The installation of synthetic racetracks in North America has been one of the most significant changes to hit the racing game in a long time. These surfaces have created a lot of controversy regarding their success or lack thereof depending on who is telling the story. The all-weather surfaces are probably here to stay, so handicappers should embrace this change and learn how to adapt their handicapping techniques for success on these synthetic surfaces.

Trainers and owners seem to be evenly split over their love/dislike for the all-weather tracks. We can all agree that the debacle over Santa Anita’s Cushion Track was bad for business, but the problems now seem to be corrected. The proof will be in the pudding when the next big rain storm hits Southern California. Overall, respected trainers are on both sides of the fence regarding these synthetic surfaces. Some say it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, while others think that the tracks were sold a false bill of goods. Others like Todd Pletcher say that they would like to train on a synthetic surface, but race on dirt. The trainers that back the synthetics say that they are safer, their horses are sounder and they can keep a horse’s works on schedule since they don’t have to cancel a workout because of a wet track. Trainers that dislike the synthetics state that they cause more hind leg injuries and are no safer than a well-maintained dirt track. They also think that the synthetics don’t allow a horse’s natural ability to shine through. When you hear both sides make their arguments, it is hard to believe that they are talking about the same surface.

In everything that I have read, a majority of the jockeys have been extremely positive regarding these new track surfaces. They say that they are not body sore after a day’s competition like on a dirt track. If a track has been sealed for expected inclement weather, a dirt track is even harder than usual and jockeys state that they are very sore after riding on that type of track. If a jockey can tell the difference in his body, it seems that the all-weather surface must be kinder on the horse’s body as well. The kickback does not hurt as much and jockeys and horses seem to like not getting painful debris kicked back into their faces. Many jockeys think that racing on synthetic tracks will prolong their careers.

On a dirt track, when the rains come, many trainers scratch a horse if they feel the wet track will compromise a thoroughbred’s chances of winning or increase the risk of injury. If a turf race is moved to the dirt track, there is usually a mass exodus by most of the runners. With the synthetic tracks, most of the entrants stay in the race when a turf race is moved to the main track. If you watch a race run in the slop and then watch a race in the pouring rain on an all-weather track, there is no comparison, the all-weather track offers much better racing.

One added bonus of using synthetic materials is the “green” aspect of these tracks. Recycled materials are utilized in the surface. There is also a significant savings in the amount of water needed to maintain the integrity of all-weather surfaces versus a dirt track. Also, smaller tractors are needed to groom the track and are needed less often, which results in less fuel consumption.

Many handicappers have stated that it has been difficult for them to get a handle on picking winners, while others love the synthetic tracks and believe that horses run very true to form. Being based in California, where we have four synthetic tracks, all from a different manufacturer, most of my colleagues play the synthetics and have adapted well to handicapping these tracks.

I would like to establish my observations regarding the all-weather surfaces and start off with some data from our FREE Track Bias Reports, found in the TrackMaster Players Club. Here is a link to a sample from Keeneland 2007. The last page has a detailed explanation of the reports, but I want to concentrate on the Track Profiles section for the winners at each surface/distance combination. The Track Profiles grid contains nine sections with three rows and three columns. The rows correspond with the position of the horse at the first call. If a horse is on the lead or within two lengths of the lead it is marked in the Front row, if more than two lengths behind, but less than or equal to five lengths then Stalk, otherwise it is a Trail. A horse’s positioning on the track throughout the race determines the designations of Rail (the one path), Middle (the two and three paths) and Outside (anything outside of the three path). The letter grades correspond to grades in school with an A being the best and an F being the worst. I wanted to see if my theories regarding the all-weather tracks were in sync with our Track Bias data. The Track Bias reports are computer generated and were designed before the advent of the synthetic surfaces, so any data from them should be without prejudice. I use our Track Bias reports on a track by track basis to aid me in my handicapping process. The reports are an invaluable tool for making adjustments and fine-tuning my wagering based on the running styles of my contenders.

For this exercise, I gathered the reports for the all-weather surfaces and what I deemed to be a similar set of dirt tracks. I assigned a simple number system of A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, and F = 5 to the letter grades found in the winner’s grid for the Track Profiles (Track Profiles are based on the last 365 days of racing at that track). I averaged each cell of the grid and used that average to produce Aggregate Track Profiles for the all-weather tracks, the dirt tracks and the turf courses for these same tracks. The resulting grid can be found here. The results are helpful and lead to some interesting analysis regarding the types of trips that have an advantage or disadvantage based on the type of surface.

Here are some general handicapping tips for all-weather tracks based on my own observations and when noted, backed up by analysis of the Aggregate Track Profiles grid as well. Those that believe synthetic tracks behave differently than dirt are correct, but they probably are going too far when they state that they are just turf courses in disguise. In turf route races, a horse can sit at the very back of the pack, well off of the pace and not have to face a decided disadvantage. This is not true on the synthetics, although early speed horses don’t possess the same type of advantage that they do on a dirt track.

Early speed advantages that can be so deadly on a dirt track, become muted on a synthetic surface. Front-runners need to be able to run within themselves in the early going, if they use too much of their energy early, they won’t be able to sustain their energy down the stretch. It is very difficult for a front-runner to open up by five lengths or more on an all-weather surface and then hang on for the victory. A much better trip is when a front-runner is able to measure his early speed and stay about a length or so in front of his closest pursuer and distribute his energy more evenly throughout the race. Many of our TrackMaster products that utilize Pace Figures such as TrackMaster Plus Pro, Plantinum PPs and the FAST Sheets can help determine if a front-runner typically uses up too much energy early.

The inside post positions and ground saving trips in sprints on the all-weather courses aren’t as advantageous as on a dirt surface. I’ve seen this time and time again even though I’m not sure of the cause. The Aggregate Track Profiles grids back this observation. I don’t think the rail path gets slower because of more material building up along the rail, although it may. I think it may be that sprinters racing along the rail many times are front-runners that can’t control their early speed, or horses along the rail are having to use more of their energy early to maintain their position and don’t have as much energy left for the stretch run. No matter, in sprints on the all-weather tracks, it is a good idea to slightly downgrade horses with inside posts unless they can easily get a good early position, especially settling into the two or three path.

When the all-weather tracks have moisture in them either through rain, fog, or just because of cooler atmospheric conditions, they tend to promote the early speed types more than usual. In other words, they behave more like a dirt track. This angle has worked well for me at Hollywood Park on the Friday night cards, as the front-runners tend to hang in better at night than during the warmer, drier conditions of afternoon races.

Only time will tell what the future holds for the all-weather tracks in North America. Are they a passing fad, or after this initial learning curve, will more and more tracks eventually turn to synthetic surfaces? If they prove to be safer for horse and rider and prolong their careers, along with the positives of the other added benefits mentioned, I think they will be here to stay.

Craig Walker
TrackMaster Senior Product Development Specialist

We want to hear from you! Leave a comment by clicking the “Comment” link directly below.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under General Industry, Thoroughbred Racing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.