Leading racehorse trainers discuss what's best for horse racing - synthetic racetrack surfaces or traditional dirt tracks | Trainer Magazine | European Trainer Article Index

Sep 30

Sep 30 Leading racehorse trainers discuss what's best for horse racing - synthetic racetrack surfaces or traditional dirt tracks

bHy Darrell Vienna ORSEMEN want to race and train their horses upon the safest and kindest surface possible, whether a synthetic surface or natural soil. In search of that ideal, many were drawn to reports of the virtues of synthetic racing surfaces. In California, trainers had been going through a few terrible years (2004-2007) with horse fatalities rising to new heights. A clamor arose from California horsemen calling for improved track surface conditions. A synthetic surface had been installed at Turfway Park in August, 2005, and by early 2006 installation of synthetic surfaces were scheduled for Woodbine Race Course, Keeneland, and Hollywood Park. Early reports were promising. Turfway Park reported a stunning drop in horse casualties after installing a new synthetic track. In May of 2006, the California Horse Racing Board conditioned licensing of major race meets upon installation of a “polymer synthetic type racing surface” by January 1, 2008. The purpose of this mandate requiring all of California’s major tracks to switch from dirt to engineered surfaces was to reduce injuries. Interestingly, each of California's four major racetracks ended up with a different synthetic surface. Hollywood Park chose Cushion Track; Del Mar opted for Polytrack®; Golden Gate Fields went with TapetaTM; and Santa Anita finished with a hybrid mixture of Cushion Track and Pro- Ride. Shortly after California's major tracks completed installation of these new engineered surfaces, Turfway Park reported a 100% increase in on-track fatalities from 2007 to 2008. This spike in on-track fatalities on the previously touted synthetic surface baffled track officials, state veterinarians, and horsemen. The first reported chink in the synthetic armor had appeared. As horsemen began empirically amassing experience with these new surfaces, dissatisfaction began to rise. The synthetic surfaces, although distinct from each other, both in design and composition seemed to follow the same trajectory. Initially, they worked well in reducing fatalities and injuries. Although horses took some time to adapt to the new footing, injuries lessened noticeably. As these new surfaces aged; however, fatalities began to rise and new types of injuries developed and increased. The California Horse Racing Board published statistics in their 2008 Annual Report indicating the fatality rate per thousand starts in fiscal year 2007-08 was significantly lower on synthetic surfaces than on dirt. Unfortunately, this conclusion bTy Eoin Harty HE utmost concern of all trainers is the safety and soundness of their horses, but the trainers at Santa Anita have not been in agreement on the racing surface in the 27 years that I’ve been here. The pro- dirt argument is calling for “newly designed natural soils,” indicating that the common denominator of agreement is that the old dirt surfaces are unacceptable. We have a newly designed surface, and we should consider only the science and the facts when determining which surface is superior with regard to safety, handle and public perception. A review of the data from North American racetracks, as supported by Equibase, shows unequivocally that racing fatalities have dropped dramatically at every track that switched from dirt to synthetic. Combined fatality numbers per 1,000 starts at Arlington, Keeneland, Turfway and Woodbine dropped from 1.82 on dirt to 0.95 on synthetic, while the number of starters increased at each one of them, making the results quite compelling. High speed videos were done by the Welfare and Safety of the Horse Summit which showed the foot slide on dirt to be between six to twelve inches. On a properly maintained synthetic track, it averages three inches. Slide magnifies conformational faults and exaggerates forces on limbs. This is simple physics. If a horse toes in or out, there is an increase in torque on the medial or lateral aspect of the limb as the foot slides. A decrease in slide also decreases the hyper-extension of the fetlock because breakover is quicker. This is why we do not see the catastrophic suspensory apparatus failures on synthetics that we see on dirt. We also see less heal bruising, ostensibly showing there is less force being applied to the lower limb. Synthetic tracks are more evenly level than dirt tracks after heavy traffic, resulting in significant improvement in stability and energy absorption. The field spread has diminished by one third and winning margins have decreased on synthetics tracks, indicating that there are more horses competitively getting over the surface well. The integrity of engineered tracks in wet weather is another aspect of their safety for horses and jockeys. At the University of California at Davis, Dr. Sue Stover directed a study on hoof acceleration and ground force reaction on dirt, turf, and synthetic surfaces, and came to this conclusion: “The relatively low hoof accelerations, vibrations, and peak ground force reactions associated with the synthetic surface evaluated in the present study indicated that synthetic surfaces have potential for injury reduction in Thoroughbred racehorses.” The assertion that synthetic tracks experience more injuries and fatalities as they age is not supported by any valid data. Turfway Park saw a drastic reduction in fatalities immediately upon its installation of Polytrack and in subsequent years the total per meet has never approached the levels previously seen on dirt. After five years, it is still performing very well, so the synthetic experiment at Turfway – a year-round facility with no turf course or training track – has been extraordinarily successful considering its age and the amount of use it has experienced. The racetrack is not always the primary cause of break downs on either dirt or synthetic, but it’s often trainer mismanagement, and partly, the business model of our industry which treats horses as a commodity. The Career Ending Did Not Finish (CEDNF) study for the 2008 racing year commissioned by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association found was extraordinarily misleading. Included in the 77 racing fatalities reported on dirt during that period were 50 deaths attributed to Los Alamitos Race Course. Absent the inclusion of these 50 deaths which occurred primarily to quarter horses racing on a 5/8-mile oval, the statistics would not have cast a favorable light on the synthetics. In California, the comparison between pre-synthetic fatalities and post-synthetic fatalities are continually based on comparisons from 2004-2007 (pre- synthetic) against 2007-2009 (post- synthetic). The figures show a slight decrease in racing or training related horse fatalities subsequent to the installation of synthetic surfaces. However, if the comparison is based upon 1999-2007 (pre-synthetic) against 2007-2009 (post-synthetic), the annual averages show that racing and training fatalities have increased since the installation of synthetic surfaces. Leaving the interpretation of figures behind, horsemen were reporting increased hind leg injuries and new types of injuries, which, while not fatal, were oftentimes, career ending. A report presented by the University of California Postmortem Examination Program for the year 2008 supported the experience of the horsemen when it documented a significant increase in the proportion of rear limb injuries to the total number of musculoskeletal injuries seen in previous years. In recent polls conducted by the California Thoroughbred Trainers, the association representing California thoroughbred trainers, the trainers have voted 2 to 1 against retaining these synthetic surfaces. The majority has called for the installation of newly designed natural soil surfaces. What must be considered is that these horsemen are not selling a product. Unlike the sellers of the synthetic surfaces, no profit motive influences their perception. Nor do they gain an edge by engaging in the selective interpretation of data. Horsemen’s highest and sole concern is for the safety and longevity of the racing lives of their horses. Their conclusion based upon personal experience rather than unvalidated pseudo-statistical analysis, is that these engineered surfaces have fallen far short of the promise and that natural soils will most likely provide a gentler, kinder, surface for training and racing. over 78% of career-ending injuries had Claiming or Maiden Claiming race types. Short routes had higher indexes, as did horses that went off at odds greater than 20-1. Two and three-year-old horses had lower indexes than older horses Horses that made their first start as two-year-olds also had lower indexes. These findings can also be over- interpreted, but the most important aspect of protecting horses is sound management. Still, any tool that facilitates horses’ health should be welcomed by horsemen, and the overall improvement of injury rates on synthetics must be considered a positive contribution to racing conditions. The perception that career-ending soft tissue injuries have increased with the advent of engineered surfaces is not validated by Equibase data over the past ten years. Records show that the percentage of horses that returned to the track before the end of the year after a race or recorded workout has held steady throughout the decade. A look at Del Mar shows that from 2000 to 2009, a consistent average of 84% of horses returned to the track and the national average has also remained steady at 78.5%. Perceptions of a higher attrition rate may be attributed to other factors, as one industry insider put it, “I tend to think that memories are short and that the immediate creates more of an impression than the historical. I think it is particularly true when horsemen don't have a bench to draw on, as may have been the case in better economic times. Simply put, the loss of a horse in training is more painful now than perhaps it was ten years ago.” The Thoroughbred Times article “Cushion to recession’s blow,” published on February 20th, reported this: that a “review of pari-mutuel handle at the eight North American tracks that switched from dirt to synthetic surfaces reveals these tracks have increased handle 1.28% since making the change.” Fewer injuries have increased field sizes and benefitted handle; evidently, bettors have not abandoned wagering on synthetics, even during a recession. Wherever possible around the country, I stable at synthetic tracks because they have been an indisputable benefit to the soundness of my horses. Those of us at Santa Anita who take this position have no agenda other than the welfare of our horses. While we still have much to learn about synthetics and the many factors surrounding injuries, the data can help us make wiser decisions. by Darrell Vienna HE claim of my friend, Eoin Harty, that the “common denominator of agreement” in our positions is that “old dirt surfaces are unacceptable” is a misstatement. The true common denominator among horsemen is a deep and abiding desire to race and train their horses on the safest surfaces. All dirt surfaces are not the same and all synthetic surfaces are not the same. Some synthetic surfaces are safer than some natural surfaces and some natural surfaces are safer than some synthetic surfaces. General statements about dirt and synthetic surfaces must be tempered by an underlying understanding that such generalizations are of little or no value. It is also not particularly instructive to compare racing fatalities from old, tired, poorly maintained, and notoriously unsafe tracks with newly installed and engineered surfaces. The question therefore is how to identify the safest and kindest surfaces. Eoin suggests that we consider only the science and the facts. We couldn’t agree more. It has been said that in science, “facts” are things that are confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. The issue here is to determine whether the safety of synthetic tracks has been proven to the point where it would be unreasonable to hold to the contrary. The primary assertion of the pro- synthetic advocates is that racing fatalities have dropped at every track that switched from dirt to synthetic. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this statement is correct, a scientific approach requires a determination as to whether there any other variables apart from the change in surface contributing to or resulting in the findings. There appear to be other variables involved. For example, in California, concomitant with the introduction of the synthetic surfaces, every potential starter was subjected to a heightened level of pre- race inspection that included hands-on scrutiny by highly qualified equine veterinary practitioners. Any horse with even the slightest hint of unsoundness was not permitted to race. The evidence seems to indicate that pre-race scrutiny is, in fact, a substantial variable. Statistics published by the University of California, Davis and the California Horse Racing Board show that while racing fatalities dropped on synthetic surfaces, training fatalities increased. Is heightened pre-race scrutiny, rather than the switch to a synthetic surface, the controlling variable? According to a 2009 Associated Press report on track fatalities in all racing states, the biggest improvement was reported in Louisiana where fatalities were reduced by a whopping 41%. No Louisiana racetrack had changed to a synthetic surface. Dr. Tom David, Louisiana’s Equine Medical Director, attributed the change to a new pre-race examination program. The largest drop in horse fatalities in the United States resulted not from a change in surface but from a change in pre-race examination procedures. In California, the synthetic surface experience of an overwhelming majority of thoroughbred trainers has led them to call for the installation of natural soil surfaces. Many trainers have expressed the notion that while the number of injuries have remained relatively constant between dirt and synthetic, the type of injury horses are experiencing on the synthetic surfaces are more devastating. How can the experience of the majority of horsemen differ so markedly from what is reportedly the “science”? Scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Until such publication, carefully tailored interpretations emanating from groups sponsored by the purveyors of synthetic tracks must be considered suspect. This is not to claim that all the interpretations coming from these groups or individuals are bogus. In what appears to be more “selling” than “science” the pro-synthetic advocates selectively use data, obscure or ignore contradictory data, and relentlessly promote the selected favorable data. It is not the time to support a particular surface but to reasonably and fairly conduct an objective, unbiased evaluation of what nature and science have to offer. There was a rush to judgment to install the synthetic tracks. Now there is a push to judgment to validate the synthetic tracks. Until such time as the science is validated, the unsubstantiated claims must not be weighted over the rationally based observation of horsemen. It is foolhardy to ignore their experience and to adopt conclusions based on statistics selectively chosen and pervasively promoted by the self- interested.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO READ ARTICLE

(European Trainer - issue 31 - Autumn 2010)

Sep 30 Gerhard Schöningh - the white knight of Hoppegarten racecourse

Sep 30 Butch Lehr - the Churchill Downs racetrack superintendent in profile