Keeneland returning to dirt

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

In 2013, He won 30% of his starts over synthetic tracks in North America, and he won a $10 million race on a synthetic track in Dubai.

He's got a barn mostly full of turf bred horse -- and he trains them on synthetic at Fair Hill ... it would be a surprise if he disliked synthetic tracks.

Pretty much. Motion is a great trainer, but expecting him to have an unbiased opinion on synthetic tracks is foolish.

The bottom line is the data on synthetic vs. dirt is inconclusive at best. Certain synth tracks (Presque Isle, Woodbine) have been markedly safer than the average dirt track, at least in terms of fewer catastrophic breakdowns. There are others (Del Mar, Hollywood) that have been as bad as the worst dirt tracks most years. Then there's the issue of soft tissue injuries, which many trainers have cited as more frequent on synthetic and which don't show up in the breakdown statistics.

Another inconvenient truth for the synthetic crowd is that the circuit which concerted the most effort in making its dirt safer -- NYRA -- got drastically fewer breakdowns in 2013. AQU went from 3.41 fatalities per 1,000 dirt starts to 1.85. BEL went from 1.86 to 0.88. SAR had a slight uptick from 1.23 to 1.29, but that has the smallest sample size of the three tracks.

The well-publicized breakdowns of Barbaro and Eight Belles were a flashpoint for this industry. Instead of getting out in front of the issue and using technology to make our dirt tracks safer, the powers that be cowed to the demagogues and turned the sport upside down with a drastic shift to unproven synthetic surfaces as a cure-all. It's been an unmitigated failure for the sport and marginally, if at all, safer for the horses.

[Benny]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Pretty much. Motion is a great trainer, but expecting him to have an unbiased opinion on synthetic tracks is foolish.

The bottom line is the data on synthetic vs. dirt is inconclusive at best. Certain synth tracks (Presque Isle, Woodbine) have been markedly safer than the average dirt track, at least in terms of fewer catastrophic breakdowns. There are others (Del Mar, Hollywood) that have been as bad as the worst dirt tracks most years. Then there's the issue of soft tissue injuries, which many trainers have cited as more frequent on synthetic and which don't show up in the breakdown statistics.

Another inconvenient truth for the synthetic crowd is that the circuit which concerted the most effort in making its dirt safer -- NYRA -- got drastically fewer breakdowns in 2013. AQU went from 3.41 fatalities per 1,000 dirt starts to 1.85. BEL went from 1.86 to 0.88. SAR had a slight uptick from 1.23 to 1.29, but that has the smallest sample size of the three tracks.

The well-publicized breakdowns of Barbaro and Eight Belles were a flashpoint for this industry. Instead of getting out in front of the issue and using technology to make our dirt tracks safer, the powers that be cowed to the demagogues and turned the sport upside down with a drastic shift to unproven synthetic surfaces as a cure-all. It's been an unmitigated failure for the sport and marginally, if at all, safer for the horses.

Wasn't this also due to more aggressive vet monitoring and scratching a higher number of horses, and lower purses for claimers where more sore horses had been entered too ?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Another inconvenient truth for the synthetic crowd is that the circuit which concerted the most effort in making its dirt safer -- NYRA -- got drastically fewer breakdowns in 2013. AQU went from 3.41 fatalities per 1,000 dirt starts to 1.85. BEL went from 1.86 to 0.88. SAR had a slight uptick from 1.23 to 1.29, but that has the smallest sample size of the three tracks.

Exactly!

You can make dirt safer, or riskier. Same as any surface.

People who believe that synth is inherently safer than dirt are looking at this issue too simplistically.

[TouchOfGrey]

NY Times: A Track’s Shift to Dirt Adds to Horses’ Risks

Written by...you guessed it! Joe Drape.

[ne to socal]

Some ways I'd like to slice and dice the fatality data if I could:

1) age of dirt tracks the year before conversion to poly.

2) avg lifetime BSFs (and trends) for all fatalities...or some other well-used indicator of 'class'

3) trends on tracks where the material is nearing its service life and hasn't been replaced (unlike, say Hollywood Park which had its surface amended several times).

[pointman]

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?

[Arletta]

Originally Posted by pointman

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

[robfla]

Originally Posted by pointman

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?

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

[pointman]

Originally Posted by robfla

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 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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ne to socal

Some ways I'd like to slice and dice the fatality data if I could:

1) age of dirt tracks the year before conversion to poly.

2) avg lifetime BSFs (and trends) for all fatalities...or some other well-used indicator of 'class'

3) trends on tracks where the material is nearing its service life and hasn't been replaced (unlike, say Hollywood Park which had its surface amended several times).

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.