synthetic racing | Horse Racing Free Tips

‘It is Incumbent on Our Racetracks to Provide Leadership in the Face of the Current Crisis.’ Letter to the Editor: Gavin Murphy

I wanted to add my voice to the growing chorus, led most recently by Amanda Luby and Lucas Marquardt, bringing attention to the existential crisis we face unless we make immediate and critical reforms to the way horse racing is conducted in this country. In the absence of any national body able or prepared to mandate change, it is incumbent on the racetracks themselves to undertake the requisite reforms. Those reforms need to address the interconnectedness between racetrack surfaces and the equine musculoskeletal system.

Our access to technology and data allows us to understand now more than at any time in our history the causes of catastrophic breakdowns and how to dramatically mitigate them. That is the good news. The bad news (which is incomprehensible to anyone outside our industry) is our continued failure to use that information to inform the way we build and maintain racetracks, and, with the notable exception of Santa Anita, employ available diagnostic tools to monitor in real time the ongoing physical health of our equine athletes.

So far as racetrack surfaces are concerned, there is no disputing the substantial safety advantage synthetic holds over conventional dirt. There is also growing awareness as to why this is, namely the greater loading on a horse's legs when racing on dirt, particularly the ankles and associated structures, which are especially vulnerable to breakdowns. Unless dirt tracks can be built to provide the same level of safety for horses as synthetic tracks, I find myself with those advocating for the wholesale transition from dirt to synthetic. And I do this as someone whose business is built nearly entirely around dirt racing.

I have heard suggestions that dirt tracks can be constructed in a way that makes them considerably safer than they presently are, presumably by reducing limb loading rates to a level comparable to those on synthetic tracks. People making this argument typically point to the surfaces in Dubai and Saudi Arabia as examples of safe dirt surfaces. In the same vein, there are those who advocate for a hybrid surface that combines synthetic components with conventional dirt to improve safety. It is tempting to believe one or both of these arguments (and the Middle Eastern tracks receive positive anecdotal reports) but I am not personally aware of data or scientific learning that supports either.

And this of course begs the question: If we can build better and safer dirt surfaces, either with or without synthetic components, why aren't we? One would hope that each track would have an army of highly credentialled ground engineers (including as part of the track maintenance crew) to design, build and maintain racing surfaces, using cutting edge technology and equipment to make real time adjustments in response to such factors as weather, wind and usage. If this isn't how it works, shouldn't it? And if it does work this way, then we need to concede it's not working well enough and embrace change.

The other related reform that needs to occur is the widescale embrace of diagnostic equipment to identify musculoskeletal responses to racing and training. We know that most catastrophic injuries occur at a site that is already compromised. Fortunately, the last few years have seen the commercial development of equine standing PET and MRI machines, both of which are installed at Santa Anita. Access to these machines allows trainers and veterinarians to identify developing issues and treat them appropriately and have undoubtedly contributed to the decline in fatalities there. Such equipment should be installed and used routinely at every major racetrack in North America.

We are all aware that our industry has been in decline by nearly every metric for many years, fueled largely by a chronic inability to appeal to a larger audience. We can all debate the structural issues in our industry that have led to this decline but unfortunately, given the persistent and highly public catastrophic breakdowns this year, we are now further away than ever from reaching that audience. (It is absolutely no defence to this audience to say that overall fatalities are in line with prior years, and nor should it be.) The reality is this; whether or not it should be this way, it is incumbent on our racetracks to provide leadership in the face of the current crisis.

To end on a somewhat hopeful note–we have seen the impact of transformational change in another inherently dangerous sport. The tragic death of Ayrton Senna in Formula 1 was the impetus for an unprecedented investment in safety (involving both racetracks and cars) that has made subsequent fatalities exceptionally rare. Racetracks that failed to make the necessary improvements were removed from the circuit. The return on this investment is clear–Formula 1's mainstream popularity provides a direct counterpart to the sad state of our industry today. Our racetrack executives should be inspired by Formula 1's results to make the same commitment to, and investment in, safety. Belmont Park's planned renovations would be an ideal place to start, building a significantly safer main track (synthetic if necessary) and acquiring best in class diagnostic equipment for regular use in racehorse care. Failure to do so will only accelerate our decline.

Gavin Murphy

SF Bloodstock LLC

The post ‘It is Incumbent on Our Racetracks to Provide Leadership in the Face of the Current Crisis.’ Letter to the Editor: Gavin Murphy appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Armen Antonian

The “Quick Fix” of Synthetics is Not the Answer

Horse racing has been down the path of synthetics before at Santa Anita, Del Mar, Keeneland, etc. Much time was lost, approximately a decade ago, with a focus on changing surfaces as a panacea for horse racing breakdowns. We now know there are other causes for horse breakdowns that are more prevailing. The greatest single cause of racing deaths has to do with pre-existing conditions of the horse, and only in particular instances is the surface itself the primary reason for horses breaking down while racing. Synthetics have found a role to play in the Industry but racing on synthetics exclusively means to change the sport itself in a fundamental way: from breeding, to handicapping, to the aesthetic beauty of competition–the reasons we are all fans of horse racing. And, changing to synthetics will not appease the critics if that is the motivation to do so.

But statistics show that horse racing deaths are less on synthetics than either dirt or turf. Surely safety must be the main focus with racing today. Yes, safety must be a central focus but there has to be some perspective. Horses also die in nature. The thoroughbred industry cannot be expected to prevent ALL deaths of horses and a comparison must be made as to how often and how horses die in nature to reach a fair, concise view of horse racing. Such a comparison, of course, is extremely conjectural. There are no thoroughbreds in nature and not many other horse breeds in nature today at all. Experts from many areas would have to weigh in on such a comparison.

In other words, the approach to the issue of horse racing deaths in general, that is, how the question is posed, is false. So too is the case for synthetics falsely stated. Are we to believe that horses somehow have more trouble competing on dirt and turf than fabricated material? Biology and evolution would initially say otherwise. Similarly, are we to suppose that the breeding of thoroughbred horses is inherently producing unsound animals? Again, general evolutionary changes of such a magnitude would take time. To make such an argument, geneticists would have to be consulted to ascertain that thoroughbred breeding practices are actually producing inherently unsound horses. But first things first. Looking mainly into the track surface and or scrutinizing breeding operations are not the places to begin when investigating horse racing breakdowns.

Back to the statistics. Statistics don't lie. More horses break down on dirt or turf than synthetics per Jockey Club figures. But statistics don't always give answers either. Indeed, the overall sample size in the Jockey Club figures in the aggregate is large but the fact that the number of dirt races were about 7 times more than synthetic races is a cause for pause in a comparison. Sample sizes are usually uniform in the scientific method. And when looking at individual tracks per year, the sample size is quite small when considering dirt races only. A track can thus vary markedly from year to year in horse fatalities as the Jockey Club statistics indicate.

And the sample has to be RANDOM. Horses that are selected to compete on synthetics are not randomly chosen. That is, the two populations: horses that run on dirt and horses that run on synthetic are not uniform. So the synthetic numbers for horse fatalities that are generally lower than for dirt fatalities may or may not be because of the surface. The fact that both are samples of thoroughbreds is not rigorous enough to make a valid comparison. The sample population has to be random. A random sample also compensates for genetic variation in a species. The best argument for synthetics in terms of the data comes from Gulfstream Park in 2022. At Gulfstream, there were about 7000 starts on synthetic with one fatality whereas there were about 6000 starts with 8 fatalities on dirt. At least the number of starts were comparable at the same track for each surface but again, horses were selected by trainers for various reasons to race on synthetic rather than dirt. Better comparison of the two surfaces–but still not a random sample of the horse population at Gulfstream and one year is not nearly enough to draw any serious conclusions.

Action at Gulfstream Park in Hallandale Beach, Florida | Bill Denver/EQUI-PHOTO

Any glance at aggregate statistics for analysis would have to consider figures after 2019 after the implementation of new safety protocol stemming from the racing deaths at Santa Anita that year. But even here, with a seemingly logical approach to the data on racing breakdowns, a comparison is problematic. There are inexplicably low dirt rates of fatalities (say below 1 per 1000) before 2019 with dirt racing at various tracks that, in other years, had higher rates of about 2 per 1000. Such variability calls into question any definitive conclusion about track by track breakdowns relating to surface only.

What we do know is that Del Mar, Santa Anita and Keeneland have had remarkably low rates of fatality on dirt the last 2-3 years. For example, Keeneland had 3 deaths from 2020 to 2022 in almost 5000 starts or about 0.6 per 1000. Del Mar had none from 2021 to 2022 with almost 4000 starts. Such figures compare favorably with the lowest synthetic figures. Given these Keeneland and Del Mar figures it is a stretch to say that dirt racing is inherently or significantly more dangerous than synthetic racing. The question does remain: are these rates extendable over time? If the safety reforms in horse racing continue and are enhanced, the chances are they can be.

What we can say with some assurance is that all horse racing death rates are going down from year to year. The average rate of horse death for 2022, in an industry where safety reforms have not been sufficiently generalized, was 1.25 deaths per thousand. Still, it is too early to draw conclusions about horse racing deaths (especially in the wake of the recent spate of breakdowns at Churchill) until the new protocol is agreed to and generalized throughout the industry and a number of years with such protocol in place has passed. The hard work of putting in the safety measures is just beginning.

Horses run slower on synthetics than dirt. Is running fast then a problem? There are many misconceptions here. The issue is not speed but how often a horse is asked to race at high speed. Here the veterinarians can chime in to assist trainers with their training and racing schedules. A dialogue should ensue on best practices. A horse can race more often if it is running easily. A horse in a grade I race cannot race as often as winning at that level usually requires maximum effort. So comparisons by racing fans of one horse's schedule to another are not valid. Each horse is different both in terms of circumstance and genetic variation and trainers must be more in tune with their vets moving forward not just on a horse's ailments and therapeutic medication but on their racing schedule itself.

–Armen Antonian Ph.D

The post Letter to the Editor: Armen Antonian appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Bill Casner

Editor's note: Bill Casner, a long-time participant in many facets of racing, is probably best known for founding WinStar Farm with Kenny Troutt and winning the 2010 GI Kentucky Derby with Super Saver. Among Casner's many roles in the sport have been founding director of the Race for Education and Kentucky Equine Education Program (KEEP). He has sold his interest in WinStar to Troutt and currently operates as Casner Racing.

Horse racing is in a firestorm. We are at survival tipping point. The decisions that are made in the short term will determine whether horseracing can endure as we know it. The American public has no tolerance for what they perceive as a sport that is immersed in carnage. I commend Churchill Downs for suspending racing to take a hard look at their future and to explore solutions that will be significant in mitigating breakdowns and restoring confidence to our fans.

The one decision that would be a major game changer is to convert the racing surface at Churchill Downs to synthetic. In the released 2022 The Jockey Club (TJC) Equine Injury Database (EID) for the year 2021, injuries on dirt were 1.44 per 1,000 horse starts. Turf injuries were 0.99 per 1,000. Injuries on synthetic were vastly diminished with 0.41 per 1,000. This data shows that synthetic surfaces are 3.5 times safer than dirt and 2.2 times safer than turf. These stats are compelling in showing the exponential safety of today's synthetic surfaces over dirt and turf.

The data is compelling but it doesn't tell “WHY” synthetic tracks are safer. Back in 2006, I chaired the shoeing committee for TJC Welfare and Safety Summit. We were tasked to examine the safety of toe grabs which Dr. Sue Stover at UC Davis had shown to significantly contribute to breakdowns. We employed sophisticated high-speed cameras with a closed group of nine horses provided by Chris McCarron's jockey school to understand why toe grabs were contributing to breakdowns. We filmed the hoof's contact with the racing surface using a variety of shoes with varying toe grab lengths on both dirt surfaces and Keeneland's synthetic track.

The results were dramatic. What we learned was the effect of “slide” on the lower limb of the horse. With Queen's Plates, the front foot has an average slide on dirt of 3 1/2 to 5 inches. The average slide on synthetic was 1 1/2 inches. Slide is important to understand. It's the “give” in a horse's stride. The increased length of slide on dirt causes two things to happen. First, it magnifies torque on a horse's lower limb. If a horse “toes in” the limb incurs torque medially because of the increased forces on the outside of the hoof. If they toe out, then the torque is lateral with the increased forces on the inside of the foot. And when horses step in holes on a dirt track, the torque can go either way. This doesn't happen on synthetic tracks because of the shorter slide which greatly diminishes torque. Also, a horse's foot is always landing flat on a synthetic surface as opposed to the cuppy holes that cover a dirt track. Synthetic also provides a much higher energy absorption than dirt with a higher energy return.

The second important factor that we were able to measure was the magnified load on the pastern that was presented on dirt. Because of the exaggerated slide and delayed break over on dirt, the pastern continues to load through the stride, increasing its drop by as much as an inch over synthetic. We were also able to see this increased load when horses landed in the “holes” created on dirt tracks.

As you can visualize, the increased load or drop of the pastern creates excessive strains on the suspensory apparatus of the horse's lower limbs magnifying the opportunity for a catastrophic failure. When a horse blows out its suspensory apparatus in a race it leads to a broken leg in the next few strides.

Suspensory and tendon injuries are extremely rare on synthetic but occur way more frequently on dirt because of these magnified strains.

The videos also exposed how lethal toe grabs were on all surfaces. They were especially detrimental on synthetic because they abruptly stopped the foot not allowing any slide. This is why trainers were experiencing rear-end injuries early on because they were continuing to use toe grabs on the rear feet.

Sarah Andrew

Catastrophic break downs are rarely caused by one bad step although this is more likely on dirt. As most orthopedic surgeons will testify, they are the result of cumulative microscopic injuries that accrue with the thousands of steps a horse accumulates in training and racing. It's the laws of physics. Excessive torque and loads on a horse's legs will eventually take its toll. With a synthetic surface these strains are greatly diminished and a horse's natural ability to remodel its bone will repair and strengthen it at a cellular level.

We not only have the irrefutable data over hundreds of thousands of horse starts on synthetic but we have the notable success of several major tracks that have employed them.

The first is Keeneland. The last meet they ran on synthetic in 2014 was the most successful meet in Keeneland's history at that point. All-time attendance and handle records were set. There were record field sizes, minimal scratches with inclement weather when races were taken off turf. And most importantly, there were zero breakdowns!

The second is Santa Anita. The last meet run at Santa Anita in 2009 had an injury rate of 0.57 per 1,000 horse starts compared to their pre-synthetic era on dirt of 2.78 per 1,000. That computes to a 4.8 times higher safety record. This is in spite of a poor-quality installation that would not properly drain, eventually having a subsurface membrane failure allowing aggregate to float to the surface.

Here are some compelling stats from three tracks currently running on synthetic surfaces: Golden Gate, Presque Isle, and Gulfstream.

Golden Gate had an injury rate of .38 per 1,000 with 12,986 horse starts in 2021 and 2022 on their Tapeta surfaces.

Presque Isle race meets in 2021/2022 had 0.24 injuries per 1,000 with 8,178 horse starts.

Gulfstream with its newly installed Tapeta track had the best record of all with only one injury out of 7,085 horse starts with 0.14/1,000. This translates to a 9.7 times safer surface than their dirt track.

Belmont has recognized the advantages of having a synthetic surface with its scheduled completion in the spring of 2024.

Injuries on a national basis have dropped significantly at certain tracks since the implementation of intensified pre-race veterinary examinations of our horses and have the promise of continuing to diminish injuries with mandated requirements by HISA. This high-level scrutiny of starters combined with the safest possible racing surface will dramatically reduce injuries and show the world that we care.

Horseracing is a sport with a rich history of tradition. The thought of changing the racing surface of the Kentucky Derby to a synthetic surface will not appeal to those that value tradition above the safety of our horses and the survival of our beautiful sport. If we do not take drastic proven steps to significantly eliminate breakdowns we are destined for the fate of Greyhound racing.

Today's public has no stomach or tolerance for what they perceive as abuse of our horses. The “writing is on the wall” or in our case the New York Times, CNN and the 6 o'clock news. We either embrace innovative change supported by the data to maximize safety for our horses and riders or we are destined to experience a slow painful death.

The post Letter to the Editor: Bill Casner appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Week In Review: Earle Mack Has The Answer, And We Must Listen To Him

Earle Mack is right. This industry, which is mired in a crisis, can no longer afford to ignore the most obvious solution to its problems, which are synthetic tracks.

Mack wrote just that in an Op/Ed that appeared in this publication last week. If you haven't read it yet, please do so now. It is powerful, articulate and well-reasoned and was written by someone whose credentials demand that we respect his opinion. He is a horse owner, a breeder, a former U.S. Ambassador to Finland and a smart and successful businessman who clearly loves this sport and does not want it to be pushed to the edge of extinction. It may be the most important story you will read all year.

“The responsibility lies with horse racing's governing bodies, influential race track directors, and all key stakeholders to rally behind a transition to synthetic tracks,” he wrote. “Their public endorsement and commitment to safer racing conditions would signal the beginning of the transformative change our industry desperately needs.”

The 12 deaths at Churchill Downs have created a dangerous firestorm unlike anything racing has ever encountered. We only thought the problems at Santa Anita in 2019 were bad. That was an ugly story but it was largely a California story that didn't resonate with the national media. This time, we are talking about the most famous track in the country, the GI Kentucky Derby and two deaths on the Derby undercard.

This is a story that has been widely covered by every major media outlet in the country and has led to a public debate: is our sport inhumane?

How do we answer that? The public no longer wants to hear about how loved these horses are by their owners, trainers, and grooms or that they are pampered and get the very best care possible and that they were born to run. What they want is for the deaths to greatly decrease if not stop all together.

To their credit, Churchill Downs, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) and the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission have stepped up and announced that changes are being made. Theirs is a genuine and concerted effort to do the right thing and to get to the bottom of what has been going on at Churchill. Moving the remainder of the Churchill meet to Ellis Park was a drastic step. Considering the widespread opinion that there is nothing wrong with the Churchill track surface, you can argue that it was overkill, but shutting Churchill down was a victory in the public relations battle, and that matters. The days when the sport shrugged this off and we were told “it's part of the game” are, thankfully, over.

But it's not enough. This sport must do absolutely everything it can to alleviate the problem. And it's not. And it won't until synthetic tracks replace dirt tracks throughout the sport.

Yes, deaths happen on synthetic surfaces, too. But they are much safer than dirt tracks. According to the Jockey Club's Equine Injury Database, there were 1.44 deaths per 1,000 starters in dirt races in the U.S. in 2022. On synthetic tracks, the number was 0.41. That means a horse is 3 1/2 times more likely to die in a dirt race that in a synthetic surface race. Dirt tracks are the most dangerous tracks we have and yet they remain the sport's core product.

Noting those figures, Mack wrote, “…the stark and troubling statistics demand a shift in thinking. We must abandon old norms and embrace new practices that prioritize the safety and welfare of our noble equine athletes. The benefits of synthetic tracks are not mere conjecture; they are a proven truth.”

Yet synthetic surface races remain a minor part of racing and Keeneland, Santa Anita and Del Mar gave up on them too quickly, going back to dirt after a short period of time when they were in place at all three tracks.

Mack calls on Churchill Downs to lead the way. Not only does this story center around deaths at that track but the company owns the sport's most important asset, the Kentucky Derby. Mack reasons that if Churchill takes the lead and converts to a synthetic surface, that will create the much-needed domino effect. How about we go a few steps further? The three Triple Crown tracks should make a joint announcement that going forward the Derby, the GI Preakness S. and the GI Belmont S. will be contested on synthetic tracks starting next year. The Breeders' Cup should announce that starting with the 2025 Breeders' Cup only racetracks that have synthetic tracks will be considered as host sites.

It is understood that this would cause a huge change in the economics of the breeding industry, which is a powerful and influential component. There are stallions out there that are worth tens of millions of dollars and that is because they produce top quality dirt horses–ones capable of winning races like the Derby and the GI Breeders' Cup Classic. Should that strength be taken away by ending dirt racing, their value could be greatly compromised. That will never be an easy thing for the top stud farms to accept. But they can adjust. It will take time, but a new set of stallions capable of producing horses that win at the highest levels on synthetic tracks and, for that matter, turf courses, will take over.

And the farms, like every other section of the sport, need to look at what the alternative is.

“If we fail to take decisive action, the Triple Crown and horse racing itself may soon be mourned as relics of the past.,” Mack wrote. “Animal rights groups, emboldened by each equine death, are gaining traction in their campaign against horse racing. The calls to ban or severely restrict the sport grow louder with each life lost. We cannot afford to lose this race for the soul and survival of our sport.”

Is the sport sure to continue? For maybe the first time in its proud history, we really don't know the answer. Where will racing be in, say, 25 years? Will it have gone the way of dog racing? It won't if we do the right things now, before it is too late. The sport must become safer and that must happen now. The best way to do that is to end dirt racing.

The post The Week In Review: Earle Mack Has The Answer, And We Must Listen To Him appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post