Dirt vs Synth Study

[Michael D.]

The \'08 catastrophic injury rate for the SA pro-ride was 1.49 per thousand, Dmr poly 1.62, and Hol cushion 1.53. Rates for the NY dirt tracks were 1.8 in \'07, 1.3 in \'08, and 2.3 so far in \'09.

The 2008 NY dirt tracks had a better record than the synth tracks. The problem was the old rock hard Cal dirt surfaces (Hol 2.9, Dmr 2.5, and SA 2.. They should have made the SA and Dmr dirt surfaces safer, and tried the synth experiment at one or two of the other tracks.


http://cs.bloodhorse.com/files/folders/trade-zone/entry40704.aspx

[Barry Irwin]

All things considered, I still think a dirt track with a proper base is better for horses than a synthetic track. Most trainers would agree with this.

The move to synthetic stems from Keeneland and Del Mar.

Keeneland could never figure out a way to have a normal dirt track. They tried a lot of different things and finally went to Poly.

Del Mar has always had trouble with its base because of its proximity to the Pacific ocean. There are sink holes that are difficult to fill.

Rick Shapiro went over board and threw out the baby with the bathwater.

Things spiraled out of control after that.

The best news is that because most racetracks are broke, nobody right now seems like pushing synthetic tracks, thank goodness.

[Ill-bred]

Note that the Florida dirt tracks have a lower breakdown rate than all the synthetics.