- This topic has 36 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
The plans to build a floodlit AW track at Musselburgh have been rejected by the Scottish Executive. A sensible decision IMO.
The prospect of mediocre racing during the evenings in the middle of winter with a handful of punters adds nothing to the sport. The bookmakers will need to line up more cartoon racing to compensate.
1 – they will reconsider and change their minds
2 – some other track will take the extra business
3- eventually they will install aw or else fade awaywhat are the plans for Musselburgh now will they upgrade or just stay as they are? What reasons were given for rejecting it?
It was rejected because dog racing in the Edinburgh region (Powderhall, Wallyford) has already proved to be a failure, and the executive didn’t see the point of trying to re-introduce this shite.
I think they would have struggled to get more than a handful of punters through the turnstiles and the whole thing was clearly designed to provide betting-shop fodder. Musselburgh is a nice wee course and hopefully they can now re-focus and continue with the good work that has gone on there in the last ten years or so.
No wish to get embroiled in the pro/anti AW debate…but this news can be regarded as welcome for those like me who were concerned how a ‘winter’ AW ttrack would affect the long term security of their NH meetings. Run-of-the-mill racing it maybe but when the ground elsewhere is hock-deep or frozen, chances are it will be half-decent or frost free at Musselburgh.
Unfortunately if the weather continues to be excessively wet in years to come more courses will try for AW to avoid the losses of cancelling fixtures this was Sedgefield’s reason for considering an AW track. But as Southwell proves it don’t always work
Glad to hear this. I don’t see any benefit in having a meeting at Musselburgh every week. The way it works currently befits the popularity of the track with race-goers IMO.
It also gives the bookies a bit less reason to open at night, cuts down that AW donkey racing and allows me to have the odd (albeit predictable) jumps card close to home, but they’re merely selfish reasons!
I love the all weather as it keeps me interested in racing throughout the winter months and I’m also a fan of the polytrack surface but I think the correct decision was taken on Musselburgh.
I’d like to see the AW tracks stick to the winter months though.
I’ve no problem with an All-Weather track in the North, or in Scotland in particular, but Musselburgh was never going to be the place to put it. The track and floodlights would have mucked up what is an historic and very pleasant sports ground.
southwell hasn’t been proved it doesn’t work any more than worcester has proved turf tracks don’t work
southwell hasn’t been proved it doesn’t work any more than worcester has proved turf tracks don’t work
If thats the case why is Southwell been closed for the last month and will stay closed until november all weather doesnt mean all weather snow fog rain and strong winds can stop all weather racing
Steveh 31
The catastrophic battering Southwell received from the recent inclement weather would have sunk a pocket battleship. It’s hardly a fair argument.
Steve,
‘All Weather’ was a catch all phrase invented by a marketing man when the first artifical tracks were laid in the UK. It was a piece of tabloid language that saved the media from having to understand and then explain Fibresand and Equitrack to their readers.
The fact that the term was adopted within racing was the worst thing that could have happened for this new innovation. Within months, ‘all weather’ or ‘AW’, was no longer a brand name, but a form of abuse. And that is how it has remained ever since.
There was never any claim made by anybody that the artifical tracks would be able to defy the weather, except that the surface would be able to operate after a frost. After all, that was the principal cause of lost NH meetings in the days before ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ joined ‘all weather’ in the media book of shorthand cliches.
It’s all forgotten now, but my betting diary shows long periods during the winters of the early and mid 90’s when there was no NH racing and the three artifical tracks kept things going.
Now we have Polytrack, a fantastic surface for the horses, who don’t get jarred up or shin sore racing round the dead flat track at Kempton and it can even revive horses that are jaded on turf – I own one such myself.
But even though Polytrack produces racing that closely mirrors what happens on turf, the old prejudice against ‘AW’ ensures that most punters are unwilling to give up the fixed positions they adopted in the era of Fibresand and Equitrack.As an owner, I’m very happy to run horses on Polytrack – a) because I know the horses will enjoy the experience – b) because I don’t spend days before the race worrying about the weather or how much water the clerk of the course is going to put down.
As it happens I think the Musselburgh decision is the correct one, although probably for the wrong reasons. You need a sizeable pool of horses trained within reasonable travel time of a track that plans to race so frequently and Musselburgh simply doesn’t have that and would probably have failed to attract enough runners in the long term.
No doubt people on here will continue to knock ‘AW’ racing as though it were some totally different sport. In my view it isn’t – it’s just flat racing. No doubt if Admiral Rous had invented Polytrack and Lingfield had pioneered the revolutionary idea of racing on grass back in 1989, we’d have a glut of posters queueing up to criticise ‘turf racing’.
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.