TB injury database shows fewer injuries on synthetic surfaces

[second_glance]

For the third straight year, thoroughbred racing on synthetic surfaces resulted in a lower fatality rate than dirt racing, according to statistics released Thursday .

The fatality rate on synthetic surfaces — like those at Turfway Park in Florence, Ky., Keeneland Race Course in Lexington and Churchill Downs Inc.’s Arlington Park near Chicago — was 1.09 per 1,000 starts last year, compared with a 2.07 per 1,000 starts on dirt.

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...yssey=nav|head

[Epiphany]

I have alaways thought it was pretty clear that there are far less catastrophic injuries (fatal) on synthetic tracks. Horsemen complained (at least out west) about all the horses they lost to soft tissue and hind ends, though, and then really complained that they were still alive to support, yet unsound. Sarcasm aside, fractures heal for an equitable return more often than soft tissue, if the fracture didn't kill.

Not sure I ever read this, but I gathered my own impression that synthetic lead to a high number of sesamoid injuries due to soft tissue stress.

But I will say, that given how many more dirt tracks there are, and at low levels around the country, that it isn't a fair comparison unless you take similar quality tracks and compare head to head. Maybe CD to Kee. for three week increment, NY to CA, but use Saratoga to Del Mar, and Belmont to SA. AP to Calder?

[second_glance]

]I have alaways thought it was pretty clear that there are far less catastrophic injuries (fatal) on synthetic tracks. Horsemen complained (at least out west) about all the horses they lost to soft tissue and hind ends,[/B] though, and then really complained that they were still alive to support, yet unsound. Sarcasm aside, fractures heal for an equitable return more often than soft tissue, if the fracture didn't kill.

I think this was certainly the perception, but, as is the case so often in this sport/game, hard to actually verify.

But I will say, that given how many more dirt tracks there are, and at low levels around the country, that is isn't a fair comparison unless you take similar quality tracks and compare head to head. Maybe CD to Kee. for three week increment, NY to CA, but use Saratoga to Del Mar, and Belmont to SA. AP to Calder?

I agree that a peer-level comparison could be informative.

[WaquoitNBroadBrush]

I have alaways thought it was pretty clear that there are far less catastrophic injuries (fatal) on synthetic tracks. Horsemen complained (at least out west) about all the horses they lost to soft tissue and hind ends, though, and then really complained that they were still alive to support, yet unsound. Sarcasm aside, fractures heal for an equitable return more often than soft tissue, if the fracture didn't kill.

Not sure I ever read this, but I gathered my own impression that synthetic lead to a high number of sesamoid injuries due to soft tissue stress.

But I will say, that given how many more dirt tracks there are, and at low levels around the country, that it isn't a fair comparison unless you take similar quality tracks and compare head to head. Maybe CD to Kee. for three week increment, NY to CA, but use Saratoga to Del Mar, and Belmont to SA. AP to Calder?

Presque Isle to Parx? Turfway to Ellis Park?