The earliest resolute undertaking to gather safety statistics with a specific focus on track surfaces in relation to equine fatalities entailed an assessment of four California racetracks: Del Mar, Golden Gate Fields, Hollywood Park and Santa Anita.
The study contemplating past information was initiated by Rick Arthur, DVM, as a means of providing a comparison in fatality rates prior to and after the installation of synthetic surfaces as mandated by the CHRB in 2006 after identifying dirt surfaces as problematic.
Data was collected between January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2009 for all three types of track surfaces in use at the four tracks - dirt, turf and synthetics - and the findings presented at the 56th annual convention of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) held in Baltimore on December 4-8, 2010. [1]
The earliest resolute undertaking to gather safety statistics with a specific focus on track surfaces in relation to equine fatalities entailed an assessment of four California racetracks; Del Mar, Golden Gate Fields, Hollywood Park and Santa Anita. The study contemplated of past information was initiated by Rick Arthur, DVM as a means to provide a comparison in fatality rates prior to and after the installation of synthetic surfaces as mandated by the CHRB in 2006 after identifying dirt surfaces as problematic.
Data was collected between January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2009 for all three types of track surfaces in use at the four tracks - dirt, turf and synthetics - and the findings presented at the 56th annual convention of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) held in Baltimore on December 4-8, 2010. [1]
Overall the study revealed an average of 37% decline in the fatality rate on artificial tracks under study when compared to the former dirt equivalents. [2]
“Dirt surface fatality rates at four prominent California tracks (Del Mar, Golden Gate Fields, Hollywood Park and Santa Anita) were 3.05 per 1,000 starts, Arthur adds. Upon switching to synthetic surfaces four years ago, the number dropped to 1.93 per 1,000 starts. The number, Arthur adds, represents 60 to 70 less racing fatalities overall.” [3]
Apart from these general conclusions what also emerged from the study was the fact that these rates on synthetics during races were even lower than those observed on turf. [4] Given the deplorable fatality statistics over the prior three years on the dirt surfaces this was regarded as outstanding. However synthetics had no effect on the number of fatalities occurring during training sessions. Given that these training statistics were not included in the racing fatality data what does this imply and exactly how many horses were dying while training?
In spite of this, Arthur and other veterinarians involved in a panel discussion of race track surfaces also called attention to the statistic that 90 percent to 95 percent of fatalities routinely have undetected pre-existing stress fractures. In other words, this intimates that a great majority of these fatal breakdowns can potentially be avoided regardless of the track surface. Does it follow that pre-race track veterinarians are missing these critical flaws? And how does this factor into the track surface equation?
Yet another caveat is the endurance and wear of synthetics tracks.
“However, Arthur also discussed the fact there is a general nationwide trend that after the changeover and initial reduction in catastrophic injuries sustained on the synthetic track, there tends to be a slight and gradual rise in the number of fatalities. He attributes this to the synthetic material wearing out very quickly and difficulty in maintenance of synthetic tracks.
"This was a novel technology," he said. "It's very difficult and expensive to maintain a synthetic surface, and it also sees a very (high volume of horses working and training on the surface)." [5]
Predictably these findings for the California tracks were not met without opposition and to this day generate much discord within the industry. To begin with the results are somewhat perplexing since the types of synthetic surfaces at the Southern California tracks are different raising the question as to the common foundation for comparison. Secondly, many critics cite the 37-day Del Mar 2011 summer meet where a total of 12 horses were euthanized because of injuries incurred on the Polytrack, 8 of which occurred during training sessions in the morning. [6]
Lastly and perhaps even more compelling is the question as to the validity of this study. Is this justifiably an unbiased and accurate comparison of dirt versus synthetic track surfaces?
One must take into account the condition of the dirt prior to the inauguration of synthetics at these tracks. As many are quick to point out the dirt surfaces at all of these tracks were poorly maintained and consisted of decades-old bases. In essence what this boils down to is a comparison of the worst years of racing on dirt with the first three years of synthetics – all brand-spanking new and presumably in optimum condition.
As dirt-loving and longtime trainer Bob Baffert quips:
“California’s dirt tracks “were in such poor condition…they hadn’t been done since Seabiscuit”. [7]
Can one call this a fair and unbiased comparison?
Indeed it is a somewhat flawed approach to base tangible answers upon. Yet, in no way is this intended to dispute the findings of the study or malign Arthur and the group of panelists involved but rather to emphasize the complexities of analysis and the need for on-going compilation of data to validate or deny the findings. It was and is unquestionably a step in the right direction.
