Second Stab At Synthetics In California? The Trainers’ View

Under the toughest of spotlights, the industry's collective eyes often turn to the stuff under foot. At least, that's what trainer Mark Casse did in a widely-shared TDN Q&A.

“I think we really, seriously, need to look at more synthetic tracks,” Casse said, triggering yet another cavalcade of commentary on the conceived benefits and blights of synthetic surfaces. “I believe in them. I believe they've got plenty of data to back that up.”

Former TDN writer Lucas Marquardt followed it up with an analysis of race-day fatality data through The Jockey Club's Equine Injury database.

Marquardt calculated how from 2009 through 2022, there were 6,036 fatal injuries from 3,242,505 starts on dirt in North America. That's a rate of 1.86 fatalities per 1000 starts.

On synthetics, there were 534 fatal injuries from 482,169 starts, a rate of 1.11. That's a 68% difference.

“Put another way, had dirt tracks matched the safety of synthetic tracks during that stretch, there would have been 2,437 fewer fatalities,” Marquardt wrote.

The state with arguably the deepest-albeit most contentious-relationship with synthetic surfaces is California, which mandated in 2006 the switch from dirt to synthetic surfaces at its four major tracks.

The state reversed course a few years later in the face of broad dissatisfaction with the decision. It's no easy story to tell, riven by tales of cost-cutting and skirted corners, ill-chosen materials and drainage problems.

Some point the finger, at least in part, at the failure of industry leaders to adequately study the efficacy of different materials before putting the new surfaces down.

Since then, California's relationship with synthetic surfaces has grown even more complicated, thanks to Del Mar's dirt track consistently proving among the most statistically safe nationwide-dirt or synthetic. Nevertheless, Del Mar's experiences haven't been replicated state-wide.

In 2021, California's fatality rate on the dirt (1.51) was more than twice the synthetic rate (0.73), according to Marquardt's calculations. In 2022, it was more than three times larger (1.44 vs. 0.41).

This issue promises to remain a prominent one for the near future. The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority recently announced that it is establishing a blue-ribbon committee to “work toward the study and ultimate introduction of more synthetic surface options in Thoroughbred racing.”

Among a fleet of promises, The Stronach Group (TSG) announced that it intends to replace the dirt training track at Santa Anita with a synthetic alternative.

Given the state's flip-flopping history with different surfaces, the TDN asked several long-time California-based trainers this question: Given the re-ignited debate on synthetics and all its accompanying arguments, should California mandate once again the replacement of its dirt surfaces with synthetics?

Eoin Harty
“Of course. I don't think they should even have to mandate it. I should think that somebody should show some f*&^ing leadership for a change and do the right thing. Instead of looking down, looking up, looking sideways and dancing around the issue, we need to address the elephant in the room: That we're in a position basically brought on by ourselves.”

“I think the time for hand-wringing and regurgitating old cliches about needing more data, more science, blah, blah, blah-that time has come and gone. No more committees, just do the right thing and put down synthetics. It's time to get on the right side of history. There won't be a Mulligan on this one.”

Note: Harty later explained the curse reflected the gravity of the situation.

John Shirreffs
“I like to tell the story of Tiago, who had won the Santa Anita Derby. In his four-year-old year at Del Mar, I had his exercise rider work him a half [mile]. He breaks off the half mile pole, the horse goes a 16th of a mile and pulls himself up, doesn't want to work.”

Trainer John Shirreffs | Benoit

“I tell the rider, 'don't worry, Mike Smith will be here tomorrow. He gets along with him really well.' Break Tiago off again, goes about a 16th of a mile, pulls himself up and refused to work on that synthetic track.”

“After Zenyatta won the G1 Clement Hearst S., she refused to gallop around the [Del Mar] racetrack. She'd go about two thirds of the way around then just stop and refuse to go. The only thing we could do is walk her to the nearest gap and take her off the track.”

“Zenyatta and Tiago were both big, strong horses that really ran hard. Those type of horses really did not like synthetic tracks. I think that if you just look at how long it takes horses to adjust to the synthetic tracks when they first go in, all you do is find horseshoes on the outside of the track because they're all grabbing themselves. Their feet stop so quickly in it. Synthetic tracks only get bearable as they get older. When they first go in, they're really sticky and tough on horses.”

“As you've seen in the statistics in California, our breakdowns are really reduced. So, I don't think synthetics are the answer. Synthetics are a nice alternative. I mean, it'd be great to have a synthetic track here on the training track because you can't use the main track when it's wet. So, maybe they'd let us use a synthetic track when it was wet.”

Richard Mandella
“I think Santa Anita has the right idea to put it on the training track here to learn more about it, and hopefully it will be waterproof to train through the winter. I would take one step at a time.”

Leonard Powell
“I think the option of having a synthetic track to train on is very good. But to mandate to have all racing on synthetic, I don't think that's a necessity.”

“The notion of a bad step has been proven incorrect. We've found out through a lot of studies, when it comes to injuries, it's not a one-day, one-time thing. It's an accumulation of the pounding from the training, day-in, day-out. So, having the option to have a synthetic to train on would help that, and would lessen the number of catastrophic injuries on dirt on race-day. And it could be very useful on rainy days.”

“However, synthetics are always called all-weather tracks. But they're not really all-weather tracks. They're bad-weather tracks-they're good tracks in bad weather. In Europe, they've had problems with them in the summer months, like we had here. When it's hot and sunny, those tracks are not that good.”

John Sadler
“If you put synthetic tracks back in here, you have to have all the tracks in the country on synthetics. You can't go half and half. That doesn't work. You can't train on synthetic and expect to do well on dirt. You can't train on dirt and expect to do well on synthetic.”

John Sadler | Benoit

“If you go back to when we had synthetics in California, I did very well on it. I could live with one surface nationwide. But because I can train on what you give me, it doesn't mean I prefer that. Not necessarily.”

“I would prefer good dirt. I think it's preferable for these horses. Why? Well, for one, they need a lot of upkeep. They need to be replaced. They need to be refreshed. They're expensive to maintain. And anybody that tells you they're not expensive to maintain is–I don't think they're being truthful.”

“There are other arguments. Are there really fewer fatalities [on synthetics]? Stats probably show that. But is that the real number, if you also look at [career ending] injuries? You don't know, right? It's hard for me to just take one study number and say, 'okay, that's all there is.' It doesn't work like that.”

“What I'm trying to say it's very nuanced. You'd have to give time for the breeders to adjust. You'd have to give time for people to purchase the right horses to adjust. A lot of what we did here wasn't well planned out. We did it and then lived with the consequences.”

Carla Gaines
“Let me start by saying I am not that well-educated on the various types of synthetic tracks.  I know there have been improvements on them since they were mandated here in California in 2006.”

“Santa Anita is installing a synthetic surface here on our training track this fall and with the expected increase in rainfall this winter that would give us an alternative place to train the horses when the main track is sealed.  It would also be a nice option for our grass horses as we do not have grass workouts here.”

“But for racing, I would have no interest in it. We as trainers are held responsible for every single injury. The spotlight is on us-rarely the surfaces we train on and race over. Instead of getting rid of dirt tracks, let's keep a closer eye on them, and try very hard to improve them. As one old timer told me once, 'we can put a man on the moon, why can't we figure out dirt?'” 

Doug O'Neill
“I love the fact they're putting it on the training track. At Santa Anita you'll have all three surfaces. And when we get the rainy weather, you can train on a synthetic. If we had weeks of crazy weather, you could potentially run on synthetic.”

“But to replace the main track dirt for synthetic, I would be anti that. Just wouldn't want to replace the dirt.”

“We've had a pretty good sampling with Hollywood Park and Santa Anita and Del Mar all being synthetic at one time. It had its little perks during rainy season. But all in all, not a good experience for me.”

“They're really good in inclement weather, which a lot of the world has, as opposed to Southern California. So, I just don't think they're good for Southern California tracks.”

The post Second Stab At Synthetics In California? The Trainers’ View appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

NYRA Forces Scratch Of Two Other Robert Dick Runners

NYRA officials scratched a pair of horses from the third race at Saratoga Friday because their last start, the GIII Robert G. Dick Memorial S. at Delaware, has seen four horses encounter problems in their next starts back. The Daily Racing Form was the first to report the story.

Both of the top two finishers, winner Sopran Basilea (Night of Thunder {Ire}) and runner up Ever Summer (Summer Front) suffered fatal injuries over the Saratoga turf in the last week. Sopran Basilea finished fourth in the GII Glens Falls S. Aug. 3 but injured her left foreleg on the gallop out and was humanely euthanized. Ever Summer sustained her injury in an allowance race Aug. 6 which also saw Frivole (Fr) (Anodin {Ire}), the last-place finisher in the Robert Dick, get pulled up after a misstep early in the race. Delaware's fourth-place runner, Talbeyah (Ire) (Lope de Vega {Ire}) was a vet scratch out of that same allowance race the morning of Aug. 6.

The two scratched runners affected Friday, Parnac (Fr) (Zarak {Fr}) and Lady Rockstar (GB) (Frankel {GB}) were both reported to be fine.

“Of the seven starters exiting the Grade 3 Robert G. Dick Memorial at Delaware Park [7/1/23], two have suffered fatal injuries at Saratoga Race Course during the 2023 summer meet, one was eased and vanned off, and another was scratched out of a race at Saratoga based on the recommendation of the NYRA veterinarian,” said NYRA Vice President of Communications Patrick McKenna. “This highly unusual confluence cannot be ignored, which is why NYRA asked the trainers of Lady Rockstar and Parnac, the respective third and fifth-place finishers in the Robert G. Dick, to scratch from Race 3 today to allow for additional information to be gathered. To that end, PET scans will be performed on Lady Rockstar and Parnac at clinics chosen by their respective connections. The results will be evaluated by NYRA regulatory veterinarians and New York State Equine Medical Director Dr. Scott Palmer.”

“Should the PET scans and further examinations reveal nothing out of the ordinary, then those horses will be permitted to enter races during the summer meet,” McKenna continued. “While we understand this decision may be frustrating to the connections of Lady Rockstar and Parnac, the application of an extra level of scrutiny is appropriate in this instance. The health and safety of horses and jockeys competing at NYRA tracks is paramount. NYRA will apply the same requirements to all horses who started in the Robert G. Dick. NYRA will cover all costs associated with the PET scans.”

The post NYRA Forces Scratch Of Two Other Robert Dick Runners 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

Churchill Downs Issues Statement On Equine Fatalities

Edited Press Release

Churchill Downs Incorporated released the following statement Saturday in response to questions about track safety during the meet:

In today's first race, Kimberley Dream (Colonel John) sustained a significant injury–a distal sesamodean ligament rupture–to her left front leg. A similar injury occurred to Lost in Limbo (Into Mischief) during Friday's seventh race. Unfortunately, in both scenarios, attending veterinarians determined that the injuries were inoperable and unrecoverable and made the difficult but most humane decision to euthanize. We send our deepest and most sincere condolences to the connections and all who loved and cared for Kimberley Dream and Lost in Limbo.

There have been 12 equine fatalities at Churchill Downs since the stable area reopened for training on March 30. It is with absolute dismay and sorrow that we report this highly unusual statistic. Our team members mourn the loss of these animals as we continue to work together to discover cause and determine appropriate investments to minimize, to the degree possible, any avoidable risk in this sport and on our property. We do not accept this as suitable or tolerable and share the frustrations of the public, and in some cases, the questions to which we do not yet have answers. We have been rigorously working since the opening of the meet to understand what has led to this spike and have yet to find a conclusive discernable pattern as we await the findings of ongoing investigations into those injuries and fatalities.

As with any matter under investigation, justice or answers are not always swift, but the commitment to being thorough is incredibly important. We understand the justified desire for answers, yet also respect the process and authority of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) and the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) when managing these important investigations. We are actively working in cooperation with these regulatory authorities and share their goal to improve the safety of this sport.

In recent weeks, we have been focused on our responsibility to provide the safest racing environment possible on our property. Part of that effort has included increasing the frequency with which our surfaces are tested. Earlier this week, Churchill Downs commissioned Dr. Mick Peterson, Executive Director of Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory and Professor of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering at the University of Kentucky, to perform additional diagnostics on our racetrack. The report indicated that the measurements from retesting do not raise any concerns and that none of the data is inconsistent with prior measurements from Churchill Downs or other tracks.

We simply will not allow these equine fatalities to be in vain. We are engaged in an epidemiological study with the Jockey Club to review each individual horse to determine if there are any undetected patterns that have not been previously identified. These findings can be incorporated into our daily review of entries and potentially trigger additional interventions using advanced diagnostic modalities.

Additionally, we have worked to uncover ways to invest in research and resources that may be made available to trainers, so that together we can better detect pre-existing injuries and work to avoid catastrophic injuries in racing. We have made promising progress in determining ways to increase the use of technology to better inform and intervene when abnormalities in horses present and are eager to share these announcements with horsemen and the public in the coming days. This is in addition to mining and enhancing our already comprehensive safety protocols and policies (Churchill Downs “Safety from Start to Finish”), all developed over the years to improve upon every opportunity we have to advocate in the best interest of our equine and human athletes.

We are troubled by this recent string of fatalities. It is extremely inconsistent with the outcomes we have experienced over the years, with the reputation we have developed over the decades and with the expectations we set for ourselves and owe our fans. We are committed to doing this important work and updating the public with our developments.

The post Churchill Downs Issues Statement On Equine Fatalities appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights