Emmor
10-26-2008, 05:07 PM
When synthetics first started being installed, I jumped on the bandwagon pretty quick because of the promise of increased safety (reduced injuries/fatalities; lower vet bills; larger fields), less early speed bias, and more consistent performance during inclement weather. As a fan of the breed and a handicapper, these are all good things.
However, after having watched races on synthetic surfaces for the last year, I am becoming concerned about the effect it might have on the diversity of the thoroughbred gene pool globally, which is already a concern for some. The 2008 Breeder's Cup has only made my concern grow as I fear that the Breeder's Cup and the powers that run it might be tempted to jump whole hog onto the synthetic bandwagon so as to make the Breeder's Cup more appealing to international owners. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that synthetics favor turf pedigrees and turf biomechanics more so than dirt pedigrees and dirt biomechanics. If true, this means that synthetic tracks are not a true "third surface", but a secondary turf surface; a surface with a turf bias. I know that John Gosden said that he felt that kickback is the primary reason turf horses have trouble with dirt; if that's true, then why do some dirt horses (regardless of their natural running style) lose form when competing on synthetic or turf? How did the Kickback Effect work in reverse and add 5-10 lengths to Cigar's form when he moved from turf to dirt?
The possibility that more of America's great races move from dirt to synthetic concerns me because when I look at the leading stallion farms in Europe, I do not see a lot of genetic diversity. After analyzing the pedigrees at Juddmonte's, Coolmore's, and Darley's European breeding operations, 45 of the 59 (76%) stallions go back tail-male to Northern Dancer; 19 of the 45 (42%) are inbred to Northern Dancer. Of the 14 stallions who aren't tail-male descendents of Nothern Dancer, 12 of them have him in their pedigrees; 5 of them are inbred to Northern Dancer. Thus 57/59 (97%) of these stallions have Northern Dancer in their pedigrees and 24/59 (41%) are inbred to him.
After reviewing the US-based stallion operations of these same farms, Northern Dancer plays a prominent, but much smaller role. 12/31 (39%) go back tail-male to Northern Dancer, 2/31 (6%) are inbred to him, and 22/31 (71%) have him in their pedigrees. For even further comparison, 18 out of the top 60 (30%) sires (as determined by progeny earnings in 2008) in the US this year are tail-male descendents of Northern Dancer.
My ultimate concern with synthetics is that if the US begins to convert more tracks from dirt to synthetic, our gene pool will begin to more closely resemble Europe's narrow gene pool--more Northern Dancer, less Seattle Slew, In Reality, Ribot, Roberto, Mr. Prospector, Holy Bull, Broad Brush, Buckpasser, Damascus, etc.
Is it possible that if we compromise dirt racing in America for a surface with more international appeal that we compromise the genetic health of the thoroughbred?
However, after having watched races on synthetic surfaces for the last year, I am becoming concerned about the effect it might have on the diversity of the thoroughbred gene pool globally, which is already a concern for some. The 2008 Breeder's Cup has only made my concern grow as I fear that the Breeder's Cup and the powers that run it might be tempted to jump whole hog onto the synthetic bandwagon so as to make the Breeder's Cup more appealing to international owners. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that synthetics favor turf pedigrees and turf biomechanics more so than dirt pedigrees and dirt biomechanics. If true, this means that synthetic tracks are not a true "third surface", but a secondary turf surface; a surface with a turf bias. I know that John Gosden said that he felt that kickback is the primary reason turf horses have trouble with dirt; if that's true, then why do some dirt horses (regardless of their natural running style) lose form when competing on synthetic or turf? How did the Kickback Effect work in reverse and add 5-10 lengths to Cigar's form when he moved from turf to dirt?
The possibility that more of America's great races move from dirt to synthetic concerns me because when I look at the leading stallion farms in Europe, I do not see a lot of genetic diversity. After analyzing the pedigrees at Juddmonte's, Coolmore's, and Darley's European breeding operations, 45 of the 59 (76%) stallions go back tail-male to Northern Dancer; 19 of the 45 (42%) are inbred to Northern Dancer. Of the 14 stallions who aren't tail-male descendents of Nothern Dancer, 12 of them have him in their pedigrees; 5 of them are inbred to Northern Dancer. Thus 57/59 (97%) of these stallions have Northern Dancer in their pedigrees and 24/59 (41%) are inbred to him.
After reviewing the US-based stallion operations of these same farms, Northern Dancer plays a prominent, but much smaller role. 12/31 (39%) go back tail-male to Northern Dancer, 2/31 (6%) are inbred to him, and 22/31 (71%) have him in their pedigrees. For even further comparison, 18 out of the top 60 (30%) sires (as determined by progeny earnings in 2008) in the US this year are tail-male descendents of Northern Dancer.
My ultimate concern with synthetics is that if the US begins to convert more tracks from dirt to synthetic, our gene pool will begin to more closely resemble Europe's narrow gene pool--more Northern Dancer, less Seattle Slew, In Reality, Ribot, Roberto, Mr. Prospector, Holy Bull, Broad Brush, Buckpasser, Damascus, etc.
Is it possible that if we compromise dirt racing in America for a surface with more international appeal that we compromise the genetic health of the thoroughbred?