Rather than present a traditional handicapping tip or example this time around, I'd like to present some commonsense handicapping advice while editorializing at the same time, so to speak. Your feedback-for posting here-is invited. 

When I first discovered the joy of handicapping, there was no simulcasting. You went to your local racetrack, drove many miles to the closest one, or just did without. 

The first few tracks I encountered did not have grass courses. I played for several years without even seeing horses run on turf. 

When simulcasting began to spread, I was fascinated by the novel idea of horses running on grass instead of dirt! Fortunately, the two grass tracks I could follow with some regularity were at Santa Anita and Fair Grounds.They both offered a good-sized menu of turf races. 

As I immersed myself in the vagaries of turf handicapping vs dirt handicapping, I realized that the physical condition of the course itself was a major factor, and that any player who really understood what the surface was like, through times and trip notes as well as by actually being on-site, had valuable information that could put him ahead of the crowd. 

I've come to love turf racing and really enjoy handicapping this type of race. 

But this year-1996-I've had to put a lot of my turf interest on the shelf and I advise you to do the same when you see what an incredibly poor job of caring for the turf some tracks in the U.S. do. You can spot this easily enough on your simulcast monitors, as well as being at the track in person. 

The best turf track in the United States is Fair Grounds, in New Orleans. Period. For the past several years, I have seen racing taken off the turf there to protect the course when other tracks would conduct it anyway, hastening the deterioration of the surface, and making it dangerous for both horses and handicappers. The management at Fair Grounds stands above all the rest in maintaining the turf course there. 

A couple of weeks ago, while playing Canterbury Downs by satellite, I watched the Post Parade on the monitor and could plainly see wavy tire tread marks where the grass had been crushed down by some machinery. The pattern was crazy, as if a driver had swerved to avoid an obstacle. A path near the fence was clearly visible---and the winners of the turf races that night ALL ran in that path and were unbeatable. With the course in that condition, the races should all have been on dirt. 

Throughout the summer meet at Ellis Park in Kentucky, including the present time, you can watch (again, easily on simulcast monitors) the turf runners kick up DUST almost from the starting gate! The course appears patchy and uneven. And you want me to risk my money gambling on that type of surface? Why don't I just mail you a check instead? 

In the U.S., we're used to turf courses labelled "Firm," "Soft," "Yielding," and the rare "Wet." In Australia, the track superintendent at many courses walks the entire track and than posts one of SEVEN or EIGHT different descriptions in an effort to give both horsemen and players an accurate idea of what the course is really like. 

Don't play grass races when your eyes tell you that the track is in bad shape! If you see horses kicking up dust, remember, grass doesn't raise dust - DIRT does! Save your money for another race, maybe at another track, and tell management what you're doing and why. 

Santa Anita and Hollywood have had to learn that grass courses require special care and simply cannot be treated like dirt (no pun intended). Let's hope more American tracks learn that same lesson. Maybe we can prod them into learning it by withholding support--in the form of wagers--until the offending tracks wise up.