Injury database says synthetic tracks safer

[duncan04]

FRANKFORT, KY. — For the third straight year, thoroughbred racing on synthetic surfaces resulted in a lower fatality rate than dirt racing, according to statistics released Thursday .

The fatality rate on synthetic surfaces — like those at Turfway Park in Florence, Ky., Keeneland Race Course in Lexington and Churchill Downs Inc.’s Arlington Park near Chicago — was 1.09 per 1,000 starts last year, compared with a 2.07 per 1,000 starts on dirt.

The statistics were released by The Jockey Club for the Equine Injury Database it oversees. All Kentucky thoroughbred tracks are part of the database.

More at : http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120322/BUSINESS/303220076/1037/rsslink

[cj]

Still apples to oranges for the most part. For one, all the synthetic tracks were built from the ground up, meaning the bases were brand new. Second, the class of racing is higher in general than on dirt tracks.

Maybe they are safer, maybe not, but these generic studies that don't address obvious factors really don't mean much.

[Greyfox]

The fatality rate on synthetic surfaces — was 1.09 per 1,000 starts last year, compared with a 2.07 per 1,000 starts on dirt.



Independent of control issues, which may or may not factor in, that is an impressive statistic.

[5k-claim]

Still apples to oranges for the most part. For one, all the synthetic tracks were built from the ground up, meaning the bases were brand new. Second, the class of racing is higher in general than on dirt tracks.

Maybe they are safer, maybe not, but these generic studies that don't address obvious factors really don't mean much.I absolutely agree.

Although I would not expect to be blown away by the results, I would be very interested to see a report that made comparisons grouped by class level and distance.

A generic data pull like this does not really satisfy that curiosity.

.

[Tom]

Compare only to dirt tracks of comparable class and with relatively recent new cushions.

Breakdown rates at Penn cannot be compared to those at Keeneland.

[David-LV]

This issue again, we have discussed this subject ad nauseum. :bang::bang:

_________
David-LV

[Al Gobbi]

Of course there was going to be a significant separation. Santa Anita went back to dirt + breakdowns.

[Robert Goren]

There is only one thing that really matters here. Bettors are more likely to wager on a dirt track than a poly one. That is the bottom line.
Maybe if the dirt track sank as much into fixing their surface as the poly tracks did in putting the poly stuff they might not have had the more break downs. The way things are going in horse racing, I doubt we will ever see another new poly surface. They cost too much. Not a whole lot of money is being spent on track surfaces these days. Purses are where the money is going.

[FrankieFigs]

What I would like to see is the breakdowns on dirt 10, 15, even 20 years ago compared to today's numbers......

[Seabiscuit@AR]

This is not a contest. Dirt racing has more breakdowns than synthetic racing or turf racing on the flat

[classhandicapper]

Santa Anita is probably a good control case because it went back and forth and the quality of horses was probably reasonably stable.

[cj]

Santa Anita is probably a good control case because it went back and forth and the quality of horses was probably reasonably stable.

Hard to say, but the beginning was a disaster on both surfaces, and they went through two synthetic surfaces.

[nijinski]

Still seeing too many fatal breakdowns at Golden Gate , racing and trainng .

[FenceBored]

Hmm. The rates for FY2010-2011 racing in California are known items. They can be derived from the figures on page 24 of the pdf of the 2011 Annual Report (http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2011_annual_report.pdf) of the CHRB.

In the case of Santa Anita this covered just that first SA meet on the new dirt surface which everyone agreed was a mess.

Trk Main Turf
---------------
DMR 2.06 1.40
GGF 2.05 1.40
HOL 1.43 2.13
SA_ 3.73 4.22

For comparison, Los Al had a rate of 3.66 per 1000 (40/10928).

The 15,154 starts on the California synthetics had 28 fatalities for an overall rate of 1.85 per thousand starts. Granted, the figures from the EID are for Calendar years (not the FY like the CHRB report) making a comparison questionable, but it would seem that the 3 California synthetics are inflating the overall fatality rate for the 8 NA synthetic tracks. Eh, what?

[gm10]

We are going to see this headline for the next decade. Synthetic is a safer surface, for at least two reasons.
1) Most of them are simply more kind to the horse. 2) The nature of the surface is more conductive to late speed, so jockey's go slower (on average).

[Vengeance of Rain]

FRANKFORT, KY. — For the third straight year, thoroughbred racing on synthetic surfaces resulted in a lower fatality rate than dirt racing, according to statistics released Thursday .

The fatality rate on synthetic surfaces — like those at Turfway Park in Florence, Ky., Keeneland Race Course in Lexington and Churchill Downs Inc.’s Arlington Park near Chicago — was 1.09 per 1,000 starts last year, compared with a 2.07 per 1,000 starts on dirt.

The statistics were released by The Jockey Club for the Equine Injury Database it oversees. All Kentucky thoroughbred tracks are part of the database.

More at : http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120322/BUSINESS/303220076/1037/rsslink
I agree with CJ. Apples and oranges.

They really should change the wording in articles and press releases to state that it appears to have lowered the rate, etc.

I love the way it says all Kentucky tracks are part of the database.Look at how many aren't...
http://www.jockeyclub.com/initiatives.asp?section=2

[therussmeister]

I love the way it says all Kentucky tracks are part of the database.Look at how many aren't...
http://www.jockeyclub.com/initiatives.asp?section=2
I do believe, but I'm not certain, the link you provided names the tracks that have agreed to make their stats available to the public. Many other tracks, including all Kentucky tracks, make their stats available to the jockey club's database, but not for release to the public.

[Vengeance of Rain]

Aaah well then I totally got that wrong.

Carry on.

(I do think it's pretty meaningless though).

[CincyHorseplayer]

Shredded tires and charcoal dust from everybody's grill last summer.What a surface!

Everybody on here and I talk to in person loves horses.Every facet of them including their well being.I don't want to see any horse or anything on this earth down to a flower die,but 1 more horse out of a 1000 batch?That's the incontrovertible evidence for this trumped up,expensively maintained,and unfoundedly glorified surface?I can't help but think of the Josey Wales scene when the snake oil salesman is telling him about his magic elixir.Clint spits on his white suit and says "How is it on stains".

That line fits these BS stats.:cool:

[nearco]

Shredded tires and charcoal dust from everybody's grill last summer.What a surface!

Everybody on here and I talk to in person loves horses.Every facet of them including their well being.I don't want to see any horse or anything on this earth down to a flower die,but 1 more horse out of a 1000 batch?That's the incontrovertible evidence for this trumped up,expensively maintained,and unfoundedly glorified surface?I can't help but think of the Josey Wales scene when the snake oil salesman is telling him about his magic elixir.Clint spits on his white suit and says "How is it on stains".

That line fits these BS stats.:cool:

Number of starts per year in the USA is about 400,000
at a 1.09/1000 fatality rate, 436 horses will die over the course of a year.
at a 2.07/1000 fatality rate you can expect to see 828 dead horses a year give or take.
That looks like close to 400 less dead horses to me. But hey, what's one among a thousand?

I know it's a waste of time and you guys will fight this one to your dying days, but synth is safer. It ok to say you prefer dirt and still acknowledge that sytnth is safer.

[cj]

I know it's a waste of time and you guys will fight this one to your dying days, but synth is safer. It ok to say you prefer dirt and still acknowledge that sytnth is safer.

It isn't that cut and dry. If the same set of horses ran on both surfaces, I suspect the numbers would be a lot closer. I'm not saying synth tracks wouldn't be safer, they might still be, but no way it would be double.

[nearco]

It isn't that cut and dry. If the same set of horses ran on both surfaces, I suspect the numbers would be a lot closer. I'm not saying synth tracks wouldn't be safer, they might still be, but no way it would be double.

Maybe it's not half as safe, but it's still safer. You guys don't want it to be safer though. It doesn't fit into your world view. Like I said, it's ok to say you prefer dirt and still acknowledge that synth is safer.

[cj]

Maybe it's not half as safe, but it's still safer. You guys don't want it to be safer though. It doesn't fit into your world view. Like I said, it's ok to say you prefer dirt and still acknowledge that synth is safer.
What view? If you want to blindly followed flawed stats, be my guest. You admit it might be different, but think you know how much different. Come on...

[classhandicapper]

I still CA is the best test case even if they tinkered with SA multiple times.

HOL, DMR, and SA are all relatively new surfaces. Many of the same horses are shipping back and forth between the three tracks on an ongoing basis. Two are synthetic and one is dirt. If there's a statistically significant difference between dirt and synthetic at those three tracks, I think we'll either have our answer or at least be wise to not ignore the data.

We may even find that some synthetics safer than dirt and some are worse than dirt.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Maybe it's not half as safe, but it's still safer. You guys don't want it to be safer though. It doesn't fit into your world view. Like I said, it's ok to say you prefer dirt and still acknowledge that synth is safer.

Don't dictate what I believe to me.Just like the cherry picked stats,both are BS.

[Sysonby]

I think some people have made up their minds so it won't matter what the stats say, even though every single study says the same thing -- synthetics are safer. For some reason, Santa Anita dirt track has consistently been more dangerous for horses and that appears to still be true.

By the way, any studies done on handle indicate it goes up with synthetics, probably due to a larger number of entries in each race and possibly more races slotted.

[nijinski]

I think some people have made up their minds so it won't matter what the stats say, even though every single study says the same thing -- synthetics are safer. For some reason, Santa Anita dirt track has consistently been more dangerous for horses and that appears to still be true.

By the way, any studies done on handle indicate it goes up with synthetics, probably due to a larger number of entries in each race and possibly more races slotted.

Check on the Equus Memorial Wall . There are a significant number of fatal breakdowns that occurred training on the Golden Gate Tapeta . These are reported to them so there may be more .
There is no clear answer yet .

[FenceBored]

I think some people have made up their minds so it won't matter what the stats say, even though every single study says the same thing -- synthetics are safer. For some reason, Santa Anita dirt track has consistently been more dangerous for horses and that appears to still be true.

By the way, any studies done on handle indicate it goes up with synthetics, probably due to a larger number of entries in each race and possibly more races slotted.

Really? I know it was bad Spring 2011, but I honestly don't recall hearing as much from the Fall meet and this Spring's meet. Anybody got solid figures on the 'fixed' dirt at Santa Anita?

[lansdale]

I realize this isn't the 'Luck' thread, but this thread actually seems more relevant to the supposed issue which resulted in that series' demise.

Since the overall mortality rates for all surfaces here seem to be in the range of 1.5 to 2 per thousand, we're talking about approximately 600-800 horses a year that are killed for our entertainment. This is what PETA was objecting to. They would like to ban horseracing altogether, and simply used 'Luck' to hammer their point home.

I don't want rehash all the details of this story, but one point Michael Mann made clear was that the horses were not overworked or mistreated. The horses never ran more than a quarter mile at a time, and never more than two quarter miles within the course of a day. The fifty-odd horses ran a total of 2500 'starts' of this kind, which are obviously less demanding than full races. Of this sample, two horses died as a result of on-track injuries, and a third, as many know, by accident, in the paddock. So the on-track mortality rate would be roughly 1 in 1250 starts, lower than the U.S. mean, and obviously far lower than the mean for Santa Anita, where they were shooting. Therefore, despite the misfortune of these deaths, they were absolutely within, and even below, statistical norms.

Re synthetic vs. dirt tracks, it would stand to reason that any surface with more give would be less likely to lead to injury. The mortality rate for the grass racing of Europe and Australia is approximately 1:1000. It would be interesting to compare this stat with both turf, dirt, and synthetic mortality rates in the U.S.. I'm guessing that there should be a similarity between the performance of turf and synthetic in this area, since, as many have noted, these surfaces play similarly. I assume the huge hostility to the synthetic surface is due to the fact that many handicappers have a more difficult time winning on it. This is exactly why I've always preferred it. So not only would I like to see the synthetic surface everywhere for the benefit of horses, but also, myself.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Greyfox]

There may be less visible injuries and deaths but that poly dust kicked up today at Turfway makes me wonder about breathing ailments in the long run.

[David-LV]

There may be less visible injuries and deaths but that poly dust kicked up today at Turfway makes me wonder about breathing ailments in the long run.

The only question is when, not if we will hear of the first case of mesothelioma from breathing in that crap that they call polytrack.
Racing today at Turfway looked like they were racing in a sand storm in the Sahara desert.

_______
David-LV

[5k-claim]

I realize this isn't the 'Luck' thread, but this thread actually seems more relevant to the supposed issue which resulted in that series' demise.

.... The horses never ran more than a quarter mile at a time, and never more than two quarter miles within the course of a day. The fifty-odd horses ran a total of 2500 'starts' of this kind, which are obviously less demanding than full races.

Of this sample, two horses died as a result of on-track injuries, and a third, as many know, by accident, in the paddock. So the on-track mortality rate would be roughly 1 in 1250 starts, lower than the U.S. mean, and obviously far lower than the mean for Santa Anita, where they were shooting. Therefore, despite the misfortune of these deaths, they were absolutely within, and even below, statistical norms.

....Cheers, lansdaleAre you sure the "statistical norms" to compare to shouldn't be those of other movie productions instead of actual horse races? Especially since their work schedule was "obviously less demanding than full races"? To me, that kind of makes the deaths look worse, not better.

Plus, comparing the group of horses that were specifically selected for use in the series to the general population of racing thoroughbreds is a problem in itself, right?

There are both people and horses in Hollywood that are experienced and trained in film production. I don't know how expensive they are, though.

.

[Greyfox]

The only question is when, not if we will hear of the first case of mesothelioma from breathing in that crap that they call polytrack.
Racing today at Turfway looked like they were racing in a sand storm in the Sahara desert.

_______
David-LV

:ThmbUp: That's how I saw it too.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The only question is when, not if we will hear of the first case of mesothelioma from breathing in that crap that they call polytrack.
Racing today at Turfway looked like they were racing in a sand storm in the Sahara desert.

_______
David-LV

I always thought it looked like they collected the ash contents from every grill in Kentucky at the end of last summer!

[VastinMT]

Since the overall mortality rates for all surfaces here seem to be in the range of 1.5 to 2 per thousand, we're talking about approximately 600-800 horses a year that are killed for our entertainment. This is what PETA was objecting to. They would like to ban horseracing altogether, and simply used 'Luck' to hammer their point home.

I don't want rehash all the details of this story, but one point Michael Mann made clear was that the horses were not overworked or mistreated. The horses never ran more than a quarter mile at a time, and never more than two quarter miles within the course of a day. The fifty-odd horses ran a total of 2500 'starts' of this kind, which are obviously less demanding than full races. Of this sample, two horses died as a result of on-track injuries, and a third, as many know, by accident, in the paddock. So the on-track mortality rate would be roughly 1 in 1250 starts, lower than the U.S. mean, and obviously far lower than the mean for Santa Anita, where they were shooting. Therefore, despite the misfortune of these deaths, they were absolutely within, and even below, statistical norms.

This assumes that the start, and not the finish (when horses are tiring and being whipped) or the distance of the race is the greatest factor in racehorse fatality. I'm not a PETA troll -- I honestly don't know. Is this true?

Re synthetic vs. dirt tracks, it would stand to reason that any surface with more give would be less likely to lead to injury. The mortality rate for the grass racing of Europe and Australia is approximately 1:1000. It would be interesting to compare this stat with both turf, dirt, and synthetic mortality rates in the U.S.. I'm guessing that there should be a similarity between the performance of turf and synthetic in this area, since, as many have noted, these surfaces play similarly.

I assume the managers of this statistics-soaked sport would be interested in knowing (if they don't already know) how much it would cost to reduce horse fatalities. I'd calculate it this way (assuming poly is safer and more expensive than dirt):

(Poly track annual amortization and maintenance MINUS Dirt track annual amortization and maintenance)
DIVIDED BY
(Deaths on dirt MINUS Deaths on poly)

This gives you the amount of money retained by a track's management for each death of a racehorse that could have been "prevented" in the long run through installation of the safer surface. It is the "per dead racehorse" cost of installing and maintaining a safer racing surface.

I can't believe that insurance firms that insure racehorses (they are insurable, aren't they?) don't know what this amount is. Wouldn't everyone involved in this business want to see that figure? As a racing fan, I'd like to know what it is, but I can understand why any figure like this, if not explained properly, would be used as ammunition by opponents of racing to shut down tracks.

Still, I'd like to see a more "apples to apples" comparison than this latest report makes.

I like betting on the horses, and I understand that some animals will die for my entertainment. I'd like as few racehorses to die this way as possible, but I know that some, regardless of precautions (and the last Luck fatality illustrates this), will die.

[Sysonby]

The Jockey Club has some statistically significant data now. I believe at least 25 tracks are participating from different parts of the country. It would be good, as Nijinski pointed out, if they included catastrophic injuries that occurred in training.