What a surprise
 

If its not all weather, and it doesnt curb injuries, whos getting the kickbacks


http://www.drf.com/news/article/93048.html

In Cali, it's curbing injuries,and increasing field size(because horses are able to race more often.) Back there,they may be running horses on synthetic that they wouldn't even try running on dirt.Isn't synthetic gunna be a magnet for horses with physical problems? You're not running the same exact horses over the 2 surfaces.Back there,you have a choice what to run on.So,the dirt would probably attract the totally healthy horses,and the troubled ones would be sent to run on synthetic.In SoCal, all horses are mainly running on synthetic.You can compare the injury rate to when all the horses were running on dirt.The real test has taken place out here,because pretty much the same exact horses were running on dirt,and then they had them run on synthetic.This study used different pools of horses.The least healthy ones were probably running on the synthetic.You have the more scientific study(in Socal,) if you really care which is more safe to run on.It's obvious our dirt tracks weren't as safe as our synthetic tracks are.It's probably best to have both types available to run on(dirt n' synthetic.)Cali is a different situation(not as many horses to run,and so you have to keep them coming to run,and they can do it more often with synthetic.)Pretty much an all-out effort to be able to fill cards.

I find the DRF presentation of this information interesting. Especially compared to what other press is writing about it.

The DRF headline is: "Study challenges injury claims". That makes the reader think something measured and valid was found in the study, and was presented today, right?

And the opening paragraph says:

Eureka! There is it! The measured data shows there is no significant difference!

Um, but wait. That isn't exactly true. Not in the scientific sense.

As written in the second paragraph, which has the researcher herself deliberately trying to negate that exact premature rush to assumption:

Dang. In other words, I cannot yet say with certainly that there is or is not a definitive difference in injury rates, as there isn't a significant enough amount of data yet collected.

The DRF writer saw this, too, as he then immediately makes the editorial comment:

Yes. And those questions are what the study is for, and what the data will tell us when enough is collected to be definitive.

But the headline and first paragraph sure don't imply that more reserved and accurate assessment of the facts to date, do they? ;)

i read that article yesterday, and figured sooner or later it would show up here.
california didn't participate, so the study isn't inclusive of all tracks. then there's mention in the article about people running unsound horses on synthetic, thinking that the track is some kind of miracle worker.
so, altho at first glance you think that both tracks have similar statistics, a bit of reading shows that isn't exactly the case. seems as tho the article would have things in it that would appeal to both 'sides' of the debate, while settling the argument for neither.

Real horses run on dirt.

It hasnt shown a significant difference in injuries. Its just a bunch of bullshit

Don't forget that this study isn't about synthetic vs. not, it is about racetracks, and injuries, period. The goal is to help all horses, at all tracks.

Regarding the failure of CA tracks to be included - I understand the problem with not categorizing CA injuries in a manner consistent with Scollay's data collection, but I'm not sure I understand why they were not willing to change last year (pre-synthetic) and join in.

I can't see where fear of losing their historical injury data references and continuity in the change from old to synthetic would be the overriding concern, versus being involved and contributory on a national level.