Dr. Tim Parkin: Study inconclusive on Dirt vs. Synthetic Catastrophic Injuries

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/114257.html

Excerpt:

An analysis of injury data for racehorses collected over a one-year period has concluded that there is not yet a statistically significant difference between catastrophic injury rates for horses starting on dirt or artificial surfaces, according to an epidemiologist who is studying the data.

Dr. Tim Parkin, a research fellow at the University of Glasgow who studied 12 months of injury reports submitted by officials at 86 U.S. racetracks, said that the analysis could not make a case for a difference in the catastrophic-injury rate because of a smaller set of data for starts on artificial surfaces compared with starts on dirt. According to the raw numbers, 2.14 horses per 1,000 horses who started on dirt during the study suffered a catastrophic breakdown, whereas 1.78 horses per 1,000 starts who started on artificial surface suffered a fatal injury, a difference of 0.36 horses per 1,000 starts.
Dr. Parkin used data collected from Nov. 1, 2008, to Oct. 31, 2009, for his analysis. The results of the analysis were presented during the Welfare and the Safety of the Racehorse Summit in the sales pavilion at Keeneland outside of Lexington on Monday.

[BluegrassProf]

While I'm heartened to see a study done by - gasp! - a scientist, this study also exhibits one glaring limitation: it's based on reported injuries, and ignores the "dark figure" represented by unreported injuries.

Because of this sampling method, I'd also be sensitive to the issue of those injuries that take any amount of time to visibly materialize (as with the other study, in fact). This is actually particularly relevant to the examination of synthetic tracks: knowing what we do about synthetics - for example, that there seem to be a higher rate of soft tissue-type injuries on synth surfaces - there may be a chance of increased likelihood of injuries that take time to develop and exhibit symptoms warranting further inquiry. Ex: If a horse is injured on sythetics but exhibits injury only after its next start (perhaps a dirt start), the way it's reported here would be misleading - the injury would take place on the synth surface, but be documented as a dirt injury.

As the good Dr. also mentions, there are the standard issues like time frame, but these are to be expected. What's important is that a.) the scientific study is emphasized, and should be used to promote further analysis, and that b.) the cheerleading for a synthetic revolution is both largely rhetorical and fairly haphazard.

Just a thought or two from the gallery... :ThmbUp:

[FenceBored]

While I'm heartened to see a study done by - gasp! - a scientist, this study also exhibits one glaring limitation: it's based on reported injuries, and ignores the "dark figure" represented by unreported injuries.

Because of this sampling method, I'd also be sensitive to the issue of those injuries that take any amount of time to visibly materialize (as with the other study, in fact). This is actually particularly relevant to the examination of synthetic tracks: knowing what we do about synthetics - for example, that there seem to be a higher rate of soft tissue-type injuries on synth surfaces - there may be a chance of increased likelihood of injuries that take time to develop and exhibit symptoms warranting further inquiry. Ex: If a horse is injured on sythetics but exhibits injury only after its next start (perhaps a dirt start), the way it's reported here would be misleading - the injury would take place on the synth surface, but be documented as a dirt injury.

As the good Dr. also mentions, there are the standard issues like time frame, but these are to be expected. What's important is that a.) the scientific study is emphasized, and should be used to promote further analysis, and that b.) the cheerleading for a synthetic revolution is both largely rhetorical and fairly haphazard.

Just a thought or two from the gallery... :ThmbUp:

That's why you's the Prof.

[andymays]

Data: Fatalities Similar Across All Surfaces | BloodHorse.com

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/57656/data-fatalities-similar-across-all-surfaces

Excerpt:

An initial analysis of equine injury data released earlier this year shows no statistically significant difference in the risk of fatalities in Thoroughbreds on different racing surfaces, officials said June 28 during the third Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit.

[andymays]

Study: Male thoroughbred horses have greater injury risk

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100628/BUSINESS/6280355/Study++Male+thoroughbred+horses+have+greater+injur y+risk

[FenceBored]

Study: Male thoroughbred horses have greater injury risk

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100628/BUSINESS/6280355/Study++Male+thoroughbred+horses+have+greater+injur y+risk

The curious thing to me about the Equine Injury Database (EID) articles was their precision in talking about fillies versus intact males, which implies a difference between gelded and ungelded males. And the datasheet (http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/WSS_EID_supplemental_data_sheet62310.pdf) they put out indicates that the numbers for geldings are more in line with the Filly/Mare numbers than they are with the Colt/Horse numbers.

[Stillriledup]

If only 2 horses per 1,000 break down on dirt, why did we bother changing in the first place? That seems like a pretty good safety rate to me.

[BluegrassProf]

If only 2 horses per 1,000 break down on dirt, why did we bother changing in the first place? That seems like a pretty good safety rate to me.And that's not the least of it: we go on and on and on re: issues of safety and surface, when even the most problematic studies show safety differences that barely skim the surface of statistical significance.

Far more troublesome are broader issues ranging from track upkeep to breeding trends, but hey, it's waaaaaaay easier to bicker about something as superficial and largely irrelevant - increasingly-so, as the research materializes - as surface (superficial with respect to grand hopes of safety, not with respect to cost and effort).

This has very much become a political/ideological debate, with all sides firmly entrenched. There's more at play here than the current discourse allows. That said, it's refreshing to see that Dr. Parkin, like any good scientist, acknowledges the many limitations of the current research; in fact, the study's not framed solely as a study of surfaces (it's a study of racing safety generally), which is a very good way of approaching the question that is, at the end of the day, the very most important thing.

[Dahoss9698]

Interesting to me that this thread has been up nearly 9 hours and the synth lovers have avoided it.

[nearco]

If only 2 horses per 1,000 break down on dirt, why did we bother changing in the first place? That seems like a pretty good safety rate to me.

:eek:

Dude, attitudes like that don't help the stereotype of the cold hearted 'capper. They are living animals.

For some perspective, other fatal breakdown rates.

UK = .8/1000
Aus = .4/1000
Hong Kong = .58/1000

So yeah, 2/1000 isn't exactly "pretty good safety rate"

[BluegrassProf]

:eek:

Dude, attitudes like that don't help the stereotype of the cold hearted 'capper. They are living animals.

For some perspective, other fatal breakdown rates.

UK = .8/1000
Aus = .4/1000
Hong Kong = .58/1000

So yeah, 2/1000 isn't exactly "pretty good safety rate"Argh...man, I gotta say - way to dumb it down to the most simplistic denominator. :faint:

I know your intentions are perfectly good, and I more than recognize the issue at hand. But nowhere has anyone said that they care little for animal well-being (to think otherwise is, I think, hugely presumptive...we're talking in statistical terms, as scientists so often do, about quantitative research - to call that cold-hearted is to kinda miss the point entirely).

More importantly, given the way that racing has evolved in the United States, I'm inclined to agree with SRU's assessment: 2 of every 1,000 starters is indeed surprisingly low. Has anyone ever said that there's no improving on the fatality rate? Of ever-loving COURSE not; that'd be absurd! But the point here is that surface is virtually irrelevant to the rate of injury/fatality on American tracks: we're right to question the discussion of surfaces, particularly with the rate being what it is and with all of these other factors at play, from breeding to management to doping and deviance and beyond.

Not to speak for anyone else, of course; just a view from the gallery...

[Deepsix]

Hey Blusprof.... I enjoyed the read. You ain't ALL THAT.. <smile>

[andymays]

Interesting to me that this thread has been up nearly 9 hours and the synth lovers have avoided it.


They hate to admit that they were lied to and taken for fools. :eek:

How many of the original claims made in the synthetic infomercials have proven to be true? Not many

Synthetic surfaces would be much safer? :rolleyes: Not really and there are more soft tissue injuries.

No biases? :rolleyes: That's a laugher. :D

We would have bigger fields in California. :rolleyes: That's a laugher. :D

Virtually maintenance free. :rolleyes: That's a big laugher. :D :lol:

[Horseplayersbet.com]

They hate to admit that they were lied to and taken for fools. :eek:

How many of the original claims made in the synthetic infomercials have proven to be true? Not many

Synthetic surfaces would be much safer? :rolleyes: Not really and there are more soft tissue injuries.

No biases? :rolleyes: That's a laugher. :D

We would have bigger fields in California. :rolleyes: That's a laugher. :D

Virtually maintenance free. :rolleyes: That's a big laugher. :D :lol:
I do think that two good things have come out of synthetics. One has to do with cancellations in the north east tracks. I do believe that fake tracks prevent some cancellations, especially in colder weather.

The other might be a long term effect, and that is breeding more for stamina versus speed. We might wind up with more durable horses in the near future especially in Canada as horses are now being bred for the polytrack.

As for handicapping, artificial surfaces cause a lot of chaotic results because they are more apt to become jockey races where trip and rider tactics become much more important than on dirt strips. To me, it is a huge case for lowering takeouts.

[rwwupl]

:eek:

Dude, attitudes like that don't help the stereotype of the cold hearted 'capper. They are living animals.

For some perspective, other fatal breakdown rates.

UK = .8/1000
Aus = .4/1000
Hong Kong = .58/1000

So yeah, 2/1000 isn't exactly "pretty good safety rate"



This is a new stat for me...Source please?

If race horses did not race, they most likely would be in the wild, and brings up the question how many would hurt themselves without human handlers?

Zero injuries would be desireable, but unrealistic,would you think?

[andymays]

I do think that two good things have come out of synthetics. One has to do with cancellations in the north east tracks. I do believe that fake tracks prevent some cancellations, especially in colder weather.

The other might be a long term effect, and that is breeding more for stamina versus speed. We might wind up with more durable horses in the near future especially in Canada as horses are now being bred for the polytrack.

As for handicapping, artificial surfaces cause a lot of chaotic results because they are more apt to become jockey races where trip and rider tactics become much more important than on dirt strips. To me, it is a huge case for lowering takeouts.

Synthetics have their place in racing.

Just get them the hell out of Southern California.

[FenceBored]

Dr. Scollay on other factors related to disparities between intact males and distaffers:
"There is an influence independent of muscular, skele tal factors ... in the horse that has reproductive potential," Scollay said. "The decision-making process may be different for the same injury in a horse that has the opportunity to go to the breeding shed as opposed to a horse that doesn't have that opportunity."
Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/29/1327872/study-safety-of-synthetic-vs-dirt.html#ixzz0sG5ANgyU

[cj]

:eek:

Dude, attitudes like that don't help the stereotype of the cold hearted 'capper. They are living animals.

For some perspective, other fatal breakdown rates.

UK = .8/1000
Aus = .4/1000
Hong Kong = .58/1000

So yeah, 2/1000 isn't exactly "pretty good safety rate"

This is mostly because we race very cheap horses here, much cheaper than other places. Of course that is only my opinion.