The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) required a majority
of thoroughbred racetracks to install synthetic racing surfaces by the end of
2007. A main driver of this decision was a rush of fatalities three years
ago. Most of the tracks complied well
before the deadline by installing synthetic surfaces such as Polytrack. One California track, Bay
Meadows, was unable to install a synthetic surface in time, however. They
applied for an extension, but were denied.
Faced with a forced closure, the 73-year old track was eventually
granted a one-year waver.
Santa Anita, another California
track, installed Cushion Track before the 2007 deadline; however, the track was
forced to cancel several days of racing this winter due to drainage problems
after heavy rains. (The photo shows the pooled water – so much for great
drainage!) Attempts to mix a new material by Pro-Ride Australia didn't do much
to help. Recently, several jockeys and trainers spoke out about the condition
of the track, and how Santa Anita is slated to host two Breeder's Cup
championships in coming years. These events are the Super Bowls of horse
racing. Obviously, Santa Anita will need to replace its synthetic surface. What
they have now isn't working, and there are still injuries and problems with
surface irregularities.
Some tracks throughout the country have been changing over
to synthetic surfaces since 2005, when Turfway
Park became the first track in the U.S. to make
the switch. Others include Arlington Park and Keenland. Numbers from a March 2008 report indicate
that fatality rates on synthetic tracks (1.95 per thousand) are nearly
identical to those on dirt tracks (1.96 per thousand). One track, Oakland Park, opted to rebuild its natural
dirt track just before this study was completed. They cited financial and
environmental reasons.
More recent data released by The Jockey Club in early April
2008 shows a drastic difference from the figures presented only a month
before. The Jockey Club's numbers show
that the fatalities per 1,000 starts are 2.02 on dirt surfaces and 1.47 on
synthetic. So where is there an inconsistency?
The newer data is from a more limited number of tracks (35 vs. 42) and a
reporting period of less than one year at some of those tracks. Representatives say that more information
will have to be added to the database to determine which way the numbers will
trend.
Based on the number of injuries that are still occurring on
the synthetic tracks, and the fact that tracks around the country are still
split on which way to go (although there have been no recent announcements of
tracks planning to switch over to synthetic surfaces), it looks like only time
will tell the story of the future.
Unfortunately, the only way to get more data is to wait for more
accidents to happen (or hopefully NOT happen).
Last week we looked at how synthetic surfaces are made in Part 3. Check back next week to see how to handicap a race on a synthetic surface in Part 5!
Resources:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=38118
http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=43569
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=43736
http://www.kentucky.com/302/story/350931.html
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44533
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080108/080108-santaanita-hmed-1p.hmedium.jpg
Animal Science Blog
| 
