Turfway Stigma
 

Does anyone else feel like Turfway is bottom-rung and embarrasing to run at?

I remember last year when Biancone started running a bunch there and I wondered if he was hard up for some quality horses or slipping down a notch, etc...

It just seems like it is really s hitty, and I'm not sure I would be thrilled about being up there if I were a trainer/owner.

Well Biacone, Pletcher, Lukas, Baffert, Romasn, Blasi/Asmussen all have stalls at Turfway for the fall meet. They have done several changes that I listed in a earlier post. I think the fall meet has tons to offer to trainers for their 2nd tier crop of horses. Should be a good fall meet.

About 6 or 7 years ago, it was a decent Fall meet, now they are the lowest of the low, I would rate River Downs in front of them. There were some nice horses that would ship in for the Kentucky Cup: Silver Charm, Thunder Gulch, Congaree, Caller One, Captain Steve, Point Given, Cash Run, Vindication, Alley's Ally etc...But no more, the place is a dump and would be better served being used for retail, which it will become in the next couple of years, the property is much more valuable than that piece of crap track that stands there...

Its pretty depressing watching a race there with Mike Battaglia calling. Seems like such a morbid place and his calls are an utter mess.
"And gaining ground."

I dont recall any other track that yields such lopsided victories and spread out fields as much as Turfway.

Bottom line is this place stinks. Real bad. Stick a fork in it.

It depends. The fall meet is pretty solid. No, its not CD or Kee, but its better than what Ellis runs. And December isn't too bad. But after New Year's, the quality really gets bad. Any decent horse in KY has shipped to either Florida, New Orleans or Oaklawn.

The old surface produced the runaway victories. Definitely don't see that much of that on the Polytrack.

I read your post about the changes, Euro. Thanks.

It still seems like it is terrible to me when I go visit. I won't even drive the 70 miles to go see live racing because the atmosphere and horses are so sub-par compared to Churchill-Keeneland.

The place stinks-literally, the last time I was there was in December, it was really windy and that poly track was blowing all over the parking lot, Scuds described it best, it looks like the stuff that comes out of your sweeper and it smells very badly...

Honestly, can you go to any track in the Midwest in December and expect a great atmosphere, especially if there's worse than normal weather? It is what it is.... winter runners in the worst climate they run in anywhere in Dec/Jan. I suppose it gives the owners somewhere to run their nickel claimers and ultra-cheap maidens. If people want to bet on those races, then Turfway serves a purpose. The fact they run on those insulation chips won't stop people from betting.

True, but Aqueduct is further North and they have a much better meet. The Winter Meet at Turfway is bad, but the Fall Meet before Keeneland kicked off was pretty good and some nice horses would run there...

Aqueduct rocks. What else you going to do on a Sat or Sunday in the middle of winter. Theres nothing better than burning your paycheck and looking out at all the snow in the middle of the Aqueduct oval.

From a live racing perspective, I think you guys are right. I went to Turfway last December, the day after Keeneland's Handicapping contest. My flight was out of Cincy, so Turfway wasn't too far from the airport. Walking through it, the place looked tacky... really tacky. It was clean, but still really tacky. So in terms of watching live racing there, I bet that would be no fun.

But I love betting the place when I'm at Canterbury in the fall and winter. I'm a longshot bettor, and the best chance IMO to get those is betting really ****ty claiming races. Mountaineer, Evangeline, Turfway, Sam Houston, Chuck-town, etc etc etc. Those places are always really good for hitting bombs. So that's why I like those tracks.

One other thing- I don't think they'd tear the place down, or sell it for it's property value since they installed poly-track. Installing that surface isn't a cheap thing to do. So if they were to sell the place off, why install the new surface? I know a few years ago they had to cancel over a week's worth of racing because the track was so beat up (due to really bad wetaher conditions), but still why bother spending the extra $$$ if you're gonna sell it?

You have to keep in mind that Turfway is going to be used as a "testing" or "experimental" track for Keeneland.

And many guys will bet neither.
How do you bet a track where no established speed figures or par times can accurately be made?
Even at Woodbine already the grass horses are winning on it.
I wouldn't bet a quarter at either place on the polytrack. At keeneland only grass will get my action, and I suspect that they will card plenty of grass to insure that they don't get completely killed if handle slips.

Honestly, I wish we had more pure grass meets here in the States. Our excuse for one is that dismal affair at Kentucky Downs.

Why not go to that instead of the poly-track? You don't have to run 5 days a week, just run 2 days and then take a week or two off like in England.

But I know that won't ever happen.

Because noone would make money on that idea Moodwalker. Therefore noone woud ever push to market that idea.
Deeper safer dirt tracks are the answer.
Wait until Cali installs it and everyone flocks away.

I won't bet a single race at Turfway this year, just like last year.

And I haven't bet a race at Woodbine since the Atto Mile last year with Leroidesanimaux.

Only places that I put real money into when wagering is NYRA and Churchill/Keeneland. And maybe a little Australia when I see some huge value.

I know that, Oracle. It is just something I would like to see. I don't think there is some conspiracy, or expect that to ever happen.

I agree that a safer dirt surface would be the best route to take, because dirt racing isn't going to stop in America.

The polytrack thing will go bust in my opinion.

Personally, I don't care what they ask those cheap horses to run over. But I don't think it is a solution.

They will soon find that the tracks who don't install it will have average starters per race increase dramatically.
People who pay good cash to buy and breed horses with dirt pedigrees are not simply going to give up and accept racing on synthetic.
What they will do is ship to a place where dirt racing still exists, and try the horse there.
Already O Neill says he will not be training Lava Man on the synthetic surface at Hollywood. He wants the horse to have the best shot he can have in the classic.
I'm wondering if Stronach isn't being pretty clever here. SA is not required to install it at their upcoming meet. After that meet ends next year, Hollywood and Del mar will be running meets on Polytrack the rest of the year, and state law or no state law, watch how fast the the politicians agree to let him install a safer dirt surface if handle gets crushed at the other two places and the state's cut of the pie takes a hit.

Agreed on all counts.

I don't think I want to buy a 7 figure yearling and run him over that surface if he is bred top and bottom to like the dust.

The Astro-turf trend passed, and this will too.

The more and more I think about it, the more I agree that it is a money thing like you have pointed out so many times.

In the end, the higher-ups don't make the safety of $5,000 claimers their top priority.

This "safer for the horses" thing will be cited as the reason over and over again.

The article written by the Janks woman from Arlington summed it up pretty good for me. If we would stop letting redneck trainers enter horses who have been neglected and can barely stand up, the breakdowns would decrease.