STATISTICS CAN BE SYNTHETIC TOO: By Ray Paulick

[andymays]

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/statistics-can-be-synthetic-too/

Excerpt:

That was game, set and match for the horsemen, horseplayers and fans who have grown to despise synthetic tracks for various reasons. Many trainers are convinced the surfaces have led to an increase in soft tissue injuries and have turned good horses into mediocre ones and mediocre ones into good ones. Horseplayers are often confounded by the results on synthetic (and as someone who has virtually given up playing Keeneland’s Polytrack surface, I can attest to that). Some think it’s just plain silly to race on anything but natural dirt or grass. As trainer Nick Zito once said, “I don’t want to run on anything made from my attic. God made dirt, and God made grass.”

That begs the question: Did God make furosemide, clenbuterol, phenylbutazone, or steroids?

What’s gotten lost here in all the hysteria over synthetic tracks is that some very well-intentioned people have gone to a great deal of effort to make racing safer for horses. Let’s not disparage them for that.

Was there a rush to install synthetic surfaces at some tracks? Yes, but let’s also not forget the circumstances.

[andymays]

Comment #1 under the article.

Ray, it’s a good article but you know as well as I do that the marketing of synthetic surfaces was way over the top. Which claims from the manufacturers have proven to be true?

Less/No maintenance?

No biases?

Bigger fields in California?

Safer?

The public was lied to and it wasn’t a small lie either. They synthetic advocates and people looking to make big money on the new trend went overboard and they are still going overboard.

The word is that the TOBA report was leaked to you in order to preempt the real report by the Jockey Club.

Can you confirm or deny that?

[Igeteven]

Comment #1 under the article.

Ray, it’s a good article but you know as well as I do that the marketing of synthetic surfaces was way over the top. Which claims from the manufacturers have proven to be true?

Less/No maintenance?

No biases?

Bigger fields in California?

Safer?

The public was lied to and it wasn’t a small lie either. They synthetic advocates and people looking to make big money on the new trend went overboard and they are still going overboard.

The word is that the TOBA report was leaked to you in order to preempt the real report by the Jockey Club.

Can you confirm or deny that?

Andy,

I still would like to know the REAL reason this crap was put in. What was the motive.

I think all readers know what I mean.

So people, if you know the truth, let it be heard.

[andymays]

Andy,

I still would like to know the REAL reason this crap was put in. What was the motive.

I think all readers know what I mean.

So people, if you know the truth, let it be heard.


Some people had good intentions when they put them in.

For others it comes down to Money, Ego, Power, Greed, Stupidity.

They thought every track in the country would be putting in Polytrack by now. Big money was invested in these companies and some high profile people in the industry got behind the push for this junk. They are still pushing this stuff but the thing is that now some of us are pushing back and they don't like it much. ;)

[rwwupl]

The headline of the Paulick Report stired up more "Red Meat" when it said "Synthetics Stand For Safety" and every other publication understood the report to say the released stats were "Inconclusive"

The new report from Paulick was an attempt to modify the impression he gave by the headline previously.

Ray Paulick is an honest,sincere reporter...but I think he made a mistake.

I think we have all been there.

[andymays]

The headline of the Paulick Report stired up more "Red Meat" when it said "Synthetics Stand For Safety" and every other publication understood the report to say the released stats were "Inconclusive"

The new report from Paulick was an attempt to modify the impression he gave by the headline previously.

Ray Paulick is an honest,sincere reporter...but I think he made a mistake.

I think we have all been there.


The report was leaked by a prominent owner and synthetic advocate without the permission of TOBA. It is my understanding that they are upset and embarrassed by the leak.

I doubt Ray knew he was being used when he put it up. He probably thought he was getting the real story before anyone else. Woops! ;)

[andymays]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/57670/study-looks-at-number-of-dnfs-by-surface

Excerpt:

The report, which hasn’t been officially released by TOBA, was leaked to The Paulick Report that published a story about it in advance of the June 28-29 Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit. During the summit, The Jockey Club released more details of an analysis of catastrophic injuries in Thoroughbreds based on one year of data from its Equine Injury Database.

Equibase is a subsidiary of The Jockey Club.

Not surprisingly given the timing of the leak, the findings in the TOBA report contradict those from the EID report, though they are based on much different data. The EID report, which stemmed from injury reports submitted by racetracks that account for 86% of total flat racing starts in North America, shows there was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of fatal injuries on dirt, synthetics, or grass in a one-year period from November 2008 to November 2009.

[Fager Fan]

The report was leaked by a prominent owner and synthetic advocate without the permission of TOBA. It is my understanding that they are upset and embarrassed by the leak.

I doubt Ray knew he was being used when he put it up. He probably thought he was getting the real story before anyone else. Woops! ;)

Andy, do you know who this prominent owner is? I think the racing world deserves to know, given the cost to racing -- the tracks who have spent millions putting in these surfaces, the trainers and owners whose horses are being used as guinea pigs on these surfaces, and the huge divide this has caused in racing as a whole.

[Stillriledup]

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/statistics-can-be-synthetic-too/

Excerpt:

That was game, set and match for the horsemen, horseplayers and fans who have grown to despise synthetic tracks for various reasons. Many trainers are convinced the surfaces have led to an increase in soft tissue injuries and have turned good horses into mediocre ones and mediocre ones into good ones. Horseplayers are often confounded by the results on synthetic (and as someone who has virtually given up playing Keeneland’s Polytrack surface, I can attest to that). Some think it’s just plain silly to race on anything but natural dirt or grass. As trainer Nick Zito once said, “I don’t want to run on anything made from my attic. God made dirt, and God made grass.”

That begs the question: Did God make furosemide, clenbuterol, phenylbutazone, or steroids?

What’s gotten lost here in all the hysteria over synthetic tracks is that some very well-intentioned people have gone to a great deal of effort to make racing safer for horses. Let’s not disparage them for that.

Was there a rush to install synthetic surfaces at some tracks? Yes, but let’s also not forget the circumstances.


Everyone remembers Dominican winning the 2007 Blue Grass stakes in a painfully slow time with painfully slow internal fractions. This is the stuff handicappers despise, they need to be able to accurately predict the 'pace scenario'. If a speed horse doesn't go to the front, it throws a monkey wrench into the handicapping. At places like Keeneland and Del mar, you have trainers and owners in jockeys ears in the paddock, "stay far from the front, speed dies" and then you have jockey manipulation. Players are handicapping speed duels or at least a contested pace and what do you get? One random horse going to the front and everyone else shaking in their boots to be anywhere near the early pace, regardless of how slow it is. This is the main reason why players dont want to invest big money on plastic races, they can't be sure the jocks of the front runners are going to be front runners or pace pressers. How can you know if the stalkers or closers have a shot if you have no clue on who is going to the front?

[andymays]

Andy, do you know who this prominent owner is? I think the racing world deserves to know, given the cost to racing -- the tracks who have spent millions putting in these surfaces, the trainers and owners whose horses are being used as guinea pigs on these surfaces, and the huge divide this has caused in racing as a whole.

Yes, I know who it is. I heard it from more than one person. I believe they are right about who it is but I don't know first hand. I don't want to put their name up because it could cause problems for PA.

[kenwoodall2]

"The word is that the TOBA report was leaked to you in order to preempt the real report by the Jockey Club.

Can you confirm or deny that?"
What separates fact from slanted fiction? Post #2 is a good example of how racing myths get started and perpetuated.
Believe me or not, Plubber was mandated because of the refusal of GGF, BM, DM, Hol, and SA to slow their tracks down and reduce injuries due to intentionally speeding up and hardening their dirt and in some cases their grass tracks. I have asked several times for historic pars from the person on this forum who sells them, not forthcoming. I have been on PA in years past with my handicapping successes using Ca tracks and other who are speed-favoring and intentionally and unneccessarily sealed (rolled).
CHRB also saw that the races were being slanted in favor of early speed resulting in inequal chances for runners and handicappers. Horse deaths and injuries from concrete highwways in Ca resulted in stables and many horse leaving Ca and field size reductions. Paulick or anyone else online is welcome to read the CHRB annual reports of that period.
Now there are bettor complaints due to "soft tiussue injuries" when the truth is no one including Ca did any studies or surveys in Ca or elsewhere as to physical condition of the horses comparing track variant with injuries are breakdowns and they are not, and what was released does not categorized by sex, gelded, or track variant.

[andymays]

Can you confirm or deny that?"
What separates fact from slanted fiction? Post #2 is a good example of how racing myths get started and perpetuated.


kenwoodall2 I didn't hear it first hand but I was emailed from the conference about it and they let me know who leaked it. I didn't put the persons name on the board because I didn't hear it first hand. Just about eveyone at the conference knows the deal. The BloodHorse also reported that the report was leaked. TOBA did not release it and it was their report.

Did you read post #7 and see the excerpt from the BloodHorse article?

[5k-claim]

Quote from original article:

A non-scientific statistical survey by Equibase, conducted for the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, shows a measurable difference between dirt and all-weather/synthetic in the percentage of horses that did not finish a race and never competed or worked out again. That statistical study was reported in the Paulick Report yesterday morning (click here to read the article and here for the statistics). The Equine Injury Database, using a much smaller sample group, showed no statistically relevant difference.

One of the problems I have with this article is that a reader might be lead to believe that the biggest difference between the two reports was their sample size. When in fact the biggest difference, in my opinion, is that the scientific study used data pertaining to actual injuries while the TOBA survey just used 'DNF's, which may or may not even indicate injuries.

The most I feel comfortable saying after looking at the Equibase results is that it appears that of the horses who were retired after a 'DNF' (injured or not), more of them ran that last race at a track with a dirt surface, than ran their last race at a track with a synthetic surface.

I am still trying to figure out how that equates to SYNTHETICS = SAFETY.


.

[andymays]

Quote from original article:



One of the problems I have with this article is that a reader might be lead to believe that the biggest difference between the two reports was their sample size. When in fact the biggest difference, in my opinion, is that the scientific study used data pertaining to actual injuries while the TOBA survey just used 'DNF's, which may or may not even indicate injuries.

The most I feel comfortable saying after looking at the Equibase results is that it appears that of the horses who were retired after a 'DNF' (injured or not), more of them ran that last race at a track with a dirt surface, than ran their last race at a track with a synthetic surface.

I am still trying to figure out how that equates to SYNTHETICS = SAFETY.


.


They really need another 5 years to complete the study. The bottom line is that synthetic surfaces have not come close to living up to the hype.

[5k-claim]

They really need another 5 years to complete the study. The bottom line is that synthetic surfaces have not come close to living up to the hype.

I personally don't think they will live up to the hype even with 5 years of data, or any other number. I guess we'll see. I have never really hated synthetics, but I have resented the hype and politics surrounding them from the very beginning. I actually got sucked into the hype a little bit (my own fault for not using common sense), and my first ever personal experience with them was dead-of-winter racing in northern KY. After walking a mare over to the saddling stalls looked down and noticed that she was standing cockeyed- took a second to see that she was standing on about an inch or so of clotted up track that came out in one big clod. I remember saying to myself in an understated, nonchalant way: "Oh well. So much for that experiment."

Little did I know.

I did not realize how strongly the handicapping/gambling community felt about them until seeing this forum. I am still more ambivalent about them than anything else, but without strong data behind them, I guess I just don't see the point in pushing them anymore.


.

[andymays]

I personally don't think they will live up to the hype even with 5 years of data, or any other number. I guess we'll see. I have never really hated synthetics, but I have resented the hype and politics surrounding them from the very beginning. I actually got sucked into the hype a little bit (my own fault for not using common sense), and my first ever personal experience with them was dead-of-winter racing in northern KY. After walking a mare over to the saddling stalls looked down and noticed that she was standing cockeyed- took a second to see that she was standing on about an inch or so of clotted up track that came out in one big clod. I remember saying to myself in an understated, nonchalant way: "Oh well. So much for that experiment."

Little did I know.

I did not realize how strongly the handicapping/gambling community felt about them until seeing this forum. I am still more ambivalent about them than anything else, but without strong data behind them, I guess I just don't see the point in pushing them anymore.


.

Right. The hype and the politics drive me absolutely nuts too. I've been on a 2 year crusade against them.

I will never forget in 2007 when they started saying that if you don't like synthetic surfaces then you hate horses and don't care about them.

One jackass wrote that people who didn't like synthetic surfaces didn't care about little kids being traumatized for life when they saw a breakdown at the track.

That's the kind of sh*t that set me off.

[kenwoodall2]

kenwoodall2 I didn't hear it first hand but I was emailed from the conference about it and they let me know who leaked it. I didn't put the persons name on the board because I didn't hear it first hand. Just about eveyone at the conference knows the deal. The BloodHorse also reported that the report was leaked. TOBA did not release it and it was their report.

Did you read post #7 and see the excerpt from the BloodHorse article?
Yes, I read the followups and they explain plenty enough. My point was theoretical rather than practical to this thread, My apologies!

[andymays]

Yes, I read the followups and they explain plenty enough. My point was theoretical rather than practical to this thread, My apologies!


No need to apologize it's been a crazy day with these dueling reports.

Paulick linked the BloodHorse article on his front page now.

[kenwoodall2]

No need to apologize it's been a crazy day with these dueling reports.

Paulick linked the BloodHorse article on his front page now.
Happens so seldom, national reports are that exciting! This will contain even more info (I hope!) than the old Aussie report broken down by type of injury also. Aus, 1988-200="The risk of fatality on city tracks was 1.1 per 1000 starts whereas on country tracks it was 0.57 per 1000 starts."

[gm10]

Despite all the threads and posts, I still have to see one study that says that dirt is safer for horses than any of the other two surfaces. I'm not saying that synthetics are absolutely 100% safer, but at least there is some evidence that they are somewhat.

[Fager Fan]

Despite all the threads and posts, I still have to see one study that says that dirt is safer for horses than any of the other two surfaces. I'm not saying that synthetics are absolutely 100% safer, but at least there is some evidence that they are somewhat.

"There is no significant statistical difference." That is according to the expert.

Do you really think that your odds of having a winning ticket are significantly different if it's 2.2 in 1000 as compared to 1.9 in 1000?

Do you spend millions of dollars to increase your odds to .3 in 1000?

Then there's the fact that every synth track has a new base that affects the odds. The fact that there are dirt tracks that have better odds than synthetic tracks. The fact that there are more lower-end tracks bringing down the overall dirt tracks. The fact that there are other influences like pre-race exams affecting the odds. The fact that there could be more significant soft tissue injuries on synthetics than dirt. And so on and so forth.

So "somewhat" doesn't mean much.

[andymays]

Aussies not too keen on Cushion

Figures don’t lie.

The cushion tracks are just not acceptable to those who put on the racing game, owners trainers and punters.

According to press reports a recent Caloundra Friday meeting on their cushion track there were 8 races with 82 acceptors. On the following Sunday on the grass track there were 9 races with 147 acceptors.

At Toowoomba on its cushion Track 7 races with 76 acceptors at Warwick a country track but a grass surface and only five races there were 75 acceptors.

Another startling statistic shows that punters are also turned off by cushion tracks.

When the Towoomba night meetings were held on grass the average total pool was around $450,000 but on Saturday on the cushion the total hold was $232,000.

[rwwupl]

"There is no significant statistical difference." That is according to the expert.

Do you really think that your odds of having a winning ticket are significantly different if it's 2.2 in 1000 as compared to 1.9 in 1000?

Do you spend millions of dollars to increase your odds to .3 in 1000?

Then there's the fact that every synth track has a new base that affects the odds. The fact that there are dirt tracks that have better odds than synthetic tracks. The fact that there are more lower-end tracks bringing down the overall dirt tracks. The fact that there are other influences like pre-race exams affecting the odds. The fact that there could be more significant soft tissue injuries on synthetics than dirt. And so on and so forth.

So "somewhat" doesn't mean much.


I kind of like this thinking. "Somewhat" doesn't mean much. I grew up on dirt, it seems O.K. to me. It did not bother Citation,Secretariat either. ;)

[gm10]

I kind of like this thinking. "Somewhat" doesn't mean much. I grew up on dirt, it seems O.K. to me. It did not bother Citation,Secretariat either. ;)

I don't want to get involved in another endless debate about it, but the way I see it, they are there, and there is no objective evidence that they are worse for horses or handicappers. So let's just get on with it and let the professors do their work in peace in the meanwhile.

[Bobzilla]

I don't want to get involved in another endless debate about it, but the way I see it, they are there, and there is no objective evidence that they are worse for horses or handicappers. So let's just get on with it and let the professors do their work in peace in the meanwhile.

Seems as though the bar has been lowered even from the synthetics-are-the-answer crowd. At one time the argument was that they were indisputably safer. Now it would seem that the argument is that there is no proof that they are any worse. Not being worse might prove to be true, but if not being worse is the best argument that can be made then I have to wonder why they should exist in the first place. Doesn't seem like much was gained from turning America's main track racing on its head.

[comet52]

Reading all 51 comments on the Paulick article, the last one stood out:

Paul (London, UK) Says:
"If you look at the figures more closely:

US Dirt - 2.14 fatalities per 1000 runners
US Turf/Artificial - 1.78 fatalities per 1000 runners
UK Turf - 0.7 fatalities per 1000 runners
UK Artificial - 0.8 fatalities per 1000 runner

and you have to wonder why there’s such a difference. But you don’t have to wonder for long…"

[rwwupl]

Reading all 51 comments on the Paulick article, the last one stood out:

Paul (London, UK) Says:
"If you look at the figures more closely:

US Dirt - 2.14 fatalities per 1000 runners
US Turf/Artificial - 1.78 fatalities per 1000 runners
UK Turf - 0.7 fatalities per 1000 runners
UK Artificial - 0.8 fatalities per 1000 runner

and you have to wonder why there’s such a difference. But you don’t have to wonder for long…"


This was posted by "Nearco" on the "Dr.Tim Parkin:Study inconclusive" thread on PaceAdvantage thread earlier... and my response was on post # 15 ..This is a new stat for me,Source please, without a reply,and then repeated on the Paulick Report.

I must have missed the comparison of numbers between the U.K and U.S. in the article referenced in the lead article,DRF: http://www.drf.com/news/article/114257.html

If the author would provide a source, I think it could be more helpful.

But, anyway...

You have to look further than the raw numbers...The data collection criteria ,method,weather and soil data,time of year,compare year by year,frequency of use and by how many horses and who funded the study,who profits and more.

Statistics support statisticians.

I think the synthetics were for the most part imported from other jurisdictions to us with glowing reports.

I wonder why the stats vary from over seas if the surface is so consistent and good...could it be something else?

[Fager Fan]

I don't want to get involved in another endless debate about it, but the way I see it, they are there, and there is no objective evidence that they are worse for horses or handicappers. So let's just get on with it and let the professors do their work in peace in the meanwhile.

It's unwise to leave anyone in peace when there are people in power who are actively trying to continue with the synthetic push. Being outspoken about synthetics has stopped further tracks from installing the surface, so to all who are outspoken, keep up the good fight.

[kenwoodall2]

Reading all 51 comments on the Paulick article, the last one stood out:

Paul (London, UK) Says:
"If you look at the figures more closely:

US Dirt - 2.14 fatalities per 1000 runners
US Turf/Artificial - 1.78 fatalities per 1000 runners
UK Turf - 0.7 fatalities per 1000 runners
UK Artificial - 0.8 fatalities per 1000 runner

and you have to wonder why there’s such a difference. But you don’t have to wonder for long…"
First, you do not show England dirt, which only runs like 8 or 9 months per year, so a higher % of English runners are given time off to remodel instead of waiting until something else goes wrong. Second, almost all USA dirt and turf runners train on rock-based dirt tracks. Third, the internal fractions and early speed of USA runners need to be compared to equivilent England runners.
The breakdown at Woodbine reported toady an PA's headline page was 133, put back into training illegally after years off and shooting blanks, and was not supposed to be on the track. Human error or abuse, I dunno yet.
_________________________
Many breakdown runners have multiples of these:
Here is the list I make that was added to and/or mostly approved by Seabiscuit movie trainer Michael Chew, and by Tom Schell:

DANGER SIGNS A RACEHORSE MAY HAVE A LEG/FOOT PROBLEM:

D eclining speed

N egative PP comments

F ront wraps

01) More than 3 months' layoff between races.

02) 2 or more gaps in racing frequency of more than 6 weeks.

03) 3 or more consecutive races with gaps of 2 weeks or less.

04) 2 or more consecutive unusually slow workouts.

05) Lugging, drifting, swerving more than once within 1 or 2 races, especially on turns.

06) Awkwardness while trying to switch leads.

07) Excessive bobbing while running, (like a merry-go-round pony).

08) Any problems leaving the gate in a race.

09) 5 or older stretching out or shipping to a slower pars track (wearing down).

10) Losing normal early speed.

11) Lung infection (possible parallel sign of overwork).

12) New front wraps.

13) 1 month of racing while showing no works.

14) Alteration of training or racing regimen.

15) more than 19 1/2 furlongs of workouts and/or races within 30 days.
__________________
__________________

Britain injury study:
Retrospective data were available from all race starts on the 59 courses in
Britain from 1990 to the end of 1999. The analysis was conducted on the data for the 47,424 horses
that had started racing in the UK: 538,895 starts with 1228 fatal injuries.
Horses starting racing abroad were excluded, but some included horses would have
raced abroad at some stage during their racing career.
The results for the selected models were broadly consistent with each other
and with previously published studies. Steeplechase and hurdle races had a
higher risk of fatal injury than flat races (relative hazards 1.5 and 1.7,
respectively). Risk increased with the firmness of surface, age and race
distance (reaching a plateau at 20 furlongs) and decreased with previous racing
intensity (reaching a plateau after seven races run in the last 12 months).
Horses running their first race of a new type were also found to be at higher
risk (relative hazard 1.5). The main difference between the models for time as
number of days and number of races concerned the role of age: age at race was
identified as the more important factor in the latter model, whereas, age at
first race was more significant in the former model.
________________________
This study showed over 2.0 for 1,000 runners. Mostly pre-artificial track.

[Alacrity]

Reading all 51 comments on the Paulick article, the last one stood out:

Paul (London, UK) Says:
"If you look at the figures more closely:

US Dirt - 2.14 fatalities per 1000 runners
US Turf/Artificial - 1.78 fatalities per 1000 runners
UK Turf - 0.7 fatalities per 1000 runners
UK Artificial - 0.8 fatalities per 1000 runner

and you have to wonder why there’s such a difference. But you don’t have to wonder for long…"

I'd say a big part of that is because people don't take proper care of their horses. And drugs etc. but everyone knows that by now. A lot of people might not agree with this, but I'd eliminate dirt and synthetics completely and let 'em run on the grass. Here we are in 2010 and this is as big a problem as ever. Jesus.

[rwwupl]

From Australia....Figures do not lie

http://www.goondiwindiargus.com.au/news/local/sport/horse-racing/racing-round-the-ridges/1872613.aspx


Excerpt:
30 Jun, 2010 10:57 AM
Figures don’t lie.
The cushion tracks are just not acceptable to those who put on the racing game, owners trainers and punters.

According to press reports a recent Caloundra Friday meeting on their cushion track there were 8 races with 82 acceptors. On the following Sunday on the grass track there were 9 races with 147 acceptors.

At Toowoomba on its cushion Track 7 races with 76 acceptors at Warwick a country track but a grass surface and only five races there were 75 acceptors.

Another startling statistic shows that punters are also turned off by cushion tracks.

When the Towoomba night meetings were held on grass the average total pool was around $450,000 but on Saturday on the cushion the total hold was $232,000.