So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

nmhiplains — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:16:40 GMT

Everybody's looking for the magic pill that will solve the BREAKDOWN issue but nobody wants to admit that racehorses just don't get the conditioning they did during the years of the great trainers Preston Burch and Max Hirsh. Its easier to blame it on track surface and poor conformation (Gentics) than admit there's not enough exercise riders to condition the amount of horses to fill the number of race cards in todays racing game.

Pump them full of drugs(Bute, Steriods, Lassix and ignore the fact that these animals get less than eight miles of training a WEEK. I"ll bet you LEXINGTON's owner galloped him eight miles to the tavern and eight miles back home to the plantation every day.

What a shock it will be to the Thoroughbred World if we find out one of the prominent STUDS of today carry's the bleeder gene --and because every horse racing on the track is pumped full of Lassix its not discovered until

every foal hitting the ground is carrying the gene!!!

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

ernest — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:42:59 GMT

There is an excellent and BALANCED article on synthetic vs dirt on the TDN website entitled 'Ground Control'.

1) CURLIN wasn't the same horse in BC 08,as he had been earlier in his career...perhaps because he wasnt getting anabolic steroids, after their ban in early 08.I was there, and he wasn't the same physical specimen as he had been in Dubai 6 mths earlier.His form going into BC 08 was ordinary at best.

2) The hind end injury argument is laughable... those who claim it is a problem, are still shoeing their horse with toe grabs behind...Why? 'Because thats the way we like it'.

Synthetic doesn't shift,so there is no need for toe grabs.

3)There have been 26 Breeders Cups..only at 2 were there no horses vanned off the track...08 and 09.Anyone remember Monmouth?They spent a fortune on their surface just before BC 07....AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED.It wouldnt have happened at Woodbine.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Arkansas — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:03:10 GMT

Perhaps someone should consult with Oaklawn and how it is they manage such an outstanding dirt racing surface in spite of weather extremes.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Michael J Walter IV — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:20:15 GMT

The last 2 breeders' cups were the safest ever. Synthetics are a work in progress, but worth the effort. Do you forget the blood bath that was California racing? It will return to rock hard surfaces and the death of countless runners.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

gw_bushwacker — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:29:53 GMT

SA finally got it right. So long "fake crap"!!!!

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Terry — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:49:54 GMT

First of all, all synthetic surfaces aren't the same. Just like carpet, there are different formulations. A hand made wool rug and a cheap indoor-outdoor rug are as different as can be, except both are "rugs". The same is true of synthetic tracks. Over time it may become apparent that certain synthetic formulations work better than others under varying conditions.

Woodbine has Polytrack. After some initial adjustments, it has worked very well, and the track is always fast regardless of the weather. Some horses even race barefoot on it. Races don't get cancelled ecause of an unsafe track, and horses don't slip and slide on it in wet weather.

However, a synthetic track that works well in southern Ontario, where temperatures during the racing season can go from below freezing to 100 degrees F., may not work equally well in the desert or in a very humid climate. Maybe Santa Anita simply chose the wrong type of synthetic surface for its climate.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Bosstefka — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:08:57 GMT

As an installer of synthetic turf fields it is paramount that the subsurface drainage system and base be installed as specified. I spoke with members of the Santa Anita maintenance crew wherein they indicated that Santa Anita installed the sub surface drainage system themselves. Ah-hah, therein lies the root of the problem and if they don't install it properly, the dirt surface will fail too. We had a contractor that tried to reduce the number of laterals...we wouldn't allow it. He also tried to use incorrect subsurface rock base. We had him remove it and install the appropriate base. Again, if the appropriate subsurface drainage system and base are't installed properly, NOTHING will work. You can't skimp to save money....it catches up to you in the end.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Shiori — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:40:36 GMT

I've never thought synthetics were "The Answer" (please note the quotation marks) everyone thought/thinks they are. And by "everyone," I mean those in the know - trainers, vets, responsible owners - and the everyday casual racing fan.

Racing needs to, in essence, "keep it natural." Go back to dirt and ditch te drugs. Any smart vet would tell you that the only way to build bone and prevent horrendous fractures would be to use it.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Dave Johnson — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:21:41 GMT

Steve,

Belmont's statistics (above) tell the tale!

You better start thinking differently.

The "ever-lasting" recession is reducing the horse population.

Look around at the sales (Keeneland, etc). Observe what is going on around you and how this recession is going to suck the life out of the breeding industry for the next decade.

Horses are going to stay on the track longer and breeding is going to take a back seat in these tough times.

We currently need surfaces that keep horses on the racetrack. Catastrophic injuries are the last thing we need in these economic conditions.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Fud — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:17:05 GMT

Just heard Jack Van Berg speak back here in Omaha - he didn't care for the surface. Sounds like an expensive proposition for Magna to switch back to dirt. With their company losing money - will they have the guts to put dirt racing back on? Another thought will be how much influence will the CA Breeders have - who have imported/bought studs for AW surfaces?

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Chalkk — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:41:37 GMT

Polytrack is 80% sand so a lot of the kickback you see is sand particulate(giving a sort of dust cloud look). The synthetic fibers are too large to ingest/inhale. I'm told though that the bigger kickback can be quite painful and the sand dust is difficult to see thru. Obviously synthetic tracks are not the panacea some thought but they have their place.

The group that seems to be the most shrill against poly are the handicappers. Most cappers are a lazy lot...only willing to spend a few moments on a race before choosing a loser, then complaining about how they got beat. Synthetic tracks require more attention but can also be more rewarding. Invest the time and you'll see the RE$ULT$!

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

robinm — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:15:42 GMT

I think that the tracks in the east switched from dirt to synthetic in order to have a "fast" track even in bad weather. On the other hand, the major Ca tracks have been switched to synthetics due to the "safety" mandate, without any real proof that it will decrease track injuries. From what I've heard, we are seeing different types of injuries, but not necessarily less. Synthetic surface tracks seem to suit grass type horses better than dirt horses so (to me) the racing at the Ca tracks, both "dirt" and grass, handicap like grass races.

I don't think Churchill Downs, Pimlico or Belmont will ever change to synthetic so the young horses prepping in Ca are at a real disadvantage in the Triple Crown races. I think the Breeder's Cup races should be dirt or grass, not synthetic or grass. The "dirt" mile held on synthetic is patently ridiculous. Your good dirt horses are not going to participate in the BC if held on a synthetic track, at least not at Santa Anita. Why should they when SA is not kind to dirt horses? Until the track is fair to all runners, the BCC is going to be the "championships" in name only. Maybe there should be 3 divisions, Dirt, Grass and Synthetic?

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Steve — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:51:34 GMT

Belmont, the reality is that preventing catastrophic injuries to horses is not a priority to the average horseplayer or racetrack. Horseplayers are far more interested in "predictable pace scenarios" and "recognizable track biases" than safe surfaces. Tracks are more interested in minimizing costs than preventing equine injuries.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Dawn — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:07:08 GMT

I think that a well-maintained dirt track is what's needed and for the love of Pete, don't soup it up on stakes days to create new records! That said, it looks like that not all synth tracks are created equal--people have mentioned other synthetic tracks (Arlington etc) and I haven't heard of any particular problems with them. I know that the training track at Fair Hill, up in Cecil County MD, is Tapeta. For those who're wondering where the heck I'm talking about, it's where Michael Matz preps his horses. So what's it like running on the synth stuff on a hot day? I'm thinking it's like stepping on discarded gum.

Trackman, what's the consistency of the plastic stuff? Seeing it on TV reminds me of the clumping style of cat litter. I imagine picking up a handful of track and being able to ball it up.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Belmont — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:28:35 GMT

Read the facts about synthetic surfaces in California:

This data (below) has been compiled by California Equine Medical Director Dr. Rick M. Arthur and by the Equibase Company.

Main track racing fatalities at Del Mar declined from 2.47 per 1,000 starts on the dirt surface from 2004-2006 to 1.65 per 1,000 on Polytrack from 2007-2009.

Main track racing fatalities for major California tracks — Santa Anita/Oak Tree, Hollywood Park, Golden Gate Fields and Bay Meadows — went from 3.09 per 1,000 starts on dirt from 2004-07 to 1.68 per thousand starts on engineered surfaces from 2007-09.

Del Mar has seen reductions in “career ending did not finish,” “annual did not finish” and “annual reported post-race injuries” since the switch to Polytrack.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Erin — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:23:55 GMT

Curlin wasn't prepared to race on synthetic. You can't pass an Algebra exam by studying Biology. Put Curlin in $5Million stake on a surface he never tried? Why? And why was he FAVORITE? HA!

Dancing In Silks paying $52 in BC Sprint is a reward for players who pay attention. ALWAYS bet local horse when he won on the same surface in 1:08.55 in prior start!

Leave the synthetic in place it is good for smart horseplayers.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

mo — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:01:07 GMT

Obviously the artificial surfaces have not been the end all we had hoped for. The problem is that these tracks were installed based on the opinion of someone making money on the purchase of there product and not on concrete research. There were no actual studies done with race horses to determine how these tracks held up to daily training and racing, how to maintain them, and did they truely decrease break down. Many, Many things play into the break down rate. Speed is a huge component of break down. The faster a horse runs around a turn of any surface the greater the chance of break down. Just like a car tire. The tire may be fine for going around a turn at 45 mph but consistantly "blow out" at 60 mph on the same turn and surface. In the last 15 to 20 years, the two year old training sales exploded in popularity with the first sales starting in Feb of a two year olds life. 2yr olds went from working 1/8 in 11 seconds to working 1/8 in sub 10 second times. They went from working a 1/4 in 22 n change to working in sub 20 seconds. These colts start getting broke in Sept of their yearling years so they can work those crippling fast times in Feb, March and April of their two year old year. Then they go straight to the track from the sale to "pay back" their purchase price. Is their any wonder that we have a high break down rate on any surface? It is not just " break downs' but large numbers of horses that have to be retired do to soft tissue injures (ligaments and tendons). Many of the Veterinarians I know that work the tracks say that Dirt tracks have higher bone injuries and that the Artificial tracks have a much higher incident of soft tissue injuries. From an economical stand point, the soft tissue injuries are a greater economic loss to the industry. If a horse chips his knee or fetlock, he is out for about 3 months after surgery before returning to training. For a ligament or tendon injury, the horse is out of training for an average of 9 months and most ligament injuries never return to the races. At present, if a dirt track is too deep, too slow, too fast, or uneven, most maintenace crews know how to fix the problem. When their is a problem with the artificial tracks, very few if anyone knows how to rectify their problems. One of the issues that has bothered me about the artificial tracks is what happens when a horse or jockey inhales that stuff? Dirt, due to its weight probably rarely gets down past the pharyngeal area. Some of the artificial material looks like it came out of the back of a vacuum cleaner and is much less dense than dirt and probably gets past the pharyngeal area and into the trachea. God knows we have enough breathing issues in our TB racing population with out adding to the problem with a surface that can get down into the lung. I have not seen any one addressing this issue but I feel it is one to consider. As far as reduced break down, the numbers have not shown much if any of a statistical difference between the two surfaces. However, don't forget that about the same time as artificial surfaces being mandated for California, they also outlawed toe grabs on shoes. The trend to out law toe grabs has since spread to most of the tracks in North America and this has definitley helped decrease the break down rate. There are so many variables involved in break down on race track that it is probably inaccurate to beable to credit one surface over another as the cause of break down. It has been proven that most injuries at the race track are the results of chronic repetitive injuries (like bending a paper clip back and forth multiple times before it breaks) and they are not a single incident effect. However, I am sure that one size does not fit all and that some tacks depending on track size, bank of turns, and weather may be safer with dirt surfaces and others will be safer with artificial surfaces. Reducing break downs and performance limiting as well as performance ending injuries is a multifacited problem and not just one surface or another.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Christine — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:11:13 GMT

I really hope Arlington has thought about making the move back to dirt to.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

mike rullo — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:52:24 GMT

ohio bred girl,

here is what in trying to say,horses like vale of york and dancing in silks would never win a breeders cup race on dirt,we are making grade I winners that dont deserve to be. ravens pass beating curlin on a dirt surface please!!!

that's why jess jackson did not send rachel and obviously he was right.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Ohio Bred Girl — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:43:21 GMT

To Mr. Rullo's comment, I would say that what might have been seen as "brilliance" on California's old dirt tracks was merely a law of physics; i.e., a ball rebounds faster off a hard surface than off a soft one, and horses, even those legitimately fast, would therefore seem faster than they really were.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

trackman — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:03:04 GMT

As a trackman, I have some insights that may be informative. First of all, one should be aware of what makes a up a synthetic track surface (cushion) material. It is primarily (on a weight basis) sand (~75%-80%) synthetic fibers/rubber (~15%) and wax/polymer binder (5% - 12%).

About the synthetic at Santa Anita:

The surface first went in as Cushiontrack which has a wax binder. Hollywood Park is also Cushiontrack. SA's Cushiontrack differs from Hollywood in that it uses a different sand (which was finer sand while also having silt+Clay) and the wax binder was of a different formulation. The wax formulation difference was supposedly to make the surface more consistent over a broader heat range but ultimately this new wax did not have the binding capacity of the formulations used as at Hollywood and Golden Gate. The ability for greater binding capacity was needed even more at SA due to the poor selection of sand. To be clear... these material selections were all vendor decisions of a "Proprietary System". SA did not make these decisions but ultimately was forced to deal with the consequences.

When the Cushiontrack did not perform, SA had to deal with the situation in order to salvage their racing. They tried many things to fix the issues but ultimately they removed some of the old surace brought in additional sand (clean sand) added more fibers and then more binder. This time they chose to utilize Proride binder (a non-wax polymer). This has worked for a time but these binders breakdown over time and loose effectiveness.

So, SA is left with a decision to continue with maintaining the track with binder additions or replacing the track with a more traditional (primarily sand) "dirt" track. Due to other issues with the original Cushiontrack construction (such as poor selection of drainage stone, ineffective draintile design/install), it is understandable why SA would chose to go back with a time-proven, known, racing surface.... traditional dirt track.

So, certainly SA has paid their dues in this synthetic track "experiment". It should be up to the proprietor to research, trial, and prove their system beforehand and not have the customer be a "victim" of poor R&D. And, believe me that there are certainly significant issues (although less dramatic than SA's)with the synthetic surfaces at Del Mar, Hollywood and Golden Gate!

Certainly there continues to be a need for those involved in the development and maintenance of racing surface to have a proactive approach.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Chalkk — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:37:33 GMT

U of Cal Davis study showed that the G-force of a horse's hoof in full stride on polytrack was 57% of what a horse's G-force was on dirt. I'm not a scientist but even I can deduce less stress per square inch on that little hoof means less stress on bone. BTW, G-force on a average jet fighter pilot=8. G-force on a thoroughbred in full stride=100. Think about it!

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Stan — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:37:04 GMT

Bill Daly, you're right on. Synthetics will be part of racing going forward. Adapt. Sure horses will always favor one surface over another, wake up and handicap. Owners and train run your horses, when they're fit on any surface and compete. No has to be 100% correct here as no one is.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

Richard_R — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:32:44 GMT

Dirt is no panacea for Santa Anita. There is some fundamental problem with sub-surface drainage at that track that has been present long before synthetics were installed. People either have poor or convenient memories when it comes to Santa Anita's ability to handle large amounts of rain over the years. Golden Gate gets twice as much rain as Santa Anita and they don't have drainage problems and cancelled race days due to it. Yet, back when GG had a dirt track, rain often washed away the cushion and caused cancellations until they got the water off the track and the cushion rebuilt. There are too many successful implementations of synthetic surfaces for racing to continue to eschew them as the reason for Santa Anita's problems.

re: So Long Synthetic - By Dan Liebman

BELLWETHER — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:18:47 GMT

ps...THERE R A TON OF GREAT DIRT TRACKS N AMERCIA...TRY BETTER INSPECTION OF THE HORSES BEFORE THEY GET N THE STARTING GATE...INJURY IS LIFE N SPORTS. THANK U...LONG LIVE THE KING BABY!!!...