With 1200 lb horses pounding the track at over 40 mph on legs not much thicker than a human wrist, what could make more sense than to have a track that greatly reduces the force of impact and converts the deadly thump of impact into an elastic return of energy?
The best maintained track in the world is still more hazardous to horses than Poly. It’s a question of the dynamic properties of the composition of the materials and not just maintenance.
Yes, the issues of drugs and breeding must also be addressed but that doesn’t mean that that we shouldn’t try to save lives until, or when, these issues are addressed. Furthermore, even if horses were sounder and not racing on painkillers there would still be breakdowns, which a synthetic surface could reduce. In any case, taking action towards safer surfaces while dealing with drugs are NOT mutually exclusive. Action on all fronts is needed. To ignore the added safety of Polytrack is like saying that jockeys should not be required to wear helmets because if we solve the drug problem there would be less horses breaking down underneath them.
The motivation of management for installing synthetic surfaces, whether it be economic or public relations, is irrelevant to the fact that it can and has saved lives.
I can fully understand the argument that tracks should not be allowed to use the installation of Polytrack as an excuse to not deal with their juicers, but to oppose racing on a safer surface in the hope that the resulting bad publicity from tragic breakdowns will force management to deal with the drug issue is an poor strategy.

Bob



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2007 01:41PM by bobphilo.