CUSHION TRACK (PART 1 - THE CONFLICT)

What follows is an article in three parts.

The article is motivated by a sincere desire to put some much needed substance into the argument currently doing the rounds on the merits (or otherwise) of the Cushion Track synthetic racing surface.

The three parts are 1) The Conflict. 2) The Critique. 3) The Conclusion.

It is a lengthy piece, but for those of you who out there who have the interest and the staying power, I suggest it is a ‘must read’, even if at the end of the day, all it leaves you is better informed on the subject and less inclined to be caught up in the turbulence that the current climate of ‘hot air’ tends to create.

Good reading.



The barbs are flying. Warning shots have been fired overhead.

The debate on the value of the cushion track surface is getting nasty – in particular with regard to the decision to replace the turf track at Toowoomba with a Cushion Track surface.

A post on the Queensland Racing website makes reference to the fact that, ‘a small number of ill informed comments have been circulated by people who have a political agenda that belongs with the dinosaurs.’

It further offers a direct quote from QRL Chairman Bob Bentley who says, ‘I ask that those in Brisbane as well as Toowoomba who are playing politics with this decision (to install a synthetic cushion surface at Clifford Park in Toowoomba) to think carefully as you are recklessly jeopardising the future of Toowoomba's stakeholders.”

Toowoomba Turf Club Chairman, Neville Stewart was also on the attack.

He is quoted in The Chronicle newspaper as saying, “We will not tolerate any mischief making which has the potential to threaten this club's $10 million upgrade," Stewart said.

"It has come to our attention that a Clifford Park owner/trainer has been creating mischief amongst fellow trainers by trying to organise a meeting designed to derail this critical project.

They will be advised by letter ... that they have been cited to appear before the club committee .... to explain their actions. Make no mistake. We have the power and we will act to stop this reckless behaviour. If need be we can take away their Clifford Park training privileges.”

Now let me state at the outset, I am not privy to just how troublesome or annoying the supposed rumblings of the ‘dinosaurs’ have become to racing’s hierarchy.

Neither do I know if any licensing code has been breached by the alleged mischief maker – but, in real terms, the Press Release from Queensland Racing and the outburst by the Chairman of the Toowoomba Turf Club can be viewed as being equally irresponsible as any actions that allegedly provoked them, as they arguably come across in a heavy handed manner seemingly designed to slap down contrary opinion rather than to, at least, consider alternative viewpoints.

Toowoomba trainer Jim Atkins perhaps best summed up the prevailing point of view of the majority of the Toowoomba trainers.

“They (Queensland Racing) didn’t come to ask us what we wanted or even to listen to our opinion,” said Atkins. “They came to tell us what they were going to do.

“I’ve been training at Toowoomba for 62 years and I’m never seen anything like it.

"Ninety percent of the trainers said they didn’t want the track, but they are going ahead anyway. It’s the worst decision I’ve seen,” stated Atkins.

Atkins’ view, which was given a couple of weeks ago, is not in harmony with a recent statement released by QRL Chairman Bob Bentley.

In a letter to the Courier-Mail dated as recently as September 18, Bentley stated, “QRL has offered to install a Cushion Track to replace the grass surface at Clifford Park. It is an offer to install, not a demand. It is entirely a decision to accept or otherwise for the Toowoomba racing community.”

Bentley’s words are posed in the present tense, but Neville Stewart, in the article in The Chronicle a week earlier stated that, “This work has been signed off - on behalf of the club committee and its members and ensures Clifford Park's future for the next 15 years.”

A saddened Jim Atkins also indicated that he believed it to be a ‘fait accompli’ when I spoke to him, citing the delivery of Cushion Track materials to the Toowoomba track where they are currently being stock-piled for intended use after the Melbourne Cup meeting in November.

“There’s nothing we can do about it now,” was Atkins’ final word on the subject.

In fairness to QRL, the motivation for proposing a Cushion Track at Toowoomba should have brought an important consideration into play for the trainers.

Again quoting from Bentley’s letter, “The choice of an alternative surface is solely to assist the Toowoomba Turf Club to maintain the number of racing dates they are presently awarded. The Cushion Track will secure those dates.

“The existing grass track at Toowoomba has, for some time, been severely stressed owning to the long drought and Toowoomba’s inability to store or supply sufficient water to maintain the track to a satisfactory TAB standard.”

How much value the trainers placed on that argument is difficult to assess as I can’t find any response on record where they sought to address the problems facing their current racing surface.

So, maybe, just maybe, neither party was listening to each other. We all are only too painfully aware that it doesn’t take much to force a standoff in racing circles.

Whichever side of the argument you come down on, there is an underlying truth to the matter which should not be lost in any distraction, namely that the debate on the value of synthetic racing surfaces is not going away – and nether should it.

The more we can learn about synthetic racing surfaces, the more rational the arguments that will be put in play. The more rational the arguments, the closer we can get to a consensus of opinion and that, by implication pushes us to a point where decisions can be made on a responsible, rather than an emotional basis.

To this end, I thought it might be refreshing to report the views of highly rated professionals within the industry who have had the opportunity to work within the synthetic racing surface environment for a number of years and who thus can talk from experience of this type of racing surface.

With the utmost respect to all of those parties already mentioned above, I suggest none of them have earned the right to speak conclusively ‘for’ or ‘against’ the value of synthetic racing surfaces, so perhaps the views that will follow in Part 2 of this article (published below) will be of some educational value for all racing enthusiasts.

The views selected are drawn primarily, but not restricted to, presentations made at a one day synthetics surfaces forum, convened by the New York Task Force for retired racehorses, held at the Fisag-Tipton Sales Stable at the end of July.

In terms of timing, the forum, which was addressed by seventeen experts ranging from track officials, to track managers, to veterinarians, to trainers and jockeys, came about at exactly the right moment for QRL and all players in the game in Queensland to gain maximum benefit from the input provided there – before going on to make their own decisions (such as that relating to the Toowoomba track).

The second article of this subject follows below. The Cushion Track (Part 2 – The Critique) details the views of racings professionals as put forward to the forum in New York.