Ask Beyer: Synthetics add difficult variable to handicapping equation

Q. How will you feel about the inevitable switch to Tapeta, or something like it, as far as figure making is concerned? How about as far as betting is concerned? Thanks.

–Linda Michela

A. I hope it is not inevitable. We’ve already seen what happens when tracks switch to synthetic surfaces. In 2006, after Barbaro broke down in the Preakness, horse safety became a prime concern of the industry, just as it is today. These concerns prompted major racing venues such as Keeneland, Santa Anita, and Del Mar to replace their dirt tracks with synthetic surfaces. The results were so disappointing that by 2014 all three had gone back to dirt.

Synthetic tracks changed the character of the sport. Speed had always been the defining attribute of U.S. racehorses. Breeders sought speed, and fans loved horses with raw speed. But on synthetic surfaces, bettors (as well as jockeys) quickly learned that speed was not an asset. After Keeneland installed Polytrack, only one of its first 48 races was won by a front-runner. Most bettors didn’t like the change. When horses moved from a synthetic track to a dirt track – say, from Keeneland to Churchill Downs – the synthetic form was irrelevant because the tracks were so different.

We modified our usual speed-figure calculations for races on synthetic tracks, and we manage to deal with the existing synthetic surfaces at Woodbine, Arlington Park, Golden Gate, etc. But many of the races at these tracks are run with such a slow early pace that the horses cannot record the fast final times of which they are capable. This complicates making speed figures and, in my opinion, it’s an ugly style of racing.