bit player,
I have no opinion on which, if any of the synthetics, is best for any track in America. If all the tracks have unique needs, so be it. Then several synthetics will be required.
My view is that if an industry is going to try something new, it should test it in minor markets for a long enough time to answer all the important questions about the long term economics, durability, maintenance, implications for breeders, long term implications for the health of horses and jockeys, the reaction of big bettors, implications for owners, etc...
I never had any problem with Woodbine, Turfway, and other similar tracks being used as test markets to answer some of these questions.
I had a problem with SA, DMR, HOL and KEE rushing into it and being used as test markets because there is a much bigger downside to failure and little or no incremental gain in knowledge over using some of the other smaller markets.
If Finger Lakes was having this problem, no one would care much but we would have learned the same lesson. If NYRA puts a synthetic surface on one of its training tracks for a few years you won\'t hear a peep. But no corporation chooses to test a replacement product in its most important markets and puts the whole company at risk unless there is no way around it.
In addition, IMO, this whole argument about horse safety is 90% a crock of crap. I probably care more about the horses than 95% of all the people in the industry. IMO, if the health of the horses was really the primary issue, we\'d be running drug free like Europe and Asia and these surface conversations would be a sidewhow.
I don\'t mean to sound so abrasive and know that a lot of people have good intentions, but I think this was/is an unnecessary fiasco. I\'ll drop this now because my view is clear.