SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, January 21, 2010--If nothing else, this game elicits passion on every level.

Yesterday I wrote my reaction to the Horse of the Year results with thoughts going forward re: a future Rachel Alexandra-Zenyatta match-up(s) later this year.

That’s what I thought I was doing, when threads about synthetic tracks broke out. I wrote a sarcastic throwaway line about “surface of the 21st Century” and wham!

Sorry I wrote the line; no apology intended. But I will have to guard against the covert use of sarcasm in the future. (That’ll happen, right).

So the people want to talk about synthetic tracks? Let’s do it.

I am no fan of artificial surface racing, per se, but neither am I diametrically opposed to them. They have their place, especially in matters of horse safety and in dealing with intemperate atmospherics provided, of course, they are constructed and maintained properly.

Empirical evidence indicates, studies conducted by industry organizations notwithstanding, the jury is still out on safety while most people agree they haven’t performed on the racing front as touted.

If, indeed, we truly got an honest count on the safety issue, then they have helped. But the point is what they replaced were far worse.

Further, they have given birth to new set of injuries and clearly have not proven that they are significantly safer than rigorously maintained conventional dirt tracks given the new technological advances available.


Before turning thoughts to the mandated California debacle, there must be recognition of the fact that all-weather surfaces changed the American game forever. They are, after all, neither turf nor dirt.

Synthetics may look like dirt and the best of them, in my view, act like dirt. Try as I might, I am no fan of Polytrack. Remaining liquid in today’s constricted betting environment is difficult enough without turning too many races into a one-run eight-horse sprint for home.

Hyperbole? Maybe. Using a football analogy, Polytrack turns every race into a 41-38 shootout, last-horse-standing wins.

And, please, no condescending admonition suggesting it’s my job as a handicapper to know the difference and figure it out. I’ve been figuring things out for four decades now and I’m saying that these races, on balance, are harder than they need to be.

I’ve had better success on Hollywood’s Cushion Track and on Tapeta Footings. Cushion Track, in my eyes, plays closer to dirt than other synthetic surfaces. Tapeta works very well in Northern California and, from the little I’ve seen, at Presque Isle Downs.

Empirically, dirt horses rebound better off the Presque Isle surface when returning to the main track. Not only do they run well, all other handicapping variables being equal, but seem to win at a disproportionately high rate.

(Please don’t ask that I allow facts to get in the way of a good story. I’m not going to research charts from every race run at the Erie, Pennsylvania track. In the same manner that research proved there is no correlation between the success of turf horses on synthetics, my preference is for the looks-like-a-duck, acts-like-a-duck approach).

Everything I’ve read or heard in the last 48 hours regarding Santa Anita seriously considering a return to dirt has been positive. But if it’s going to be a return to the old highway racing offered there, or at any of the old California surfaces, for that matter, then don’t bother.

Prior to the 2006 California Horse Racing Board mandate, I much preferred racing at Hollywood Park to Santa Anita. The old Hollywood was reminiscent of racing on an Eastern surface, namely Aqueduct’s, a favorite of many horsemen as well. What I had seen on film was confirmed during the week of Breeders' Cup I in 1984.

Properly maintained dirt surfaces, adverse atmospherics notwithstanding, give every style of horse a chance. Rails get fast or slow depending on maintenance and/or drainage. But tracks such as Aqueduct’s favor neither speedster nor closer. That’s all any horseman, or horseplayer, could ask.

I don’t know where all this will be in 10 years when there’s finally enough evidence to have an intelligent opinion on the use of synthetic surfaces. But the industry somehow must officially recognize that synthetic tracks are a third surface.

All-Weathers are not dirt and not turf. They are what they are; man made. And if the industry has any respect for its history, its people, and its present and future, it must make it official by recognizing it as such in its season-ending awards. (They can take the tack of other awards shows; just hit the highlights in a shorter overall program).

I have read too many Internet comments on this subject to count, and have written about my admiration for the recently retired-again Einstein, who is very special because he won prestigious stakes on all three surfaces. Is there another you could name without thinking twice?

As an aside, no one wants the Eclipse Award ceremonies to be any more unwieldy than it already is, but champions must be crowned on three surfaces if it‘s common to run Grade 1 events on all three surfaces.

Unless, of course, there’s some hidden agenda to eventually abolish them and return to traditional but safer dirt, some amalgam of dirt with a pinch of polymer.

I mention this because Breeders’ Cup officials have spoken about a possible permanent home for the two-day event. If Breeders’ Cup decides on that tack they would do well not to hold the event at a permanent synthetic-surface venue.

All Weather surfaces have attracted better foreign horses in numbers, especially Europeans, as Breeders’ Cup efforts to grow not only the international aspects of the racing tournament but betting handle as well.

However, if Santa Anita, say, were to become a permanent home with an improved Pro Ride or Tapeta surface, it’s a real possibility that Belmont Park would hold its own championship series based on the old Fall Championship model. That possibility has been discussed behind closed doors.

If this were the case in 2009, the potential for Zenyatta winning the Classic and Rachel Alexandra winning, say, the Jockey Club Gold Cup on the same day, would not have been an impossibility. Racing already is a disjointed industry. A dichotomy such as the scenario above would create an irreparable schism, a chasm too wide to cross.

A racing future that includes the continued use and possible expansion of synthetic surface racing at its major venues is unknowable at this point in time. As it is, the future is fraught with enough uncertainty.