Vaal sand track - who will carry the can?

Muhtiman wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: I think myself it has been over used, Southwell in the UK gets used only in the winter, that plan should have been stuck to at the vaal..

Plus i seen the photo`s of the tractors working the track posted by MAC those bends are gigantic and must take some work, wonder if making the field sizes max 12 runners or 10 runners and narrowing the track( less work/less money ) would have been an option..

If the surface was better ( like it was at the weekend) and ran fair the mad scramble to the lead would not need to happen,taking away the 1 and 2 runner contests

....Bob you are correct, too much traffic coupled with maintenance issues on the sand decreased the ultimate lifespan it was built for.....I see the poly going the same way as already Rantjies has issues but more due to climatic factors....but Gold Circle track is being over raced at the moment and at that pace of frequent use the silca(sand) will break down faster as will the polymers and the substrate removal for re-meshing and topping up will come at more frequent intervals and if not planned for the surface will become as inconsistent as any other without proper maintenance.... :dry:

JAMES BLOND wrote: Just for interest little trivia
was their any objections on the Vaal sand?
can't remember any

Frodo wrote: The question that I have not seen an answer to, is why is Flamingo Park 'suitable to race' week after week (well barring the odd heavy shower) - is it not as expensive to maintain as the Vaal sand - and if not, why not? And why not duplicate what is done at FP to make the Vaal sand 'raceable'?

Something else to consider imo is what owners should realistically expect from the operators who is responsible (as I understand it) to provide 'sufficient opportunities to race' - how much money should realistically be spent on providing a 'raceable' surface on any given day? How much is too much?

There is no doubt in my mind that closing the Vaal sand is going to result in more Gauteng owners just dropping out - the majority (imo) are certainly not interested in having to trek all the way to Kimberley to run their horses - let alone the difference in stakes. What is going to happen to all those Trippis, Kahals, Windrushs etc. who simply just ran better on the sand than on the turf?

As for the punters, I have yet to see comparisons between the number of favorites and number of horses starting at single digit odds and horses starting at double digit odds, winning, as opposed to the turf tracks - my suspicion is that it would be fairly similar.

I do however agree that lately the winning margins have become so varied that determining the merits of specific performances have become a joke - but this would again lead to my question about why this does not happen (well not as often anyway) at Flamingo?

I think nobody can argue the fact that an alternative racing surface is needed in Gauteng - at least during the winter and early spring before the rains - if sand is not the answer, what is? Synthetic / poly tracks? If so, why has the poly 'strip' at Randjies proved so unpopular - can it be improved - and if so at what cost? More 'expensive' than sand, or not?

I think it was Johnny Cash who sang 'there are more questions than answers' - and this seems vary apt when talking about the future of racing especially in Gauteng[/quote

......I believe that the Flamingo track is not sand perse but more of a dirt surface as the yanks wouyld term it.....It is made of agricultural soil and has high organic composition and totally different to that of the Vaal which is processed and has a homogenous compostition but through high traffic and poor maintainace breaks down into disimilar particles causing the surface to compact....

I agree with Frodo that there will be an esculated exodus of owners leaving the game no matter if there is a polytrack planned in Gauteng or not....hard times ahead for this industry....... :S :S