Dustin Riddle

Compare & Contrast

Professor Weitlauf
Due date: April 11, 2011

Dirt vs. Synthetic Surfaces

The hottest debate in the sport of horseracing is the argument over synthetic

surfaces replacing traditional dirt tracks. Synthetic surfaces were originally designed to

provide a safer racing surface for Thoroughbred racehorses. Synthetics are composed of

sand, fiber, wax, and rubber and are designed to provide a universal racing surface and to

eliminate the problems of uneven surface and drainage problems, as well as weather and

temperature variations.

There has been a recent call to the Thoroughbred racetracks to install synthetic

surfaces to replace the dirt tracks. In 2006, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB),

made it mandatory for all California racetracks to install a synthetic racing surface by the

end of 2007. Several other racetracks in other states have also installed synthetic surfaces.

These tracks include Turfway Park (Florence, KY), Keeneland (Lexington, KY), Presque

Isle Downs (Erie, PA), and Arlington Park (Chicago, IL).

Thoroughbreds are very fragile horses. A broken leg or ankle is almost always a

life ending injury. This is because a horse has to bear weight on the broken limb,

therefore causing pressure on the bones, and the injury is not allowed the proper means to

heal. Excess pressure on the three good limbs may cause a disease called laminitis, which

essentially causes the hoof to fall off. Almost all of the time horses that break their legs
on the racetrack are euthanized on the track, because the time and cost of healing them is

not equivalent to the value of the horse.

Traditional dirt tracks have been around for centuries, dating back to 1863 when

Saratoga Race Course was opened in Saratoga Springs, NY. Up until the California

mandate in 2006, all racetracks in America used dirt surfaces, sometimes alongside turf

surfaces. Dirt surfaces are made up of a combination of dirt, sand, and clay, the

consistencies of which depend on the racetrack. Dirt tracks generally produce faster

workout and race times, and produce a different style of race, which allows for horses to

lead the entire way or come from behind, whereas synthetic surfaces almost always favor

horses that stalk the leader.

One of the main arguments against dirt tracks is they lack in consistency in track

surface. A track may be fast (dry, hard, compact) one day, and sloppy or muddy the next

day. Also, none of the dirt tracks around the country are the same. When Keeneland had a

dirt track, there was a speed bias on the rail. If a horse was able to race on the rail the

whole way around, it was nearly guaranteed to win. Other tracks, such as Churchill

Downs (which still has a dirt track), generally plays very fair over the whole course.

Critics of dirt tracks say that the hard clay base used is very detrimental to the

horse’s bones. This causes excessive concussion on the ankles and knees, which allow for

fractures to happen more frequently. The variable surfaces also play a factor into injuries,

especially when the track is sloppy or muddy, which does not allow for the foot to land

properly on the track. When the foot does not land properly, the weight of the horse is not

allowed to be evenly distributed which will often cause fractures in the front cannon
bones (shin bones) or ankles. These are the type of injuries that result in the horse to have

to be euthanized.

Synthetic surfaces are designed to lesson the fatal injures that have plagued

Thoroughbreds in recent years. Tragedies such as Barbaro fracturing his left hind

sesamoid bones (ankle) in the Preakness Stakes in 2006, and Eight Belles fracturing both

front cannon bones in the 2008 Kentucky Derby, have the public calling for greater safety

standards in the racing industry. The theory behind synthetic surfaces is that the

concussion of the impact is less, thus, they are more forgiving and provide less strain on

the fragile bones of racehorses. The synthetic surfaces are much stickier than the

traditional dirt surfaces, allowing the hoof to grip the surface better. This same sticky

surface doesn’t allow the hoof to slide forward as it naturally would when the horse is

galloping, which causes hyperextension and hyper flexion of the tendons, which I will

discuss in greater detail later on.

At first glance, the synthetic surfaces appear to be living up to their potential for

saving horse’s lives. In California, fatality rates diminished from 3.09 fatalities per 1000

starters in 2004 to 1.87 fatalities per 1000 starters. The first fatality in California on

synthetic surfaces was only after 3000 horses had started. This is a fatality rate of just

0.33 per 1000 starters. This is comparable to the European tracks that have had synthetic

surfaces for decades. The question remains then: If all of this evidence is correct, and

there really are less fatality rates using synthetic surfaces, why aren’t all racetracks

installing them?

The main downside to synthetic surfaces is the fact that they cause many more

soft tissue injuries than dirt tracks. Unlike dirt tracks, synthetic surfaces do not allow the
hoof to slide properly, and this causes hyperextension/hyper flexion of the deep digital

flexor tendon (the equivalent of a human’s Achilles tendon). Because the hoof is not

allowed to slide, all of the horse’s weight is pressed down upon the tendon and ankle for

a longer period of time than would be caused on a dirt track. This hyperextension causes

excess strain on the tendon, eventually resulting in tears or a bowed tendon.

A soft tissue injury, such as a bowed tendon (tendon is hyper-extended to the

point that it “bows” out) or a torn tendon is almost always a career ending injury. One

may say that a career ending injury is surely better than a life ending injury, but in

horseracing that is oftentimes not the case. A horse with a soft tissue injury must have

constant treatment for anywhere from six to eighteen months, with no promise of return

to the racetrack. This is a huge financial expense for an animal that may never be able to

make that money back. This is the main reason why many people believe that the CHRB

jumped the gun when they mandated that all of the California race tracks switch to

synthetic surfaces.

Unlike synthetic surfaces, dirt surfaces allow for a horse’s hoof to slide along the

ground as it gallops, which allows for the horse to pick up its hooves more quickly and

prevents the hyper flexion and hyperextension that is caused by synthetics. Soft tissue

injuries are not nearly as prevalent with dirt tracks because of the fact that the hoof is

allowed to move naturally.

Another argument against synthetic surfaces is the idea that they act more like

turf, and give an advantage to turf-favoring horses, than dirt does. This idea is fueled by

the fact that the Breeders’ Cup World Thoroughbred Championships have been held on

synthetic surfaces the past two years, and each of these past two years, European turf
favoring horses have outdone American dirt favoring horses on the synthetic track. When

these World Championships were held on a dirt track, the dirt favoring horses would

outperform the Europeans on the dirt, while the Europeans would outperform on the turf.

The synthetics allow for a “more even playing field”, according to synthetic supporters,

and “death to the dirt horse”, according to the critics of synthetics. The argument for dirt

claims that these dirt-favoring horses will have no place to go if the synthetic surfaces are

installed nationwide. The breeding industry would also have to change to accommodate

“synthetic stallions” rather than the modern “dirt stallion”. In short, the entire American

racing industry would have to convert everything to fit the synthetic surfaces, instead of

converting the fragile American Thoroughbred to work better with dirt tracks.

One final downside to synthetic surfaces is the fact that they provide a much

harder landing for the jockeys who fall off. There have been two jockeys in California

that have broken their backs in the past year due to the lack of give in the surfaces. The

sticky surface does not allow for the track to cushion the jockey’s fall at all, while a dirt

track is able to spread out and make a softer landing for a fallen jockey.

There are many other ways of preventing fatal injuries than converting to

synthetic surfaces. The American breeders are currently breeding for speed instead of

strength and stamina. If the breeder bred for those qualities, there would be less

breakdowns on dirt tracks. There are also many dirt tracks that have fatality rates

comparable to the low numbers of the California tracks. In New York, from 2006-2008,

their fatality rates varied from 1.3-2.3 fatalities per 1,000 starters. This is because the dirt

tracks there have a better cushion for the horses to race on, as well as a softer base

underneath the racing surface. If the rest of the dirt tracks of the country were maintained
in this way, there would be fewer fatalities nationwide, without the need to convert to a

synthetic surface.

In short, I believe that the racing commissions nationwide have rushed to change

to synthetic surfaces too soon without researching them enough. While the fatality rates

may be down, the career ending soft tissue injuries are on the rise. The American dirt

horse has nowhere to compete, and the jockeys are getting hurt worse. I believe that the

alternatives to synthetics such as the dirt consistencies in the track and also changes in

how the horses are bred, need to be investigated more thoroughly. If synthetics are indeed

the future of the racing industry, a solution to the soft tissue injuries needs to be found.