I've been trying to get a handle on exactly when these race tracks converted to (and from) synthetic, and have compiled the following. I'd appreciate if any of you could correct me if the dates are wrong!
{I did a bunch of Googling to come up with this list, and it might not be right}:
Track Synthetic From Date To Date Notes
Turfway Park polytrack 07-Sep-2005 current
Keeneland Race Course polytrack 01-Aug-2006 21-May-2014 back to dirt now
Woodbine Oval polytrack 01-Aug-2006 01-Dec-2015 changing to Tapeta
Hollywood Park cushion track 15-Sep-2006 22-Dec-2013 closed
Del Mar polytrack 01-Mar-2007 22-Jul-2015 back to dirt now
Arlington Park polytrack 04-May-2007 current
Santa Anita cushion track 01-Sep-2007 23-Sep-2008
Presque Isle Downs Tapeta 01-Sep-2007 current
Golden Gate Fields Tapeta 07-Nov-2007 current
Santa Anita Pro-Ride 24-Sep-2008 05-Dec-2010 back to dirt now
Woodbine Oval Tapeta 01-Apr-2016 future
synthetic tracks
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
JimbleBrimble
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 3:15 pm
Re: synthetic tracks
Everything in your list looks in order.
Now if only someone could devise a true "study" of breakdown data which appropriately factors-in the class of the horses and tracks involved, rather than just the poorly-conceived, blanket studies which would compare $50,000 purchases at Woodbine with $1200 purchases running at Hazel Park or Rillito before revealing that the $1200 purchases at Rillito break down at a much higher rate.
It's a fair guess that breakdown rates at Rillito were greater than those at Woodbine decades before synthetic tracks came along to benefit only those who produce and sell synthetic tracks (at the direct expense of gullible cowboys of the sort who once also thought "nasal strips" were the answer to their prayers).
Just look at the track names on your list, which is generally all-inclusive, and any fool can tell that the top tier tracks are disproportionately represented there with each contributing a giant chunk of the data for "synthetic tracks" with regard to safety of horses.
Yet the "dirt" tracks category must include data from outposts like Arapahoe Park, Belterra Park, Sunray Park, Marquis Downs, and Fair Meadows.
Now if only someone could devise a true "study" of breakdown data which appropriately factors-in the class of the horses and tracks involved, rather than just the poorly-conceived, blanket studies which would compare $50,000 purchases at Woodbine with $1200 purchases running at Hazel Park or Rillito before revealing that the $1200 purchases at Rillito break down at a much higher rate.
It's a fair guess that breakdown rates at Rillito were greater than those at Woodbine decades before synthetic tracks came along to benefit only those who produce and sell synthetic tracks (at the direct expense of gullible cowboys of the sort who once also thought "nasal strips" were the answer to their prayers).
Just look at the track names on your list, which is generally all-inclusive, and any fool can tell that the top tier tracks are disproportionately represented there with each contributing a giant chunk of the data for "synthetic tracks" with regard to safety of horses.
Yet the "dirt" tracks category must include data from outposts like Arapahoe Park, Belterra Park, Sunray Park, Marquis Downs, and Fair Meadows.
Re: synthetic tracks
Those are good points. Another reality is that this issue is so politicized in part because of there were genuine financial winners and losers. I'm not even talking about the breeding and racing programs that were upended when everything changed literally by a stroke of a pen but the $40 million it cost to implement this change in California. Who knows... Maybe Hollywood would still be around if the powers that be were a little less rash in buying into smooth sales pitches.
JimbleBrimble wrote:Everything in your list looks in order.
Now if only someone could devise a true "study" of breakdown data which appropriately factors-in the class of the horses and tracks involved, rather than just the poorly-conceived, blanket studies which would compare $50,000 purchases at Woodbine with $1200 purchases running at Hazel Park or Rillito before revealing that the $1200 purchases at Rillito break down at a much higher rate.
It's a fair guess that breakdown rates at Rillito were greater than those at Woodbine decades before synthetic tracks came along to benefit only those who produce and sell synthetic tracks (at the direct expense of gullible cowboys of the sort who once also thought "nasal strips" were the answer to their prayers).
Just look at the track names on your list, which is generally all-inclusive, and any fool can tell that the top tier tracks are disproportionately represented there with each contributing a giant chunk of the data for "synthetic tracks" with regard to safety of horses.
Yet the "dirt" tracks category must include data from outposts like Arapahoe Park, Belterra Park, Sunray Park, Marquis Downs, and Fair Meadows.