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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

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. 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) and, it seems, they're getting more and more vocal about getting their precious BIASED dirt tracks back.

Studies can conclude just about anything.

the dynamics of a horse running over an AWT is different than a dirt or turf one, which is why the injuries are different. also, if you have a main track horse that has run on dirt, and you put him on awt, he has to make adjustments in his running style. the bounce is there, the slide is not. it would be like taking a guy who runs track and putting him on a sandy beach, or on a cross country course. he'd be best off on the cross country, just like turf horses have the least amount of wear and tear according to studies that have been done.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

No question but in CA they had no choice because of the govt mandate. The only reason that anything was done was because they were forced to. If they had not put in poly the tracks there would still suck.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by 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!).

Probably because of the clay content

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by 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!).

Did your finger break when you pressed into it? Maybe you should switch to a synthetic cup of stuff on your desk.

[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...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No question but in CA they had no choice because of the govt mandate. The only reason that anything was done was because they were forced to. If they had not put in poly the tracks there would still suck.

perhaps the chrb would have been better served if they had a length of time and then forced a rework of the base and surface, but left the surface make-up up to the track.
no dirt tracks in cali at all. that can't be good when you have a horse that doesn't like awt or turf. then what do you do? how will this affect cali breeding? very short-sighted approach from them. but hey, the govt always knows best, right?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

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.

I think GG has always had field size issues, probably more because of a relatively shallow pool of horses to draw on than anything

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Did your finger break when you pressed into it? Maybe you should switch to a synthetic cup of stuff on your desk.

No but her hamstrings are sore now

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

perhaps the chrb would have been better served if they had a length of time and then forced a rework of the base and surface, but left the surface make-up up to the track.
no dirt tracks in cali at all. that can't be good when you have a horse that doesn't like awt or turf. then what do you do? how will this affect cali breeding? very short-sighted approach from them. but hey, the govt always knows best, right?

It was a knee jerk reaction for sure.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Did your finger break when you pressed into it? Maybe you should switch to a synthetic cup of stuff on your desk.

carpal tunnel??

[DerbyCat]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Did your finger break when you pressed into it? Maybe you should switch to a synthetic cup of stuff on your desk.

Actually my biceps are sore, it's a very heavy 16 oz. cup to lift!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Did your finger break when you pressed into it? Maybe you should switch to a synthetic cup of stuff on your desk.

yea if you stick your finger in the synthetic (done it numerous times) it just sticks to you and your finger becomes like sandy wax. Its impossible to brush off completely and you have to wash your hands to get that wax feeling off.