I know exactly what point you're making, but you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.
In real world examples, where all the premises are real-world facts, yet the conclusion is false in the real-world, that should give you an indication that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. That is true in the original racing track case. All the premises are true in the real-world, the conclusion is false in the real-world. Ergo, the logic is probably bogus, and sure enough, it is. Rule of thumb success.
That's all I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting you use it as a proof. You don't answer the question with "The logic is wrong because the conclusion is false. All racing tracks are routes of transportation."
Without going into the matter of my credentials, I will point out I know a thing or two about logic, and I'm finding your insinuations to the contrary rather insulting.