Back leg injuries and synthetic tracks

[Sightseek]

Back Leg Injuries Tied to Synthetic Tracks
By Jack Shinar
Updated: Friday, August 28, 2009 9:10 AM
Posted: Thursday, August 27, 2009 10:02 PM

A post-mortem report presented to the California Horse Racing Board Aug. 27 at Del Mar tends to support trainers who complain that synthetic tracks lead to more hind leg injuries.

In 2008, 19 Thoroughbreds from a total of 111 that died on synthetic tracks in the state succumbed to catastrophic hind-end leg injuries, according to a preliminary CHRB/University of California-Davis report.

That compared to just one death as the result of a hind-leg injury among 65 Thoroughbreds that succumbed during racing or training on dirt tracks during the same period, according to the report. Dr. Hailu Kinde, who has been with the post-mortem program at UC-Davis since 1991, presented the figures to the board.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...nthetic-tracks

[DerbyCat]

Interesting... at Golden Gate I heard trainers complaining about their horses getting bucked shins and bowed tendons while training on the Tapeta when it was first installed.

I miss dirt.

[scanman]

The article continues to state:

But Arthur said that in 90% of racetrack fatalities, the horse had a pre-existing injury that led to the catstrophic breakdown.

"To think that this is only a racetrack problem, and that we will solve the problem by fixing the racetracks is terribly naive," Arthur said.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by scanman

The article continues to state:

But Arthur said that in 90% of racetrack fatalities, the horse had a pre-existing injury that led to the catstrophic breakdown.

"To think that this is only a racetrack problem, and that we will solve the problem by fixing the racetracks is terribly naive," Arthur said.

i wonder if anyone mentioned that when the push started to get rid of the evil dirt track?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wonder if anyone mentioned that when the push started to get rid of the evil dirt track?

Honestly the CA dirt tracks sucked before. There wasnt a whole lot of trainer opposition before these tracks were installed. The issues is so twisted simply because the surface is only one factor in injuries. Some horses, due to conformation issues, will almost asuredly breakdown (though not necessarily fatally) eventually regardless of surface. I said some time ago the industry would regret arguing about these things in the publics eye because there really is no good answer. A problem with no answer is not what you want the public to be thinking about. Every solution you come up with will still be flawed. Goinbg back to dirt would be fine with me but anyone who thinks that the same issues wont be raised once again is mistaken.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Honestly the CA dirt tracks sucked before. There wasnt a whole lot of trainer opposition before these tracks were installed. The issues is so twisted simply because the surface is only one factor in injuries. Some horses, due to conformation issues, will almost asuredly breakdown (though not necessarily fatally) eventually regardless of surface. I said some time ago the industry would regret arguing about these things in the publics eye because there really is no good answer. A problem with no answer is not what you want the public to be thinking about. Every solution you come up with will still be flawed. Goinbg back to dirt would be fine with me but anyone who thinks that the same issues wont be raised once again is mistaken.

i know they were thought to be hard as a rock before-but mandating something with a huge price tag, which really wasn't a better alternative, just seems kind of silly.

i really think the #1 reason the tracks sought a change was to cut maintenance costs. anyone touting safety just gave them more ammo to shove it thru. poly might be better than a bad dirt track, but i don't think it's any better than a good dirt track. they could have dug the base, changed the dirt, and had a better outcome because you wouldn't have the learning curve that you have with poly. how many times are they going to experiment before they finally throw up their hands in disgust? and the horses are just so many guinea pigs right now.

[DerbyCat]

Speaking of California dirt tracks, on the last day at Bay Meadows I scooped up a cup full of the dirt track after morning works. That cup sits on my desk at work to this day. What surprised me was that after the dirt had dried, it became rock hard, almost like cement. You couldn't stick your finger into that dirt even if you tried. Without the constant watering, that track would have been like running on on the sidewalk (which I suppose explains why the track played to speed on some days, the lower levels of dirt had turned rock hard!).

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Honestly the CA dirt tracks sucked before. There wasnt a whole lot of trainer opposition before these tracks were installed. The issues is so twisted simply because the surface is only one factor in injuries. Some horses, due to conformation issues, will almost asuredly breakdown (though not necessarily fatally) eventually regardless of surface. I said some time ago the industry would regret arguing about these things in the publics eye because there really is no good answer. A problem with no answer is not what you want the public to be thinking about. Every solution you come up with will still be flawed. Goinbg back to dirt would be fine with me but anyone who thinks that the same issues wont be raised once again is mistaken.

I find it interesting that while poly races are always hard to fill at GG, for example, that turf races there almost always have nice sized fields. Now, I know that not all horses that handle turf can handle synthetic surfaces, this is certainly the case at WO, for example, but it seems that there are many other places where there's a close relationship between the 2 surfaces. GG might not be the optimal example but certainly there are many horses there that handle both surfaces nicely. (I thus wonder why their turf races fill so well and the poly races don't.)

I wonder, then, why POLY is dangerous and TURF isn't. (Or how SOUPlike DIRT, on wet days, can be safer than POLY.) Well, actually, I don't. If it were to turn out to be the case that POLY was breaking down more horses, then I'd certainly be all for going back to dirt. I don't know if this is the case, however. What I do know, is that there are many horseplayers who just can't adjust to POLY (see practically everyone over at PA, for example, or some of the more traditional players on this forum) and, it seems, they're getting more and more vocal about getting their precious BIASED dirt tracks back. No doubt many of them are animal lovers but, I suspect, more just want to go back to cashing on all those frontrunners. It's all about agendas.

Studies can conclude just about anything.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I said some time ago the industry would regret arguing about these things in the publics eye because there really is no good answer.

Very good point...

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There wasnt a whole lot of trainer opposition before these tracks were installed.

John Shireffs was one.

He only made 7 starts on it at Del Mar the first year and ran more horses on the turf .. and he's only made 5 starts so far this year .. two of them coming in the Zenyatta race where he had the cinch exacta on paper in a Grade 1.

That racing is so painful to watch there it's comical.