I was a math major in a former life, and the reason for my interest was statistics.
Most people don't trust statistics. I have no statistic to prove this, but one of the most popular quotes seems to be, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." This quote is especially popular during the rebuttal round of a political debate.
As a reporter, my cardinal rule when it comes to statistics is to use them to figure out the story rather than to tell the story.
One of the biggest stories in racing right now is the surface issue--especially as Santa Anita Park considers a return to dirt after two failed attempts at racing on a synthetic surfaces over the past 26 months.
The data suggests that the synthetic surfaces installed at tracks beginning with Turfway Park in 2005 are safe than their dirt predecessors. This should strike people more as common sense than the Rosetta stone of horse safety.
Yes, it's important to note that the new surface is safer than the previous surface, but to attribute that to synthetic versus dirt misses the mark.
Laurel, Gulfstream, and Oaklawn have all redone their dirt surfaces in recent years. Zia and Pinnacle are racing on completely new dirt, and Presque Isle is racing on completely new synthetic.
How do injury rates at Laurel, Gulfstream, and Oaklawn compare to locations that replaced dirt with synthetic? How does Presque Isle compare to Pinnacle and Zia?
How do the stats compare when categorized by age, sex, and class? How do those stats compare to the national average?
Based on everything I've read, I'm pretty comfortable saying that a new synthetic surface is safer than an old dirt surface, but it's more than fair to ask how those new synthetic surfaces compare to new dirt surfaces before damning dirt. After all, isn't it possible that the problem is the age of a surface and not the type?
I realize that these are the types of questions my employer should be answering, and we're trying, but standardized data across jurisdictions is hard to come by, and that's assuming it exists in the first place (this, of course, is another problem altogether, but Mary Scollay, D.V.M., of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is working to fix that).
Whether you're in racing for the majesty of the Thoroughbred or as strictly a business venture, the safety of the equine athlete is a primary concern. Citing simple statistics to prove a point rather than taking the time to dissect the problem is not only an injustice to the horse but also poor business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Amen!
ReplyDeleteEd - these are EXACTLY the questions that need to be asked and answered. Additionally, there has been some anecdotal evidence that the synthetics appear to be harder on a horse's soft tissue and joints than traditional dirt. I'd like to see that measured as well. Nicely done.
ReplyDeleteHi! tctwitstexas here (Twitter). I am so glad to see intelligent and long 'arguments' over surfaces now. I just read about Kinsella...
ReplyDeleteExcellent! You are so right! There's just so much we don't know and we need to be careful how we compare surfaces and statistics and even injuries. Surely there are parallels in other sports that could be followed?
ReplyDeleteNice! Agree 100%...the complexity of this debate deserves more then anecdotal evidence but can't be told by throwing around a statistic or two either.
ReplyDeletewell said.
ReplyDeleteoff topic, but...my favourite place to see statistics mis-used is in debating potential baseball hall of famers. i believe david segui received a vote this year.
Sad news today that makes your point:
ReplyDeleteKinsella, who sold for a sale-topping $2.2 million at the 2007 Fasig-Tipton Saratoga yearling sale, was euthanized Jan. 25 after breaking down following a workout over Santa Anita’s Pro-Ride surface.
I agree that there are many variables to consider when evaluating track safety that go beyond, "is real, or is it synthetic."
ReplyDeleteInstallation is key factor. I do not follow Santa Anita racing, but my understanding is that the old dirt track did not drain well. I've been told that the synthetic surfaces (is Santa Anita the track on its second one?) were installed without solving the drainage system problems.
It could also be possible that new training techiques figure in this equation. I would like to see statistics that compare breakdowns today to thirty/forty/fify years ago when horses ran more frequently. It is possible that new training, or even breeding, practices have softened up the modern stock.
As for Keith's off topic Baseball Hall of Fame commet, ditto, ditto, ditto. All the major sports have changed so drastically that very few of the old standards that dictated greatness are still good benchmarks.
Any state veterinarian can scratch out horses before they load into the gate, and thereby lowering the risks of breakdowns. I have no problem with that policy.
ReplyDeleteHowever if stringent policing is reducing the "risky horses" from competing that is not a function of the new synthetics surfaces.
We are right back where we started from five years ago before the synthetics era was thrust upon us. We have gained nothing but lost the integrity of traditional main track racing.
Dr. Fager, Citation, Secretariat, et. al may very well not have excelled on these new surfaces. We owe it to preserve the tradition of American main track racing.
Was Del Mar 2007 anything like Del Mar 2009? Was Arlington 2007 anything like Arlington 2009?
ReplyDeleteThe surfaces wear out because of usage, maintenance, and weather at about the two year point. If you don't believe read this quote from Bill Casner of Winstar Farms about Del Mar 2009:
http://www.nctimes.com/sports/equestrian/racing/article_76e60435-8242-51d3-9bc9-1a7debc5b864.html
Excerpt:
"Maintenance is the absolute critical thing," said Winstar Farm's Bill Casner, who owns Colonel John, the morning-line favorite in Del Mar's $1 million Pacific Classic on Sunday. "They have tightened up the Del Mar surface this year. The first year, it was slow but safe. It was pretty good last year. This year it sounds like a herd of buffalo down there on the track."
What is it that people who are supposed to know what they're talking about don't understand about the fact that they wear out?
What is it that people don't understand about Tracks like Del Mar not running the surface to specifications? When they are new and deep and slow people complain because nobody can win on the lead so they work them and water them to make them play more like dirt. That begs the question. Why not just have dirt?
Synthetic surfaces are the biggest fraud ever in the history of Horse Racing in the United States and the statistics on injuries and breakdowns are not accurate. They are manipulated.
http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/01/26/artificial-promises-by-darrell-vienna.aspx
Excerpt:
Purveyors of synthetic racing surfaces soon appeared like snake oil salesmen extolling the virtues of their remarkable products. Representatives of the surfaces eventually installed in Southern California claimed their products required “low to no” maintenance and minimal watering. More importantly, they pitched their products as being consistent, safer, and proven to reduce injuries.
Excerpt:
With each passing meet the synthetics began to lose luster. Horses began presenting new types of injuries. Hind leg lamenesses increased. Soft tissue injuries began to occur with alarming frequency.
Excerpt:
The opinions of apologists have been widely disseminated. They would have us believe synthetic surfaces reduce the rate of catastrophic race injuries. If the underlying data regarding injuries are accurate and the analysis is proper, the best that can be said is that concomitant with the introduction of synthetics, some tracks have reported fewer injuries of a specific type. A causal connection between synthetic surfaces and a reduced rate of catastrophic injury has yet to be established.
I've been saying the same thing all along - maybe it seems that synthetic is safer because the whole track, base and all, has been replaced and is brand new. I'm glad to finally see it in print that someone else is bringing up the possibility!
ReplyDeleteThere was a study in Bloodhorse about a year ago that showed fatality rates decreasing from dirt to synthetic, but it also compared them with turf fatalities globally, which was much less than either dirt or synthetic (study went back to 1990).
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest differences in global turf racing vs american dirt racing is the pace scenario: slow/moderate opening turf fractions with a later kick vs fast dirt fractions and hold on for dear life. It is much more stressful on the body (human or equine)to start fast and hang on vs a more "even" pace. This fact doesn't change regardless of track maintenance or longevity (not that those wouldn't have an ancillary impact). As synthetics have shown pace scenarios between traditional dirt and turf, this suggests the burden of proof should be on the pro-dirt crowd to prove the safety of its surface, not the other way around.
For any one with an open mind, try running one mile with the first half fast and hang on to the finish vs another mile running the same pace for each half. By the way, for each mile the final time is the same. Tell me which is more stressful on your body.
Of course my argument is only valid if "horse welfare" is a priority. That would mean we take catastrophic breakdowns more seriously than soft tissue injuries. I'm not naive enough to believe that's the case in this debate, as evidenced by the trouble the industry is having in getting objective facts for analysis.
Ron M. wrote:
ReplyDelete....the burden of proof should be on the pro-dirt crowd to prove the safety of its surface, not the other way around.
______________
The burden, Ron M. falls on the pro-synthetics crowd to produce a main track that plays like a typical dirt track.
American racing tradition consists of a Citation to Dr. Fager to Spectacular Bid, all of whom ran long and hard from start to finish. That proved their greatness.
"Greatness" is not loping along for the first half of the race and hoping to get a clear trip to the wire in the second half.
The Knight Sky's point is my main contention with synthetic surfaces.
ReplyDeleteOne of their biggest selling points back when was that they behaved like dirt, and that clearly has not been the case.
I enjoy synthetic racing as much as I do dirt or turf racing. I have no problem playing Keeneland then switching to Churchill and then doing Arlington, but these are not dirt surfaces.
These are most definitely a distinctly different third surface from turf and dirt, and to equate dirt and synthetic surface races with each other when it comes time for year-end awards and prestige of grades is unfair to breeders and a century of American dirt breeding.
Great comments here for this important subject. I wish the general public could appreciate how much of a concern this subject is to those involved in all aspects of equine production. It is a horse welfare, economic and public interest issue.
ReplyDeleteI know that there are some research centers pursuing these questions, and they are complex issues to analyze. The variables apparently are more numerous than just the surfaces themselves, as the training and innate plus acquired idiosyncrasies of each horse interact with the surface variable. Just like with horses that specialize on one type of surface, eventually a strain that does best on synthetic may emerge. It could be a separate category for breeding selection in addition to turf and dirt.
The veterinarians I talk to say the stats have not been compiled in a way where they really can be compared. Horsepeople can smell bs and adverts masquerading as science articles a mile away, so it is great to see others skeptical about stats and data from surface companies. Donating to independent research funding entities could counter this.