect, they can compare the change in handle on turf races with the change in handle on dirt/synthetic races.  I think looking at how people actually bet is a lot more reliable than looking at how they say they\'ll bet.

Even given the data they have, the analysis would be complicated because the surface choice could have indirect effects on handle (by increasing field size, for example).

It would be interesting if someone in the racing press or a blogger could do a detailed story on how moving to a synthetic surface has affected handle and/or the bottom line at some race track.

As to your second point, the Breeders Cup is not Magna\'s concern.  The BC had to expect that the main track would be a synthetic surface when they decided to hold the event at SA.

[APny]

Why would you argue the facts of the study....synthetic surfaces = safer surfaces...the numbers prove it and I think that\'s a good thing.  My big problem with poly as a player is you never know if a horse will take to it or not.  The good thing about California is since they all have it now...it\'s less of a guessing game.  It\'s all about consistency.  If every track eventually goes poly...why would we have any problem with it as the x factor would be eliminated?

[fkach]

Bit,

If you are right about track executives being smart enough to sift through the handle data properly, I stand corrected. But I find it hard to believe most are smart enough to do anything beyond ruining the racetrack experience. That\'s all I\'ve ever seen any of them do in over 30 years. Personally, I have no doubt that if they looked at the whale and and other sophisticated money \"properly\" they would find that the handle in those areas is going down in real terms. I know plenty of people that have stopped playing synthetic surfaces or reduced their handle significantly at those tracks (myself included), but I still haven\'t met a single person that claims to have increased their betting specifically because they like it.

Magna may or may not have been interested in the data about the BC, but it\'s still a very relevant question to ask. In fact they probably should be interested regardless. If the day turns out to be a failure both in terms of handle and competitive racing, that will hurt the track a little and make it unlikely CA or other synthetic tracks will get it again after 2009 (assuming anyone in this industry has an IQ higher than a rock). The problem is, no one will ask the question because they might get an answer they don\'t like.

[miff]

Fkach,

Racetrack execs are more aware now of customer surface choice than before. It will not make too much of a difference to them unless handle falls off,stays off and they can trace it back to surface disenchantment.

California is mandated,so they have no choice at this time. New York is a different story and there is great debate already with many trainers on either side of the issue.It is being looked into but money may delay any surface changes for the foreseeable future. I may have previously posted that there is an outfit close to perfecting a kinder dirt surface.This surface takes out more of the impact shock,which is an important factor in creating/promoting unsoundness.


Mike

[fkach]

>California is mandated,so they have no choice at this time. <

Miff,

I understand that it was originally mandated, but the recent fiasco gave them the perfect cover to revisit that decision. Some of the articles I read suggested that everyone was open to the possibility of returning to dirt. If I thought they reached this latest decision in an open, honest, and fair way, so be it.  Personally, I don\'t have much of a problem if CA wants to become U.S. center for turf racing and articial racing. I don\'t have to go there (and won\'t anymore; not even Del Mar). I also don\'t have to bet there.

If anything, the developments out there are great for me. Guys like Baffert, Frankel, etc... that do have some functioning grey matter between their ears are shipping their best dirt horses elsewhere. IMO, that\'s already making for much more competitive dirt racing elsewhere.

What I really wish though is that some in the industry would stop pretending that artificial racing is the equivalent of dirt racing. IMO having the BC in CA is dumber than a rock. IMO determining championships and Eclipse Awards for dirt horses on artificial surfaces is dumber than a rock.

[miff]

Fkach,

I do not disagree, but the horsemen voted much more for it than against it.You are correct that the empty suits see artificial surfaces as a panacea. The truth is that if they maintain the dirt tracks well and reduce the sore/lame and loaded ones going to the track, breakdowns will be less frequent.The problem with my scenario is that there will be smaller fields and less racing, the empty suits will never allow that, if they can.


Mike