McCarron

Go Baby Go......Here are some (long winded) thoughts about the synthetic tracks...... 

The new proliferation of synthetic track surfaces has created two clear camps amongst handicappers; either you love it or hate it. I've yet to come across a horseplayer that lacks a strong opinion on the topic.

The most common gripes of the synthetic track "haters" are as follows: (A) The nature of the synthetic surface will kill the speed oriented North American game we know and love and turn the sport upside down (B) If synthetic tracks become commonplace nationwide, the ubiquitous nature of the surface will eliminate the unique characteristics of each individual track (C) The fractional times on synthetic surfaces are too slow and therefore less exciting to watch than the races on typical dirt surfaces (D) Synthetic track racing is too inherently similar to turf racing (E) There are too many challenges and uncertainties for handicapping the new tracks. Is it best to dismiss a poor effort on an artificial surface upon a return to dirt? Does strong turf form translate well to the synthetic track, and if so, does this apply to all synthetic track surfaces? How important are works over the new surface? Are the new tracks too fair?    

Conversely, I've heard some variation of the following points raised in support of the new surfaces: (A) Synthetic tracks will save lives, both equine and human (B) The nature of the surface is easier on the horses which will in turn, prolong the careers of our greatest equine stars as the risk of injury is less prevalent (C) The safer, less taxing nature of the surface will lead to fuller fields nationwide (D) The emphasis on stamina and fitness over pure unbridled speed will encourage American breeders to focus on strong distance sires, which in today's world, reside primarily  overseas (E) Bias is still alive and well and can be used to the benefit of the astute player.        

I've heard some interesting points from both sides over the last few months. As a self proclaimed Polytrack apologist, I like the new trend. My rationale is a bit deeper and more abstract than the tangible support statements listed above (although I agree with most of the supporting statements) and dates back to the nostalgic early years of my handicapping journey.

In the early to mid 1990s, I learned to handicap at a great OTB location nestled near the grounds of the Alameda County Fair in Pleasanton, California. In this particular era of simulcasting, the OTB carried only the Northern and Southern California track signals. From the start, I was never a big fan of the short fields, constant chalk, and predictable domination of a single rider (Russell Baze) and trainer (Jerry Hollendorfer) that characterized the Northern California circuit at that time and continues to this day.

I instantly gravitated toward the Southern California tracks as the only simulcast alternative and enjoyed the quality of racing immensely. My most glaring and longstanding memories of that era revolve around the undeniable talent of the jockey colony. Each and every race felt like witnessing a chess match between grandmasters; a race within a race featuring brilliant athletes, outstanding all around riders with special god given talent.

The pure depth of the jockey colony in Southern California at that time is without comparison. Stevens, Pincay, Delahoussaye, McCarron, Desormaeux, Solis, Flores, Valenzuela, Antley, Douglas, Nakatani.......unreal.

With a pool of riding talent that deep, every race was a tactical duel between great riders (This was in my green handicapping years and was my perception at the time-perhaps it's a bit overstated). As a handicapper, you could usually count on a solid ride where the pure talent of the riders created an amazing situation; races run on both surfaces were exciting to watch. In general, a good jockey is much more of a necessity on the Turf where a good trip is key and the margin of error is slim.

Too often in this current climate of speed biased tracks, jocks simply race to the half mile pole and let the surface do the rest. It makes me sick to watch races where $10,000 claimers can blister ludicrous ¼ and ½ splits and easily win the race. When was the last meaningful running of the Blue Grass Stakes from the ultra speed biased Keeneland oval? Anyone seen Sinister Minister?   

The biggest detriment of the prevailing dirt track speed bias is the lack of imagination it takes to win a race. The races I have witnessed over the past six months over artificial surfaces are throwbacks to my impressionable early years of handicapping and provide a hopeful look into the future. The Polytrack and Cushion Track races are definitely more in the realm of "rider's" races (like many races on the lawn with big fields); it takes more than just a quick quarter-mile to win. I witnessed more well-timed, well run winning efforts in one weekend at the Keeneland Fall meet than occurred in the entire Fall season of 2005. Ditto for Hollywood.....

While the sheer talent of the current jockey colony in Southern California is weak in comparison to those magical years of unparalleled depth, it's nice to see a surface that puts the onus back on the rider to show some creativity. The new track surfaces are akin to the new rules of the National Hockey League that allow the most talented players the freedom to showcase their talents. Horseracing is a great sport, and as such, should allow the talent of the finest athletes to thrive. Change is difficult and there are plenty of unanswered questions as tracks from coast to coast convert to the synthetic surface. As always, solid handicapping principles and careful examination of past performance data will create overlay situations. Many people, less prepared and not willing to put in the necessary effort to understand the new paradigm, will pump thousands of dollars into the pari-mutuel pools.