It was great that we got throught 2 days of BC racing with no breakdowns. I love the synthetic surfaces if they are going to be safer (although how they hold up long-term is still a question). And I really enjoyed the Euros kicking butt on the synthetic surface today. But Assumusen grumbled after the race that is was essentially a turf race. How is this going to change future Breeders Cups? I expect the Euros will be back in even bigger numbers next year. What about breeding? Is this going to favor turf breeding? Will we see a shift commercially? All very interesting to ponder.
I don’t think synthetics are a cure-all (what gives with the super hot surface temps?), and the blazing California sun isn’t exactly the same test as a New Jersey monsoon, but overall the pro-ride at Oak Tree performed well.
I think it is the future. I think at some point there will be no choice in the matter.
Pro-Ride is not Turf.
Pro-Ride is not Dirt.
Pro-Ride is Pro Ride.
I don’t think it favours either type of horse, some take to it better than others. Some dirt horses like it, some turf horses like it. It’s basically a 3rd surface. I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s not like all dirt tracks are the same anyway, and Turf courses can be very different to one another, the turf course at Santa Anita is not like Woodbines, which is not like Epsom which is not Longchamp.
I love variation. It’s bad enough that almost every track in the US is a one mile left handed oval, do they really all have to play the same too?
At the expense of getting ripped apart here, also remember everyone was on a level playing field too.
The track was safe and everyone came back in good order. It sure beats having a 30 page thread on how cruel and evil racing is!
Terri
No, I don’t think your view is controversial. Safety is the most important issue, and it seems that the talent came through, just maybe not always in the way that was expected.
Dick, Lenny, LaurieRace… I really want their opinions on this
Just curious if anyone here has ridden on a pro ride surface? What is the feel? Is it spongey? So great that there were no injuries.
I race in California so I think I actually have some skin in this game and I am not a fan of the synthetics. While I agree that Pro Ride performed well, these tracks always seem to have a 6 month honeymoon period before they start to break down and the injury rate skyrockets.
Also the lack of breakdowns in the afternoon helps the PR factor, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say no one got hurt yesterday. We won’t know that until today and some injuries can certainly be career threatening or ending without being horribly dramatic.
I ran one on Tapeta last month. This is a horse who won on turf and didn’t have a pimple on her training on dirt. She seemed to come out of the race OK but then showed signs of something weird up high behind. That used to be an unheard of type of injury in racing. My trainer told me that he sent eight back to the farm this year with hind end problems similar to mine. She’s at the farm now and I’m holding my breath for next year. Let’s just say, the jury’s still out for me.
We’re now training out of Golden Gate Fields, which is done in tapeta. Tapeta is a wax-coated mixture of sand, rubber and fiber. When I first rode on it, I was amazed at how quiet it was. I was galloping along at a pretty good clip and a worker came up on the inside. On the dirt I could always hear them coming, would start moving a little outside and slow a bit so when they passed me I wasn’t having to fight so much to keep my horse from joining them. I remember when the worker passed me, I didn’t even realize he was there until I saw him out of the corner of my eye. Suffice to say, I was impressed. Many there are saying because it’s so quiet, it’s absorbing a lot of impact, and reducing stress on the legs… like running in good tennis shoes. It can be groomed to be hard and fast (which was the case right after it was first installed), but after a few go rounds, they figured out how to groom it so it was lighter and slower. So far, our horses haven’t had any out of the ordinary injuries (knock on wood), and it seems there are fewer break downs in the morning, but maybe that’s just wishful thinking.
Some of our horses love it, and some just won’t run on it at all. I like the fact that in California they still have the fair circuit during the summer to give some variety with dirt, but that’s the only time we still get it. Overall, I like it so far, but as others have said, it does take variety out of the mix. I’m still waiting to see how it holds up as the years go on. I remember a grand prix arena was done in a wax coated sand, and it was great at first, until all the wax started melting in the sun, and then it turned to one mass of clumped wax with no real way to repair it. It all had to be stripped.
This thought crossed my mind as I listened to the thoughts on Curlins loss. They did mention some will decry the surface and claim American horses should run on dirt and dirt only…but also mentioned we may not be able to afford that PR wise if the synthetics prove their worth.
Dunno, I grew up out there and some horses that shipped in from back east (or Europe) liked the old dirt track and firm turf, some did the el foldo. The old horses for courses argument. Just did not ship well or didn’t like the heat.
And, have the ones with synthetic experience also won over dirt? they made a great deal over the winners having synthetic experience but I did not hear them mention if they were good on the dirt as well or not. And how many that were good on the faux dirt finished well back anyway?
And how about the ones touted as synthetic specialists that failed to fire?
Too many questions yet to be answered.
Not to brag but I had the winner in the Classic. Jockey was having a good day, he was on the improve and looked like he could peak. And I liked the name.
I support anything that will improve the health of the horses. That said, it remains to be seen if these surfaces will actually do that. We’ve heard about the heat and the fumes, but the long term effects of those factors won’t be known for a while yet. I definitely think it’s too soon to be running championship races on them.
I also think if you’re going to call it a dirt race it should be run on dirt. All weekend they were calling races the dirt mile and such and it’s just not accurate.
I, too, would be worried about the heat and the fumes. 140 deg F track level?
How would dirt have measured? Turf? Does the horse/rider feel the 140 deg - better asked three feet off the ground is it still 140 deg? Pray not. I have read about the fumes. That would make me (as a chemical sensitive) nuts. Really I hate synthetic anything. It is one thing if synthetics are better for the horse injury-wise - but dang - I would just prefer dirt or grass. Not that I have a racehorse…
I am not a fan of the synthetics from a betting standpoint - it’s almost impossible to try and read form then make a selection. However, it does appear there are less catastrophic breakdowns, but there are horses who are being retired from soft tissue injuries and a lot are getting hip problems. Does it save 40-50 horses a year from breaking down? Probably. Is the greater good worth all the craze? Who knows?
Should the Breeders Cup be held on dirt?
HELL YES !!!
Yes, the jockeys do feel it. It is sweltering. I like it as an alternative surface, I don’t think it is good to train on. From what I hear the horses get sore behind after training on it regularly. I have horses that are much better on synthetics, some that are equal, and some that don’t like it. It all depends on the horse.
Arlington’s breakdowns have skyrocketed and are more than the average for the dirt course(except for the horrendous year in 2006). Nothing beats a safe dirt track, but then those tracks don’t set world records.
We’ve raced and trained on several of the synthetics, and I have to say I really prefer a good dirt surface. It was terrific that both days of BC went off without any problems, but generally speaking we (and our trainers) are seeing more injuries with horses racing and training on synthetics.
