Yes indeed... and they wont lose any racing due to weather.

You are actually wrong Rupe, Arlington was up as well.

Im not trying to be argumentitive, lets just agree to disagree. 14 ambulance runs, and a bunch of catastrophics for a short meet like Keeneland is cause for worry.

How about they just run on the training track instead? :)

From Bloodhorse synthetics issue:

Catastrophic breakdowns, main track, racing hours:

Keeneland
2006 fall - poly - 0
2007 spring - poly - 0
2007 - fall - poly - 4

Arlington:
2002 dirt - 10
2003 dirt - 27
2004 dirt - 13
2005 dirt - 8
2006 dirt - 22
2007 poly - 13

From the TB Times article you quoted:

"Lafe Nichols, D.V.M., Kentucky’s chief racing veterinarian, reports six catastrophic injuries during the 17-day meeting, which concluded on October 27. Nichols said 14 equine ambulance runs were needed during the meeting, as eight nonfatal injuries also were treated.

Nichols cautioned that many uncontrolled variables contribute to each individual case, making any hard conclusions difficult. The statistics include all injuries on the track, turf course, and on the property, as one of the fatalities occurred in the paddock."

So 4 on the poly, one in the paddock, and one on the turf. 6 fatalities. 8 injuries to horses where they were vanned off.

14 ambulance runs for horses in distress seems like a large number considering the meet is 17 days.

It's a con deal plain and simple. Let them run on synthetic for a few more years and see if the fatalities don't go up.

The 14 ambulance runs include the horse who flipped in the paddock and the horses who got hurt on the turf course. That has nothing to do with the polytrack. The only umber that is relevant is the number of horses that got hurt on the polytrack.

The field sizes are way up because the horses are staying sounder. That doesn't mean that these artificial surfaces are perfect. But overall the data looks very encouraging.

Well, as I recall a number of the breakdowns the previous summer at Del Mar were on the turf course....but they somehow got included in the total for that meet.

I happen to agree with you on this point, and I realize your not trying to skew other numbers, but there are many factors in the breakdown discussion that the polytrack adherents gloss over. For instance, I have a feeling they were more careful in vetting runners once polytrack was installed than over prior surfaces. I have no proof of this, obviously, but I think it's a reasonable guess. Also, some of those breakdowns the prior year at Del Mar were pretty dicey looking to begin with.

To me, it's kind of what CJ said earlier, the polytrack groupies try to label anyone that has issues with the surfaces as horse haters, and anytime someone resorts to that kind of defensive stance I am dubious of their cause.

12 in 17 days is a significant figure Rupe.

Maybe there was a problem with the track at Keeneland this past Fall meet. I have no idea. It is certainly possible. There may be a problem at Golden Gate right now. I really don't know. As BTW said, there are a ton of factors involved so it's hard to know for sure, especially when you are looking at a small sample.

Synthetic surfaces are certainly not immune from problems. Just because a surface is synthetic, that doesn't guarantee that it will be safe.

But overall, I think the numbers look good. The increase in field size alone should tell you something.

I can't find anything about breakdowns turf vs dirt in CA (would have to go through their public records)

Regarding Del Mar, Bay Meadows, Santa Anita, Hollywood, Golden Gate:

Richard Shapiro, the chairman of the California Horse Racing Board (speaking in 2006): "When you look at the data on breakdowns, it's unacceptable. It's staggering. We had 227 horses destroyed on our tracks in 2005. And that doesn't count soft-tissue injuries or bowed tendons or suspensories."

I doubt that they were more careful in vetting horses. If they were more careful in vetting horses, that would have hurt field size. If the field sizes didn't increase, that would have killed their whole argument about horses staying sounder on polytrack.

And that the polytrack haters gloss over. That being, there are many things that contribute to injury. The surface of the track is only one of them. But it's one that is controllable to a great extent, so people want to do so.

That's a good point. How about Turfway? Do you think they were more careful, perhaps, the first year of polytrack as opposed to the previous winter?

I have no idea. I don't even know if field size has increased at Turfway. I would assume it has increased. Do you know whether field size has increased at Turfway?

Turfway had more gate scratches than usual, especially after the bad spell last winter. I know I had one gate scratched that would have never been scratched in the past. We were an 8/5 gate scratch 2 minutes to post.

I honestly have no idea. It wasn't in any way a pointed question. I'm actually curious.

Didn't Turfway always seem to have a strong fieldsize?

Turfways field size has increased. I agree with BTW that it wouldn't surprise me, either, if the vets were doing better prerace inspections, but who knows.

No, not at all, I do not like that CA mandated a change. But I don't adhere to "we know nothing at all about them".

Yes!

Look - the only racehorse I own a part of is Sumwon, and I think I only own some tail hairs, maybe a bit of an ear, not any of her feet or legs.

Given that Santa Anita is indeed a disaster (and the manufacturer has totally screwed that up, and should be held fully responsible at no cost to SA), this is what I think of the other synthetic surfaces that are in use in England, at private training farms, in Australia, and in the US:

Nobody ever said a good synthetic track was "total" safe or "totally" maintenance free. Not even the manufacturers.

Synthetics don't freeze as readily as dirt tracks. They don't turn to mud in the rain, have to be sealed, and thus turn more dangerous. They don't have to be harrowed after morning training, dragged or harrowed after every race, or watered constantly throughout the day like dirt. When muddy and sloppy, horses don't drop down through a synthetic into the base like they can with dirt.

I think they are obviously less maintenance, are obviously more consistent than dirt through changes in weather conditions (rain, freezing).

Because they have a higher shock absorption rate than dirt, a lower elasticity repulsion rate than dirt, an engineered consistent base unaffected by weather and freezing and horses over the years gradually eroding the stability of the base like dirt - a horse is far less likely to blow it's cannon bone apart in a race, or get bone chips, or fractured sesamoids. Two of those things kill horses, right then and there.

At the end of the day, I sure as heck would prefer to own a horse that had received a serious muscle pull in it's butt, versus the euthanasia shot behind the tarp for it's fractured cannon bone or sesamoids.

Are synthetic surfaces perfect? Nope. Are good dirt tracks generally safe? Yes, with an excellent track super. Are synthetics better than dirt? In many ways, yes - especially in the reduction of horses having catastrophic, life-ending injury.

Your actual mileage may vary.