This post raises some interesting issues with regards to the future (or lack thereof) of turf racing in North America.

I think the danger might be in forming conclusions about runners performances on the various surfaces based on too small a sample. Lets see a year or two of racing in California at Polywood and Sanda Anita (I can't come up with a catchy one for Del Mar), a couple of meets at Woodbine and Keeneland.

As I have mentioned before, trainers who utilize blacksmiths who figure out the proper shoeing configurations for Poly will have a big advantage.

If you owned a large breeding farm, would you split your paddocks in half, one half grass for grazing and one half Poly for younger horses to frolick on?

When I first started going to the races in the 70s in New York, it seemed like there was a maximum of 2 turf races on a 9 race card. The current regime has resorted to writing 4 and sometimes 5 turf races each day in a desperate attempt to draw full fields. The intrigue of watching and handicapping turf races is not what it used to be. If anything, I look forward to the rare quality dirt race with a full field.

Maybe the future of turf racing lies at the quirky all grass meets such as Colonial Downs, Kentucky Downs and the brief all grass Atlantic City meet which is conducted solely for the purpose of allowing that facility to host simulcasting. Part of the allure of these meets is the fact that they tend to draw full fields, sometimes consisting of animals who are humbly bred and of modest abilities who normally would not be offered an opportunity to race on grass.

Yes Racing is undergoing major changes. There are some constants, though. I think Charlie Whittingham said that there is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. And the racetrack is still one of the only places where you can be a genius and the world's biggest a--hole all within the span of a half an hour.