Synthetic versus the "real thing" - what to think?

[Grindstone]

I'd like to welcome William White from Horsewin.c (http://www.horsewin.ca)a as our first guest blogger. The first half of the post goes here and the entire article is available on the Blog (http://e-ponies.com/blog/).

I have extended the offer to many horse racing experts on the internet and a few have shown some interest. William may have scared them off because his blog post is extremely well written and thoughtful. I hope others will still consider contributing even though William has set the bar high with the first one. I thoroughly enjoyed his commentary.

Enjoy!

Blog article part I follows below:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Synthetic Versus the "Real Thing" - What to think?

Has the Change to "Poly" Tracks Improved Racing?

Part 1 - My Racing Experience

I was one of the many who supported the change at Woodbine from dirt to a synthetic surface. The Canadian installation in 2006 was in the early wave of synthetic tracks. The approximate history of the change at Woodbine went like this. The racing schedule in Ontario, after the opening of the "new" Woodbine in the late 50's, was Greenwood - a bull ring dirt track only from the beginning of spring to end of April; Woodbine for May, June and July; Fort Erie for August; back to Woodbine for September and October and then close out the year racing at Greenwood for November and the first week of December. Historically, few racing dates were lost to weather or track conditions and when it happened it was usually the result of early winter or spring snow storms. Training on the dirt training track started in early February and many trainers were successful in getting their horses ready for racing through late winter training on the dirt training track.

This all changed with the closing of Greenwood, the sale of Fort Erie and the creation of a super track at Woodbine that combined thoroughbred and standard bred race tracks in one facility on separate tracks. Woodbine, at the same time eliminated the two separate turf courses that shared a common stretch and replaced it with a single 1 1/2 mile outer turf course with the turf stretch between the grandstand and the dirt course. Prior to the Breeders Cup which was hosted at Woodbine in 1996, the main track had been reconstructed. The original dirt track at Woodbine had plenty of cushion and produced some fast times but the newer version seemed to have a harder bottom, less cushion and produced speed-a-plenty, as witnessed by the Breeder's Cup races. The change in schedule meant that the Woodbine main track had to stand up to much more racing as the meet was continuous from opening in early April to closing at the beginning of December. The resurfaced main track had its issues arising from the long schedule and the Canadian climate - the snow, rain, thawing and freezing during the spring and fall seasons. Late in the year, jockeys wore protective masks to shield them from frozen clods of dirt that could hit their faces. It could be equally hard the horses if they were hit in the eye. The decision to change to a synthetic surface, based on the published benefits of the new technology, seemed like the right direction. If a synthetic surface was indeed "all-weather", more consistent, safer for the horses and required less maintenance, it would be perfect for the long Woodbine racing meet. Woodbine followed through with the change in the summer of 2006 with good support from everyone. However, similar to the experience elsewhere, this support has eroded and there is a "silent" chorus of horsemen calling for a change back to a traditional racing surface - I say silent because there doesn't appear to be any public debate or open dialogue between the HBPA and Woodbine Entertainment Group on the issue.


Continue reading here: http://www.e-ponies.com/blog/

[DRB]

A very good read.

[Nijinsky]

It was easy to believe that synthetic surfaces would improve the sport, and increase the safety, of horse racing.
Years later, there is no significant evidence to suggest that this is the case. In fact, the introduction of the surface has hurt the sport in many ways.

The safety of horse and rider is key. Little has improved in that regard. Horses are fragile creatures, and jockeys hit the ground just as hard as before.
Bettors complained about having to handicap from scratch again - old habits die hard.
While the sport owes much to their contributions, the needs of gamblers are secondary to issues of safety.

If you grouped everyone involved in the sport, including trainers, riders, owners, and bettors, I believe the majority of opinion would oppose synthetics.
They simply have not justified the cost and the upheaval.
The future of racing, imo, does not include the spread of artificial surfaces.

[waterford ralph]

There is not a single fact to justify why Synthetics are bad for racing, and there are several suggesting good it has brought. To remove a synthetic surface from a place like Turfway wouldnt do justice, it would in fact hurt racing at TP. It has significantly improved racing year around and more importantly helped the horses train over it through the winter. Synthetics were built for a reason, they function well for that reason, but were used poorly by humans who felt the need to place them where they werent needed. As far as the blog suggesting horses need more time to recover between races, this would be extremely misleading, considering a 6 week meet at Saratoga had only 117 horses run 2 times or more, while Kee 3 week meet had 120 horses run 2 times or more. The synthetic to dirt angle has been huge as well, showing a profit on bets from PID to MNRs dirt, proving horses recover well and get a lot out of it training over it. I dont follow CA racing as well, but I heard the Hollywood Park training horse are doing great at SA as well.

It is my opinion that horses need to adapt to surfaces, they need time to adjust their body, their ligaments, to build the proper strength needed to compete on a given surfaces. It seems very common for horses that suffer career ending injuries or worse, tend to have trained or raced on numerous surfaces throughout the year, where years ago it seemed very unlikely to ship around as often as they do now. For sake of mentioning a horse you dont know about, lets just consider Barabaro, to my knowledge he raced/trained over atleast 11 different surfaces. While Zenyatta, a slow training job giving her time at each track/surface to adjust accordingly.

It is also interesting to me that any maintenance done to synthetic tracks is front page news, while dirt tracks are worked through the night around the clock more often than not, dirt tracks are closed for training all the time due to poor conditions, but you never hear about it. Most dirt tracks that run year around are replaced atleast twice through the year, and upgraded with dirt/sand several times between replacements.

[Grindstone]

Anyone well versed in statistics knows that most statistical observations break down badly when trying to compare two numbers that are both close to zero. Even with a lot of data, if the two sets of data are both very close to zero, normal statistical tools don't work. The breakdown rate over a dirt surface and a synthetic surface are both very low. The numbers are never going to tell the whole story.

[konagold1]

keep dirt,synth and turf because ive discovered some pretty sweet surface switch angles.

[waterford ralph]

keep dirt,synth and turf because ive discovered some pretty sweet surface switch angles.

exactly... CAN NOT FREAKN WAIT for PID to open. Time to make money again, miss it sooo much.

[brooklyn108]

The only thing I know for sure is that synthetic surfaces hold up a lot better in wet weather. Had it not been for a synthetic surface this month would have been a complete washout for Keeneland. My feeling has always been that horses are meant to run on dirt not retreaded tires, but I have seen the advantages to the synthetic surface also.

[brooklyn108]

It was easy to believe that synthetic surfaces would improve the sport, and increase the safety, of horse racing.
Years later, there is no significant evidence to suggest that this is the case. In fact, the introduction of the surface has hurt the sport in many ways.

The safety of horse and rider is key. Little has improved in that regard. Horses are fragile creatures, and jockeys hit the ground just as hard as before.
Bettors complained about having to handicap from scratch again - old habits die hard.
While the sport owes much to their contributions, the needs of gamblers are secondary to issues of safety.

If you grouped everyone involved in the sport, including trainers, riders, owners, and bettors, I believe the majority of opinion would oppose synthetics.
They simply have not justified the cost and the upheaval.
The future of racing, imo, does not include the spread of artificial surfaces.

Jockeys hit hard on both synthetic and dirt, but the hardest hits of all come on turf. I found it hard to believe, but I heard it from a Hall Of Fame jockey, so I have to believe it's true.

[vartanus]

I don't mind seeing synthetic because it allows some really good turf horses to switch to the synthetic track. Look at Raven's Pass and Henrythenavigator going 1 2 in the 2008 Breeders Cup. That would probably not have happened if it was on dirt.