Posted on Tue, May. 06, 2008

Debate on track surface revived

STUDY: DIRT COURSES HARDER ON HORSES, NOT BETS

By Maryjean Wall

MWALL@HERALD-LEADER.COM

The death of Eight Belles has reignited the debate over racetrack surfaces and which is the safest track for thoroughbred racing: synthetic, dirt or turf.

The filly's breakdown after finishing second in the Kentucky Derby has not been tied to the historic dirt race track at Churchill Downs, and it probably never will be.

Nor does Churchill plan to install a synthetic track anytime soon, because with insufficient data linking surfaces to injuries, "the jury is still out," according to track spokesman John Asher.

But the racing surface came into question as soon as people realized Eight Belles had fallen: Would she have suffered this catastrophic breakdown had the Derby been raced on a synthetic course?

The debate over synthetic versus dirt tracks boiled over this winter when Santa Anita lost 11 racing days because of problems with its new Cushion Track. Later, the track made up three of those days -- but not until drainage problems were temporarily solved.

The debate took a different turn in April when Keeneland acknowledged that the unpredictability of Polytrack racing might have discouraged some bettors and been one reason that wagering was down about 13 percent.

But the synthetics -- though not the huge boon to the sport that some had predicted -- might be winning on the statistical side.

Preliminary figures in the first nationwide survey of 49 tracks showed a slight difference in injury rates for dirt and synthetic surfaces. With a limited amount of data, an ongoing survey for The Jockey Club has shown 2.02 fatalities per 1,000 starts on dirt and 1.47 fatalities per 1,000 starts on synthetic tracks.

No statistics for turf racing have been released in this survey, although data is being collected from turf races.

In California, a spate of breakdowns in 2006 resulted in a mandate from the state racing board for synthetics to replace the dirt tracks by 2007 at all the major tracks in southern California. The results have greatly supported the use of synthetic surfaces, according to Dr. Rick Arthur, equine medical director of the racing board.

Synthetics haven't completely stopped breakdowns, according to Arthur, "but if you compare pre-synthetics with post-synthetics, there's been between a 30 to 40 percent reduction in catastrophic injuries during racing.

"That's a pretty dramatic number," said Arthur, a longtime practicing veterinarian before he took the racing board job. He said California had a unique problem with its tracks being hard, "as we're desert and there's not a lot of rain."

Two California tracks --Hollywood and Santa Anita --purchased a surface called Cushion Track while Del Mar went with Polytrack, which Keeneland markets in a North American partnership with its English inventor, Martin Collins.

Keeneland recently produced a statistic showing that on Polytrack the numbers are even better than the national data The Jockey Club has released concerning all synthetic surfaces. Polytrack shows only 1.37 fatalities per 1,000 starts.

Statistics haven't stopped the debate over track surfaces. While most trainers have indicated they favor at least training, if not racing, on these surfaces, some, like Nick Zito, have spoken out against synthetics. Zito describes the material as "stuff from the attic."

"There's a lot of second-guessing as to these synthetic tracks," remarked Eoin Harty, trainer of Colonel John, who was sixth in the Derby in his first race on dirt. The trainer is quick to say that he's a proponent of synthetic training and racing.

Track maintenance in California, before the synthetics era that began in 2007, "never stopped between water and heavy equipment," Harty said. "That's how you make roads, and that's what we did."

Nonetheless the racing industry "still has a lot to learn" about synthetics, according to trainer Todd Pletcher, who sees advantages in synthetics but also views them as surfaces that some horses like and others do not.

Americans have long believed that Europe's turf courses have been kinder to horses, but no statistics are known to exist in support of this theory. If European horses do suffer fewer breakdowns, it might be because of the style of racing and different style of shoes they wear as much as the grass surface.

For example, horses racing on turf usually have their fastest run reserved for the final furlongs -- quite the opposite of dirt racing, where speed is a factor from the outset.

Synthetic surfaces fall somewhere between grass and dirt. The synthetics have more bounce and often allow a horse to find a fifth gear toward the end. The frontrunners generally do not wear out their competitors behind them as they seem to do in dirt racing.

This has made synthetic racing a mystery to bettors. Where once they had been able to exclude a good percentage of horses they thought had no chance, too many surprise winners have made this tactic more difficult.

The percentage of winning favorites at Keeneland has gone from above-normal during the pre-Polytrack era to below normal with Polytrack. This spring, 24.79 percent of favorites won. Last spring: 29.66 percent won. On dirt in the 2006 spring meet: 34.65 percent of favorites won. In 2005 during spring, the number was 40.90 percent.

Whatever handicappers think of synthetic surfaces, the racing industry vows the safety of the horse will come first.

"One thing that came out of the April Welfare and Safety Summit (held in Lexington) was that the safety of the horse should prevail over all decisions," said Ed Bowen, president of the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation.

Linked with horse safety is the question of drainage on track surfaces. The synthetics employ a revolutionary vertical drainage system.

The dirt tracks, when wet, often require a process called sealing: Machinery rolled across the track squeezes the water out of the dirt and onto the surface, allowing the excess to roll off horizontally. But there is some question whether sealing a track can make the surface too hard.

Keeneland's President and CEO, Nick Nicholson, said drainage is the one thing being forgotten in the debate over surfaces.

"That's a very big part of the equation," Nicholson said.

The Herald-Leader is pleased to provide this opportunity for readers to comment on stories and issues. However, we urge readers to avoid personal attacks or inappropriate remarks in their postings. Some of the comments may be reprinted in the newspaper. The views expressed here are not those of the Herald-Leader or its staff. Registered user names are posted for comments.