Up until the late 20th century, all racing in the U.S. was performed on either the turf or the dirt. That changed in 1988 when Remington Park in Oklahoma City opened using an artificial track surface called Equitrack. This surface was comprised mainly of grains of sand coated with wax, and was presumed to be a safer surface than dirt for horses to race on. Unfortunately, while it proved safe, it also proved too costly to maintain, and in 1991 Remington switched back to a conventional dirt surface. However, this proved a harbinger of things to come, and since then many artificial surfaces have been developed and subsequently installed at American tracks.
The first post-Remington installation of a synthetic surface was at Kentucky’s Turfway Park in 2005. Turfway installed Polytrack, which is a blend of fibers, recycled rubber and silica sand covered with a wax coating. Subsequently, synthetic surfaces have been installed in North America at Arlington Park, Keeneland, Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, Santa Anita Race Track, Hollywood Park, Golden Gate Fields, Woodbine Racetrack, and Presque Isle Downs. Synthetic surfaces have been a controversial issue in the horse racing industry. The main reasons for installing them are because they handle inclement weather very well, because they are believed to cut down on catastrophic injuries to horses, and because they are believed to help increase handle revenue for racetracks. However, there have been no conclusive studies yet that confirm synthetic surfaces are safer for horses.
Synthetic surfaces have also added a whole new element for handicappers, as no one really knows yet how success on this new surface translates to the dirt or the turf. The way I handled horses in last year's Breeders Cup that had mainly been running on synthetic surfaces was to basically toss them. And this worked out very well, as every single one of the dirt race winners on Breeders Cup day had been running predominantly on the dirt prior.
Many people will tell you that synthetic surfaces play a lot like the turf. This certainly may be true, but I recently did a Masters project for my school that refutes that claim. Another problem is that every synthetic surface is different. Depending on climate, the company putting together the track will use different materials. And because there are different companies in the synthetic track business, their mixtures will be inherently different.
Trying to handicap the Derby this year will present handicappers with a dilemma similar to the Juvenile races in last year's Breeders Cup, as some of the horses will have never run on the dirt. Aside from looking at pedigree, I can't think of a single way to determine how these horses will run on the first Saturday in May. It's very likely that I will simply play against all of the horses trying dirt for the first time.
Comments
Synthetics
It seems that just as in real life, many of the results in the game on the synthetic track are very strange. Let's take two races for example that I ran on the synthetic tracks.
In the first example, I chose to ride the huge 3-5 favorite, who likes to be on the lead. Personally, I have had more luck with frontrunners, so I figrued that if I could get easy fractions with a huge favorite, I would be home free. And the fractions were beyond slow! I got away with murder on the front end, going 25 and 54. On any normal track, you would think that a talented front runner would widen and blow them away in the stretch. However, I got impaled by the entire field in the stretch!
Then in the second example, I chose a very talented closer. And this time the fractions were very fast. 23 and 47. However, I could only pass a few horses in the stretch! Normally if the fractions are fast, a talented closer will mow them down in the stretch.
This mirrors real life, as so far no one has really been able to get a grasp of how the synthetic tracks play. They are very strange indeed!
Colonel John
The issue of synthetic surfaces on the Derby Trail will be in full force after Colonel John's awesome victory in last weekend's Sham Stakes at Santa Anita. This colt has all the makings of a monster for the Derby. He has a classic pedigree (Tiznow x Turkoman), he has huge strides, and he finished the final eighth of a mile in under 12 seconds in the Sham. The only problem is that, well, he's yet to run in a race on the dirt. And since his likely next target is the Santa Anita Derby, he will never have run on the dirt when he goes postward for the Kentucky Derby.
I played against all of the synthetic-only horses at the Breeders Cup this past year, and it rang true, as none of them won any of the races. It will be very interesting to see what the odds will be for a horse like Colonel John in the Derby. Some people think he'll be longer odds because he's never run on the dirt, but I disagree. He closed at 19/1 in the first Derby Future Wager, which means that a lot of people were betting on him, despite his dirt-less track record. I foreseethe same thing happening at the Derby.
My plan will be to play against him, despite the fact that I think he is a tremendous racehorse.