I could be wrong, but isn't there a fundamental problem underlying the data generated trying to compare fatalities on different surfaces in that they assume that every fatality is caused by the surface?

Great point. Point :D

I would guess that there are far more breakdowns at lesser tracks BEU/LRL/CRC vs Saratoga/Delmar/Belmont simply due to quality of the horses running - regardless of surface

I don't know how either track could host that many people. Attendance would be huge at Keeneland.

I just prefer Churchill when it comes down to it though. :o

I have no doubt that there are more dirt tracks with lower quality horses who are more likely to breakdown than there are on synthetic tracks, but that is a very different flaw in the study and the statistics than what I am suggesting.

What I am saying is that there is a flaw in the entire study as it makes an assumption regarding all the data that cannot be proven to be true, that is, it assumes that every breakdown is caused by the surface itself which simply is not true. Scientifically, such a flaw makes the data completely unreliable for the conclusion that those who claim that synthetic surfaces are safer want to draw from the data.

don't forget to insert weather data-temps, moisture, etc.
time of day
was it in a race, or a work, or a gallop out after a work...or after a race?
were other factors involved-another horse in front went down, or one behind clipped heels. was it a bad step, difficulty changing leads...
who trained? were they back off an injury, did they have an injury that was only detected after the breakdown?
who was the trainer? what was their race history, soundness history?
was the horse familiar with the track, or was it a surface change?
good luck with all the info gathering to find the answers.

When Drape trots out the breakdown rate for polytrack at Keeneland, he should at least present his readers with the statistics for Keeneland's prior dirt track instead of using the rate for all dirt tracks between 2009 and 2013 for comparison. But then I suppose he wouldn't be able to use the dramatic "six-times-greater" phrase.

If the Jockey Club really believes that synthetic tracks are inherently safer than dirt tracks, then perhaps some of the board members should set an example for everyone else by not racing any of their horses on traditional dirt surfaces.

:tro:

and a trophy for you too!

I'm with you. If it's at either of these, I'm there.

It is interesting that many of the outspoken on twitter in favor of synthetic and/or banning lasix continue to buy, sell or breed dirt horses. Guess it really comes down to the $$$. ;)

All you need to know:

Saratoga, safe dirt surface: 11,000 starters in database, 11 fatalities
Keeneland, polytrack: 9,000 starters, 9 fatalities

Safety is only partly determined by the racetrack. Yes, tracks with poor maintenance are going to have a higher breakdown rate. But there's a much higher correlation to quality of animal. Trainers and vets that willfully send out horses with known infirmities are the biggest issue.

everything always comes down to money.