Elite teams oppose turf, so should we

To the editor:

I heard something on the radio that made me think of the controversy over the proposed artificial turf field at BCC. Proponents have made the assertion that "our kids deserve a turf field." The story concerned the U.S. women's national soccer team and its suit against FIFA (the international soccer federation) to avoid playing on artificial turf. The U.S. men's team already plays only on real grass, and the women want parity. The spokeswoman said that an artificial turf field is "harder on the body" than is a grass field, and professional soccer players prefer to avoid it.

So if professional athletes are willing to go to court to avoid playing on artificial turf, a surface made up of ground-up rubber tires, why would we want to subject our young athletes to it? What would then be the meaning when we say our kids "deserve" a turf field?

If the problem with the current BCC field is poor maintenance, then why is the solution not proper maintenance? From what I have read, an artificial turf field costs more to prepare and to maintain, so where is the advantage? Use the funds to properly maintain a natural grass field, preferred by professional athletes, rather than to replace it with a more costly and inferior playing surface!

Rose Bohmann, Pittsfield