Synthetics VS Dirt & Turf Let the BC Debate and Banter Begin

[Dana666]

This was the study to which the blogger was referring (notice the conclusion):

Abstract
American Journal of Veterinary Research
October 2009, Vol. 70, No. 10, Pages 1220-1229
doi: 10.2460/ajvr.70.10.1220

Hoof accelerations and ground reaction forces of Thoroughbred racehorses measured on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces

Jacob J. Setterbo, BS; Tanya C. Garcia, MS; Ian P. Campbell, DVM; Jennifer L. Reese, DVM; Jessica M. Morgan, BS; Sun Y. Kim, DVM; Mont Hubbard, PhD; Susan M. Stover, DVM, PhD
Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616. (Setterbo); J. D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616. (Garcia, Reese, Morgan, Kim, Stover); Santa Lucia Equine Veterinary Associates, 1924 W Hwy 154, Santa Ynez, CA 93460. (Campbell); Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616. (Hubbard)

Supported by grants from the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, the Southern California Equine Foundation, and the Center for Equine Health with funds provided by the State of California pari-mutuel fund and contributions by private donors.

Presented in part at the Veterinary Orthopedic Society Conference, Sun Valley, Idaho, March 2007; the International Conference on Equine Locomotion, Cabourg, France, June 2008; and the Annual Convention of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, San Diego, December 2008.

The authors thank Tara Johnson for racehorse and personnel management, Ellen Jackson for donating racehorses to the study, Dr. Amy Kapatkin for kinematic assistance, and Dr. Neil Willits for statistical consultation.
Address correspondence to Mr. Setterbo (jjsetterbo@ucdavis.edu).

Objective—To compare hoof acceleration and ground reaction force (GRF) data among dirt, synthetic, and turf surfaces in Thoroughbred racehorses.

Animals—3 healthy Thoroughbred racehorses.

Procedures—Forelimb hoof accelerations and GRFs were measured with an accelerometer and a dynamometric horseshoe during trot and canter on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces at a racecourse. Maxima, minima, temporal components, and a measure of vibration were extracted from the data. Acceleration and GRF variables were compared statistically among surfaces.

Results—The synthetic surface often had the lowest peak accelerations, mean vibration, and peak GRFs. Peak acceleration during hoof landing was significantly smaller for the synthetic surface (mean ± SE, 28.5g ± 2.9g) than for the turf surface (42.9g ± 3.8g). Hoof vibrations during hoof landing for the synthetic surface were < 70% of those for the dirt and turf surfaces. Peak GRF for the synthetic surface (11.5 ± 0.4 N/kg) was 83% and 71% of those for the dirt (13.8 ± 0.3 N/kg) and turf surfaces (16.1 ± 0.7 N/kg), respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The relatively low hoof accelerations, vibrations, and peak GRFs associated with the synthetic surface evaluated in the present study indicated that synthetic surfaces have potential for injury reduction in Thoroughbred racehorses. However, because of the unique material properties and different nature of individual dirt, synthetic, and turf racetrack surfaces, extending the results of this study to encompass all track surfaces should be done with caution.

The bold type is mine. That conclusion is not much to be basing mandates on, don\'t you think? You seem to have a much better grasp of the physics that I certainly would. I was basing my point on what I observed only. On dirt the hoof slides and the dirt flies in the opposite direction when it strikes the dirt, on synthetic the hoof sticks right there, I don\'t see how the energy isn\'t sent right back through the hoof into the horse\'s leg in an unnatural or exaggerated way. Also, with the dirt, the horse digs in more and pushes off much better (sliding less) which would seem to indicate (as I have observed) that they would feel more confident on dirt and much less secure on synthetics, often leading to poor performances for horses who don\'t handle the stuff. I know after you run on Hollywood for a few months, the wax wears off and the track gets very slippery on the outside paths. Anyway, the sliding on synthetic seems to be at the push off, the opposite of dirt where the sliding is at impact. In any event, thanks for the physics lesson. I never could get through it in college.

[miff]

\"Did you get a load of Alex Waldrops last NTRA Blog Post, Racing Future is Bright? Oh really? I am sure I can go back to posts and debates I had years ago about this, and people thought I was just being negative. Consolidation is needed. fewer racing dates, better quality (See HONG KONG)\"


Tony,

You point is very significant. Here\'s a guy,Wal-Dope,heading the NTRA,without a clue as are most of the racing execs. How can you be CEO of a business and be so out of touch with your customers/reality.


Mike

[miff]

Not nearly enough benefit from synths to justify the upheaval they have caused.Some of the best horses won\'t come to the worlds premier race day, some players have refused to gamble on it or have reduced their play.The soundness issues really no better. Wheres the real upside to this garbage surface?

The synth experiment must be classified a failure,so far,in the \"big picture\" of racing.The clueless knee jerk reacting racing execs do it again, they f--k up.Racing is mainly a gambling venue and until it is run by casino type exec\'s, it will never prosper.


Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- the question is who Waldrop\'s customers (constituents) are. As far as I can tell he is representing a) the old white guys in Lexington (who are also on the boards of many tracks),whose agenda is simply to keep the feds out, and b) himself-- raising his own profile.

[Dana666]

amen, brother!

[miff]

True JB,but his function is to advance all aspects of racing. I\'ll guarantee you that if you speak to any Racing Exec about the game, they won\'t mention gambling once, it\'s like they are embarrassed by the word.

[sighthound]

The bold type is mine. That conclusion is not much to be basing mandates on, don\'t you think? You seem to have a much better grasp of the physics that I certainly would.

I don\'t see where anybody is embracing this as a mandate for anybody. It is what it is, an excellent starting point for accumulating more physical data.
 
I think one also has to look at the physics and data surrounding synthetic surfaces over the last 10-20 years, too, no?   The reasons WHY synthetics were invented?   There have historically been very serious breakdown problems on dirt surfaces, and the search is for change - surfaces - that help solve those difficulties.  Synthetics - and there are a variety with different properties, they obviously are not all the same  - certainly fit right in there.  

 

I was basing my point on what I observed only. On dirt the hoof slides and the dirt flies in the opposite direction when it strikes the dirt, on synthetic the hoof sticks right there, I don\'t see how the energy isn\'t sent right back through the hoof into the horse\'s leg in an unnatural or exaggerated way.

The force studies show clearly how the above assumption is incorrect.  That\'s why we do scientific studies - to factually measure that which we think about :-)

Why do you think dirt \"flys in the opposite direction\" when a hoof goes down into it?  Because the hoof is sliding forward continually in an uncontrolled manner, pushing that dirt out ahead of the hoof.  It\'s literally \"stubbing one\'s toe\" against the dirt.  When the lower leg is striking contact in an uncontrolled manner, on an unstable surface, things torque, things get stretched and rotated, things break.

When thinking about the force of a hoof strike on synthetic, and that force going back up the horses body, don\'t forget that the properties of the synthetic surface are what dissipates that force, and lessens it, compared to dirt.

One also has to have a little biomechanical knowledge, of what happens to the mass of the horse rocketing over the plant of the foot (where the impact forces come from)

[sighthound]

Thanks go to NC Tony for posting the video.

[Michael D.]

sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks go to NC Tony for posting the video.

Thanks go to you sight as well, for always injecting facts into these debates. The facts are often conspicuously missing.

[martoon]

Sight...

On average, don\'t you think these thoroughbreds are incredibly fragile and not really designed to handle the rigors of tough racing and training?  It seems like it\'s \"when\" not \"if\" these things with ankles tendons and knees and feet start causing problems and often it is very early in their careers.  All these little ouchies seem to me what causes the bounces more than any kind of general tiredness or wind issues I would assume.  Would you agree?  With the care and nutrition these horses receive they should be able to recover energy wise in two or 3 weeks to race effectively i would think.    Is grass racing on the whole safer?  Do quarterhorses and trotter-pacers have anywhere near the leg problems these thoroughbreds have?  it sure is tough to own these guys when they are always getting ankle and knee sore or chronic injuries.  Also do you think the torque or running the turns on synthetic is different than the dirt turns where the is some give in the ground?

[marcus]

Thanks - NoCarolinaTony  . BC Debate and Banter ? It seems half the field in this Saturdays Lexus Raven Run is on a surface switch  - definitely shopping for a price in that one  ...

[NoCarolinaTony]

Michael

You couldn\'t be more right.

NCT

[Dana666]

Well, they certainly have a mandate in California -- state law - and that was before any serious research had even been done, back in 2005-2006.

As I said I\'m no physics aficionado, but I\'m still not buying that observation/result that the impact is reduced (what that study really says is they know for a fact horses run slower on synthetics, the rest is speculation regarding reduction of injuries), and I know what I saw, albeit in a few seconds of that video. The energy is moving right back into the horse\'s front leg - that can\'t be good. Better if the dirt slides a little bit and moves some of that energy away. And don\'t even mention the rear ends. How about all the slipping there? They have a hard time grabbing and pushing off on synthetics, and the rear-end injuries have been documented quite clearly since the advent of synthetics in Southern California - we know that. They need to grab and push off with their back legs to feel confident and so many horses just won\'t run on the synthetic tracks because they don\'t feel confident.

The bottom line is, as far as Southern California goes, the mandate of synthetic tracks has been a disaster. They only did it in the first place to cover their asses: They had so many horses breaking down because of the rampant illegal and legal at the time (steroids) drug usage. They had all these ruined animals and they blamed it on the dirt surface because they couldn\'t open themselves up to people finding out the truth of why the horses were really breaking down.  They had all these unscrupulous trainers and greedy owners, and no matter what evidence might have been revealed in the little drug testing they did, they kept covering it up and/or imposing minor penalties, and then the chickens came home to roost as a Malcolm X once said.

Honestly, if I have to convince you of this point, you haven\'t been seriously involved in California racing or not watching too closely over the years.

[sighthound]

You\'re certainly entitled to dislike artificial surfaces for no other reason than you want to, but sorry - one can\'t disregard what that study clearly shows, and pretend the results were not exactly what they were.  

Scientific results and reasoning has nothing at all to do with if one\'s opinion likes what the results are, or not.

Chronic anabolic steroid use has little to nothing to do with breakdowns.   Grasping onto eliminating steroids was nothing but a knee-jerk PR response on the part of some of the racing industry.  It\'s a very good thing that overuse is eliminated, but that won\'t affect breakdown rates over time.

There was quite a bit of physics and racetrack surface information available about the various synthetics before CA went to them.

[Dana666]

For no other reason than I want to??? Hmmmmmmmm. . .what about all those other points I made in about 10,000 posts in this forum on the subject over the years? You\'re being sarcastic, and I\'m missing it, right? God, I hope so. And anabolic steroids have nothing to do with breakdowns??? How about milk-shakes, do they have anything to do with breakdowns? What about the plethora of other illegal substances all those super trainers out in So. Cal used without any real consequences? So, let\'s take a hurting animal who needs a few months on the farm and numb his legs, give him steroids, and then a nice milk-shake to top it off - he\'ll run off the screen until his legs fall off - that was the formula for success by all these greedy f-ing trainers and owners and everyone closed their eyes because we don\'t want to offend the owners -- after all, they pay the bills, right -- no jackasses, the gamblers pay the bills, without us there is no game -period. Without the gamblers, you\'ve got the Far Hills steeplechases and the races down in Aiken South Carolina. Back to the animal in question, when his legs do fall off ship him to Mexico on a truck and serve him up for dinner somewhere in Europe. But the problem was really the dirt tracks - that\'s why the horses kept breaking down or had career ending injuries. It\'s the way we do things in America - let\'s say, we have a huge problem, so let\'s first avoid the problem, sweep it under the rug, make sure the right people cash out while we spend tons of money on some other solution that masks the problem and hope (know) the people are just too stupid to know the difference.