Study challenges injury claims

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/93048.html

Data collected over the last six months of 2007 through a uniform injury reporting system has not shown any significant difference in the rates of fatal injuries sustained by horses running on synthetic or dirt surfaces, according to the veterinarian who has compiled the reports.

Scollay said she was “floored” by the similarity between the numbers of fatalities on dirt and synthetic surfaces.

...the data showed 244 fatalities from 123,890 starters on dirt, for a ratio of 1.96 fatalities per 1,000 starts. For synthetic surfaces the ratio was 1.95, with 58 fatalities from 29,744 starts.

[Cangamble]

Fatality rates are similar, but what about starts per horse and other injuries?

[Bobzilla]

Interesting article. In fairness to both sides of this issue, I'm not sure if any firm conclusions can be drawn from the data collected to date. Results of any study, IMO, would be more scientifically convincing if, at the very least, two things happened, which aren't about to happen. But they would be:A) All trainers would use the same standard of race readiness/soundness used for a dirt event also for a synthetic event. Though I suspect it's been overstated to some degree, I believe it's probably true that some synthetic fatalities have occured because the trainers felt they could push the envelope on a synthetic surface by risking an unsound animal on that surface. And B) And this one is obviously very unrealistic, but all tracks both dirt and AWS before any collection of data would have reconstructed their base layer. Inconsistent base layers are a huge contributing factor to problems in the cushion, especially in regard to the drainage of water. A lab study contolling those two variables over 5 to 10 years could probably yield results that could be convincingly argued scientifically.

The article mentions Dr. Michael "Mick" Peterson of the University of Maine. He's become the leading authority to date on race track safety. I suspect from his writings his preference would be for all major thoroughbred tracks to be converted to AWS. But in realizing that smaller tracks, fair circuit tracks, and Quarter Horse tracks will not be switching over, he dedicates much of his work to making traditional dirt tracks safer as well. He's been quoted as saying dirt tracks can be made "nearly as safe as synthetic tracks". He actually believes it's doable. If that's the case, then the fundamental alteration to North American main track racing that synthetic conversions represent seems like a somewhat high price to pay when considering the loss of TRUE HISTORICAL CONTEXT needed for comparing horses over the generations and the major races they participated in (e.g. KY DERBY). I'll say it again, conversions to AWS tracks have more to do about the internationalization of the sport and the long term economies hoped to be gained from it, than it ever had to do with equine safety. I believe this is why the Breeders' Cup decision to hastily anounce SA as the 2009 host just a week in advance of the NY racing resolution was anounced took place.

[alysheba88]

There was no study about any of this before the switch to these surfaces. Thats the problem. Was marketed as panacea and they got a bunch of hysterical writers from the DRF and other media to shill for them

[Bobzilla]

Maybe that's true with some of the DRF writers, though I havn't sensed it from all. I believe Steve Crist has been quite open minded and fair on the topic himself. TVG on the other hand...... Carothers initially voced concerns, but the did a quick 180 and almost apologized one day on Blinkers Off for ever having doubted the vitues of AWS surface. He must have been pulled to the side and spoken to. Have no idea about HRTV and if there are allowed to be dissenting views.

[Bobzilla]

TVG is close with Keeneland, so maybe that's why there is a stationwide push for AWS.

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by Bobzilla

Maybe that's true with some of the DRF writers, though I havn't sensed it from all. I believe Steve Crist has been quite open minded and fair on the topic himself. TVG on the other hand...... Carothers initially voced concerns, but the did a quick 180 and almost apologized one day on Blinkers Off for ever having doubted the vitues of AWS surface. He must have been pulled to the side and spoken to. Have no idea about HRTV and if there are allowed to be dissenting views.

West Coast writers- should have beem more specific

[eclecticapper]

A different article with a quote from Mary Scollay quite different from the DRF article:

http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=11508

[john del riccio]

I think an interesting comparison would be the vet bills on dirt vs poly.

John

[BillW]

All through this argument, one thing I've been concerned about:

In addition to concerns over the size of the statistical sample, Scollay also cited “anecdotal” evidence that trainers were sending unsound horses to run over synthetic surfaces because of a belief that the surfaces are a “vaccine” to injury.

It's something that's not too hard to believe.

[Bruddah]

that artifical surfaces would end in the same result as artificial surfaces in football. There was a rush to install and it took 25 years of athletes being hurt and endangered, before it was admitted articial surfaces were actually were more harmful than any benefits gained. Same outcome will be realized in Horse racing. Millions will have been wasted and the athletes will again have been used as guiena pigs. All the while the "Fat Cats" get fatter. History does repeat itself and will again in this matter. Mean while, the Racing Industry will continue to twist in the wind and loose the fan base.

[alysheba88]

Another depressing article. The dolts out in Cali are killing me

http://www.kentucky.com/302/story/349853.html

[Marshall Bennett]

The horse players have been damaged the most , the most important factor .

[Shenanigans]

The whole "vaccine to injury" theory is exactly why these synthectic surfaces aren't holding up to lower breakdown rates. Too many trainers are sending unsound horses out on this stuff where were it a dirt surface they would probably shelve the horse. Too many think the already sore horse will hold up on the surface and that's not the case. What the artificial surface may have done is keep a sound horse sound longer. Maybe allowing a trainer to train a little harder than what they would on a dirt surface. But no where was it advertised as an end to all breakdowns. Trainers break horses down, not racing surfaces.

[Niko]

Originally Posted by Shenanigans

The whole "vaccine to injury" theory is exactly why these synthectic surfaces aren't holding up to lower breakdown rates. Too many trainers are sending unsound horses out on this stuff where were it a dirt surface they would probably shelve the horse. Too many think the already sore horse will hold up on the surface and that's not the case. What the artificial surface may have done is keep a sound horse sound longer. Maybe allowing a trainer to train a little harder than what they would on a dirt surface. But no where was it advertised as an end to all breakdowns. Trainers break horses down, not racing surfaces.

I agree. Until the worst pain medications are illegal (or caught with testing) and the poor trainers learn when to give a horse a rest we'll still have breakdowns.

They always quote average starters per race. I've always wondered about average starters at the main tracks when you take out the maiden races. The maiden races always inflate the statistics.