What is the point of having AWTs?

[pete]

The synthetic tracks at Cambridge, Riccarton and Awapuni were developed for such weather-related meeting abandonments, however, Balcombe said transferring the turf meetings to the polytracks still requires time and would also come at a detriment to field sizes.

“Logistically, it isn’t quite as easy as changing the track, there are a lot of contractors and other things that need to be in place to do that,” he said. “We can do that (transfer) with about 24 hours’ notice. A lot of the time it hasn’t started raining until that point, so you would be making a decision before the weather hits. You are never going to get that 100 percent right, so it is very hard to predict that.

“Especially for Saturday race meetings, when you go to the synthetic you will pretty much be decimated with scratchings. I have spoken with two or three people this morning who said they wouldn’t have run on the synthetic. I just looked at Ballarat the other day over in Australia that moved their turf meeting to their synthetic track on the Saturday, which was to be run on the Sunday, which were fields of 15 to 18, and they ended up with five to seven going around.

“The horses that go around on the synthetic go on them because they like the synthetic, and the other ones are generally looking for a heavy track, and they don’t tend to mix between each other.”

[Addington]

Everyone was happy about Winnie giving 30 million to provide 3 AW tracks but now many don't want to use them.

I say bugger the moaners especially  trainers. Given the massive amount of rain we are getting on a regular basis these days, especially in the north, it might be time for trainers to revisit their thinking about AW tracks and let owners have a chance to win the money offered.

[Hesi]

Pretty typical of the we know best, I'm only interested in me, parochialism that exists in NZ racing.

Similar to the situation with Entain.  They have underwritten racing in NZ for the next 5 years with increasing amounts, up to $200 mil in year 5, yet still people moan and wring their hands about what will happen after year 5 etc etc.

Just pointing out, the payout to the codes would have decreased 25 mil in 23/24, but with the Entain money it increased 20 mil.  Imagine all the moaning then.

People may have noticed also the huge amount of coverage Entain have on mainstream media (TV, papers, radio) and social media promoting wagering, but still they moan.

Imagine if the moaners were in charge of running racing in NZ, maybe don't, the scenario would be an unmitigated shamble

 

[curious]

I don't agree. They'd sort the problems before the Entain money runs out. Not that I can think of anyone who could do it that would want to in the current context.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Addington said:

Everyone was happy about Winnie giving 30 million to provide 3 AW tracks but now many don't want to use them.

I say bugger the moaners especially  trainers. Given the massive amount of rain we are getting on a regular basis these days, especially in the north, it might be time for trainers to revisit their thinking about AW tracks and let owners have a chance to win the money offered.

It's quite clear that the AWTs are of no use for transferring winter meetings. Even Balcombe has admitted that. They are just too quick a surface for heavy trackers, so it would be imprudent for trainers to run those horses on them. They have their place, especially for training in wet conditions and for a population of horses that adapt to them, but not as a backup winter racing surface. That never seemed a realistic argument to me.

[mardigras]

NZ trainers seem to simply not want to race there - even without knowing how their horse may perform. In the UK, a very high percentage of flat horses race at some point on the AWTs.

Here they just seem to think they aren't an option for many. And punters think people don't bet on them. It's likely all due to 'tradition' and a lack of knowledge.

But those attitudes won't change overnight - if ever here. And they should be used as a stand alone option like Curious says - not an abandonment backup. 

One of the up and coming horses some are raving about for the Melbourne Cup. Had only ever won on the AWTs in the UK before going to Melbourne and winning easily on the turf - Berkshire Breeze.

If NZ can't overcome the 'bias' against them from the way people think, they will never be used to the extent they could be.

[curious]

2 hours ago, mardigras said:

One of the up and coming horses some are raving about for the Melbourne Cup. Had only ever won on the AWTs in the UK before going to Melbourne and winning easily on the turf - Berkshire Breeze.

Yes. Good example. However, a horse that performs on better tracks, not a winter mudder that can't keep up on synthetic.

I'm not sure what the resistance is to racing on them either, or even if that is real. All the data shows they are very safe, at least as far as catastrophic injury is concerned. They mean that trainers have a track available where they can always do exactly the work they want, year round. They mean that many good track horses can train and race year round although programming for those horses that do race on them needs attention. A separate programme needs to be developed that is not based on horses switching from one surface to another. It needs to be dedicated.

The same applies to trials where some of the resistance appears to be and I think that is well-founded. The principle of specificity of training applies. There need to be synthetic trials for horses headed for synthetic racing and grass trials for horses headed for grass racing.

From my own personal standpoint, I had a better track type horse that had never raced on the poly but looked suited to it, that won twice on it at Riccarton the first winter it was open, yet came out in the spring and won a nice race on the grass cup week. From a punting perspective, my ROI on synthetic over the last 3 years is 15% better on synthetic than on turf.

So, I can't complain even though I don't think they should have been a priority for the much needed $30m industry spend.

I agree with mardi that the bias needs to be overcome and their use better programmed and staked, but also that their usefulness will never be as an alternative to otherwise abandoned winter grass meetings. They are no good for that purpose.

 

Edited July 22 by curious

[Freda]

16 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes. Good example. However, a horse that performs on better tracks, not a winter mudder that can't keep up on synthetic.

I'm not sure what the resistance is to racing on them either, or even if that is real. All the data shows they are very safe, at least as far as catastrophic injury is concerned. They mean that trainers have a track available where they can always do exactly the work they want, year round. They mean that many good track horses can train and race year round although programming for those horses that do race on them needs attention. A separate programme needs to be developed that is not based on horses switching from one surface to another. It needs to be dedicated.

The same applies to trials where some of the resistance appears to be and I think that is well-founded. The principle of specificity of training applies. There need to be synthetic trials for horses headed for synthetic racing and grass trials for horses headed for grass racing.

From my own personal standpoint, I had a better track type horse that had never raced on the poly but looked suited to it, that won twice on it at Riccarton the first winter it was open, yet came out in the spring and won a nice race on the grass cup week. From a punting perspective, my ROI on synthetic over the last 3 years is 15% better on synthetic than on turf.

So, I can't complain even though I don't think they should have been a priority for the much needed $30m industry spend.

I agree with mardi that the bias needs to be overcome and their use better programmed and staked, but also that their usefulness will never be as an alternative to otherwise abandoned winter grass meetings. They are no good for that purpose.

 

Excellent post...and -can I add - races can be switched in the UK from wet/frozen/snow-covered turf to synthetic.  Gives the winter mudders at least a race opportunity, as well as the jumpers a flat blowout.

But, from my communication with the Kempton gentleman who was so helpful, and answered my questions in some detail, it does seem there are some differences even though still Martin Collins polytrack surfaces.

Recently there was a course users meeting, which led to all Riccarton based trainers being canvassed for their opinion on the grooming of the track.  Some trainers wanted the surface 'fluffed up' and others preferred the surface firmer.

My stance was, firmer.  When working on the beach, you don't zoom around in the sandhills, rather you work where the surface is level and firm from the sea rolling in regularly.  The primarily sand-based surface has to be safer when packed firm and consistent, IMO...which also protects the horse from cutting right through to the concrete base.  A looser groom would allow more movement in the surface and also not create any protection from the concrete.   However, in the Kempton example, the material is 50ml deeper than our local ones.   This would allow more 'top' for the slower horses, while still affording a buffer from the base.   And they do just that.

 

[curious]

24 minutes ago, Freda said:

Excellent post...and -can I add - races can be switched in the UK from wet/frozen/snow-covered turf to synthetic.  Gives the winter mudders at least a race opportunity, as well as the jumpers a flat blowout.

But, from my communication with the Kempton gentleman who was so helpful, and answered my questions in some detail, it does seem there are some differences even though still Martin Collins polytrack surfaces.

Recently there was a course users meeting, which led to all Riccarton based trainers being canvassed for their opinion on the grooming of the track.  Some trainers wanted the surface 'fluffed up' and others preferred the surface firmer.

My stance was, firmer.  When working on the beach, you don't zoom around in the sandhills, rather you work where the surface is level and firm from the sea rolling in regularly.  The primarily sand-based surface has to be safer when packed firm and consistent, IMO...which also protects the horse from cutting right through to the concrete base.  A looser groom would allow more movement in the surface and also not create any protection from the concrete.   However, in the Kempton example, the material is 50ml deeper than our local ones.   This would allow more 'top' for the slower horses, while still affording a buffer from the base.   And they do just that.

 

That's a good point. It may be that the polys here could have been designed (and groomed) here to be slower surfaces making them more suitable for winter turf gallopers.

[mooseman]

Bring back Avondale....im sure they sad based it a few years ago & had only one meeting abandoned in the past ten years or so 

[mooseman]

Whats happened to Ellerslie....everyone hush hush..that club couldn't organize a piss up in a working mans garden bar no more..so sad to see clubs indulged in greed now & not look after there true followers from past generations  

[Freda]

17 hours ago, curious said:

That's a good point. It may be that the polys here could have been designed (and groomed) here to be slower surfaces making them more suitable for winter turf gallopers.

Cheaper without so much topping.

[curious]

4 hours ago, Freda said:

Cheaper without so much topping.

They are known there for not topping the grass course too much either.