The Race Track Industry Program of the University of Arizona holds annually its Symposium on Racing & Gaming, which is currently taking place in Tucson; much of the news generated about the racing world this week has come from the symposium, and you can see a full list of its programs here.

I went in search of more information about the symposium as I was thinking about the panel that took place this week on the use of synthetic surfaces, and about which The Blood-Horse reported yesterday. The Blood-Horse article interested me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that every panelist represented a track that has installed Polytrack. It’s not as if any of them is going to come out and say, after a $10 million installation, “Yeah, well, it’s not working out too well…”, so it makes me wonder what the organizers of the panel were hoping to accomplish. Maybe they just wanted to hear of their experiences?

Among the benefits of Polytrack that the panelists cited:

· Larger fields, which led to higher handle
· Fewer cancelled racing days due to weather
· Ability to use the track for training year-round
· Decreased maintenance costs

The decrease in injuries was also cited as a benefit, but the way I read the article (and of course any text is open to multiple interpretations), the increase in revenue due to the factors above is the main reason for the panelists’ support of Polytrack. To quote the author of the article, “The bottom line is that ‘[Polytrack] is so much easier to take care of,’ [Keeneland track supervisor Mike] Young said” (Blood-Horse).

And while I am happy to hear that in some cases injuries were reduced, the actual numbers are miniscule and statistically irrelevant (says this English teacher, as if she knows from statistical irrelevance). I recognize that it is perhaps hard-hearted to talk about statistics when we’re talking about equine lives; nonetheless, given the unknowns about synthetic surfaces, I’m not sure that the actual numbers about injury reduction are all encouraging. This article cites the following:

· At Turfway in the final year of the natural surface, there were twenty-four catastrophic injuries.
· During the first year with Polytrack, the number of catastrophic injuries dropped to three.
· During the second year with Polytrack, the number of catastrophic injuries rose to fourteen.

No data was provided about the number of horses in training and racing, so one can’t tell what percentage of the equine population was affected by injuries.

Craig Favel, executive vice-president of Del Mar Thoroughbred Club “cited statistics showing that in 2007 there were six catastrophic injuries among the 10,265 incidents of ‘strenuous exercise,’ a category that groups morning workouts and afternoon races. By comparison, in 2006 there were 14 fatal injuries from 8,132 incidents of strenuous exercise” (Blood-Horse).

Again—welcome news that fatalities were down, but in both cases, we’re talking about virtually meaningless statistical differences.

The four executives (from Keeneland, Turfway, Arlington Park, and Del Mar) all enthusiastically supported the synthetic surface, though Robert Elliston of Turfway conceded that he had perhaps raised unrealistic expectations about the ability of synthetic tracks to reduce injuries.

The vested interest each of these people has in the success of Polytrack undermines for me the credibility of their perspectives. In my perfect world, the Symposium would have organized a panel that included independent evaluation of the effects of the synthetics and provided information on how the injury statistics compare to those at natural-surface tracks with comparable volume and duration of meets.

And once again: not a word about the respiratory effects of synthetics on horses and humans.

I quote Dan Liebman’s commentary in The Blood-Horse: “…we now enter a perfect time to critically study and scrutinize the various synthetic surfaces, because there are no concrete plans for any to be installed at other racetracks in the immediate future….for the immediate future, the nine aforementioned tracks [who have already installed synthetic surfaces] will remain those in North America that have taken the bold move of replacing their traditional dirt surfaces in an attempt to improve the game in a dramatic way. In the next few years, we will know more about the impact of their decision.”

I agree. There are synthetic surfaces installed in a variety of climates and at tracks with widely varying volume. We’ve got Polytrack, Cushion, and Tapeta. It’s the perfect time for independent evaluators to take up residence at these tracks and study them in detail, so that in five years, we have a wealth of information that track operators, trainers, jockeys, vets, and bettors can use.

Hey, a woman can dream, can’t she?