How futures hinge on finding the right track.

Synthetic racing surfaces will affect all segments of the Thoroughbred industry—that much is certain. But more questions than answers surround the new technology. Interviews by Michele MacDonald

Mankind searches for perfection in many areas of life, and in racing, the desire for the faultless has never been more acute than with the current quest to find the ideal race track surface.

Some believe that the sport has nearly reached the threshold of flawlessness with the advent of synthetic surfaces that were, somewhat ironically, pioneered in Britain as footing for lesser runners who competed in the dark and damp of the winter months.

But, in a twist of the notion that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, others contend that the synthetic tracks are not a panacea and could indeed be an unfortunate misuse of funds.
Questions have been raised about whether they are as safe as they have been promoted, and whether they are worth expenditures of $5 million to $10 million when such funds could just as easily provide exceptional dirt tracks.

No one has the answer, although many concur that synthetics have, at the very least, shown that their high-technology vertical drainage systems—a large part of the installation costs—are a vast improvement over the horizontal drainage of traditional dirt surfaces.

Synthetic surfaces require less watering and generally are said to be far cheaper to maintain than dirt tracks. More importantly, the drainage systems, when properly constructed, eliminate the possibility of sloppy, dangerous surfaces. Additionally, if turf races have to be moved due to rain, more runners tend to compete on synthetic surfaces than on dirt tracks, usually spurring larger betting handle.

With an enthusiastic endorsement from the Keeneland Associ­ation, a powerful indus­try leader that has partnered with British-based Martin Collins International to be the North American distributor for the Polytrack brand of the surface, synthetic tracks have been installed at Keeneland, its partner Turfway Park, Woodbine, Arlington Park and Del Mar (all Polytrack), as well as at Holly­wood Park and Santa Anita Park (Cushion Track, another product with British roots), and Golden Gate Fields and Pres­que Isle Downs (Tapeta Footings, invented by British-born, Mary­land-based former trainer Michael Dickinson).

Five of those tracks debuted their surfaces in 2007: the new Presque Isle, Golden Gate, Del Mar, Arlington and Santa Anita. California led the way because of a mandate from the California Horse Racing Board that racing surfaces in the state be converted to improve safety and equine welfare.

While most statistics indicate marked decreases in the numbers of fatal breakdowns on synthetic tracks versus the previous dirt surfaces, there have been whispers of increasing numbers of soft tissue and hind end injuries, as well as pelvic fractures. Further, there have been well-documented instances of maintenance problems, particularly at Turfway, Woodbine and Santa Anita.

Statistics from Arlington, Keeneland and Del Mar show that more runners overall trained and raced on the synthetic surfaces than they did on the previous dirt surfaces at those facilities.

Yet Del Mar’s track sparked controversy over the summer by yielding markedly slower racing times and seeming deeper during racing than during morning training hours. In contrast, Keeneland’s Polytrack surface has been faster than the dirt track was, perhaps indicating how the product, which includes a wax coating, can vary in differing climatic conditions.
Whether synthetic surfaces should be installed at more locations, including tracks in the Mid-Atlantic region, which currently is home to only the one at Presque Isle Downs in Erie, Pa., is a matter that will continue to be debated.
Following are the thoughts of a variety of national and regional leaders, whose views range from strong advocacy of synthetics to undisguised skepticism.

Dr. Rick Arthur
Currently the equine medical director for the California Horse Racing Board, Dr. Rick Arthur was a race track veterinary practitioner in southern California for 30 years. He has long been an advocate for horse welfare and has been involved in addressing race horse medication and drug testing issues in state, national and international forums. He chaired the racing committee of the American Association of Equine Practi­tioners, of which he is a past president, and served on the Quality Assur­ance Program of the Racing Commissioners Inter­na­tional. He also serves on the executive committee of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium.
What is your assessment of synthetic racing surfaces?

I think they’ve certainly been positive overall. They certainly are not as easy to maintain as everybody had expected and hoped they would be, but in terms of reducing injuries in racing, they’ve been quite positive, certainly in the reduction of fatal injuries. It’s not quite as clear on training injuries. But if you look at the racing fatalities on the synthetic surfaces in California—and this is just an estimate as I haven’t done all the calculations yet—it’s probably about one fatality per 1,000 starts, which is actually quite a good figure compared to what most people experienced (with dirt tracks). So, in that area, it’s certainly been positive for us in California.

There are a lot of differences between the surfaces; they aren’t nearly as uniform as all of us had expected or hoped. We have three different surfaces in southern California now, two of which are from the same manufacturer (Cushion Track at Hollywood and Santa Anita), and the same manufacturer has enormous variations in the surfaces. It probably has to do with the wax makeup of the surfaces. There was a concern at Santa Anita, for example, which experiences very hot weather, as to whether the wax would melt in the higher temperatures because we actually race when it’s 100 degrees. So they put a higher melting point wax in it, which has changed the surface from what we see even over at Hollywood. Those sorts of things are a little bit confusing, trying to figure out what’s what and what’s the best way to go.

We certainly had very large fields during the Oak Tree at Santa Anita meet in the fall, which could be attributed to the very kind surface at Del Mar in the summer. The problem with Del Mar, however, is that it was quite a slow track. Even though the races were competitive and everything went well, there was some consternation on the part of trainers simply because horses were running so much slower on the Polytrack than on the other surfaces.

Do you have any evidence yet if any of the products stands out above the others?
It’s way too early to tell; it’s certainly not obvious if there is a difference at this stage. You have to remember that they’re all very similar. What you’re talking about is sand, wax, a synthetic material—some sort of a fiber material—and then there is an oil base. All the tracks are that way and the variation is what sand you use, what wax you use, what fiber you use and what oil you use. The basic design is very similar among all of them, despite what you hear otherwise. Obviously, there are people trying to sell their particular surface. They all have their good points. All of them will be positive, but I still think we’re on a learning curve here and we’ll know a lot more about these surfaces in a few years from now than we do today.
What maintenance issues have arisen and have they varied by track?

I’m not totally convinced that some of the maintenance issues are not man-made issues. Most of the people who are maintaining these surfaces really don’t have a lot of experience with them and they’re trying to take their dirt experience and translate it to the synthetic track. And I’m not sure that’s entirely appropriate. That’s why I think there has been a problem. We’ve had instances where we’ve had concern that tracks have been slow and when trainers have complained about it, they’ve tried to tighten the tracks up and then it ends up with more problems than they had to begin with. Exactly how you make a track faster or slower, how you maintain the track, are still issues that need to be resolved.

Has data been collected about injuries on the synthetics and compared to what occurred on dirt tracks?

We’re actually trying to do that as we speak. Part of the problem is that the data was not kept in the same format or the best format to answer those questions. We have probably the best fatality data of any racing jurisdiction in the country here in California, but it was not kept in a way that we can necessarily do the type of analysis we want to do. So, we are trying to figure out the best way to go back and reanalyze the data in a more useful manner. The bottom line is that we are looking at that specific issue and hopefully within the next few months we’ll be able to come up with some answers. But we do know that if you look at fatalities per start, that we’ve seen a dramatic decrease.

What was the general fatality rate on dirt tracks?
In California in the previous year, it was about one fatality per 400 starts, in a pretty bad year. We had been running about one per 600 starts. And nationwide the figure that is typically used is about one per 800. But not all jurisdictions keep track of fatalities the same way, so it’s a little bit difficult comparing one surface where the data is collected in one fashion with data from another jurisdiction that collects it differently.

Do you agree with the contention that while there may be fewer fatalities and fractures, there are more soft tissue injuries on synthetic surfaces?
No. I spent a lot of time talking to veterinarians about this and they are all in virtually uniform agreement that the number of injuries of all sorts is less on the synthetic surfaces. Certainly, the number of fractures is down dramatically. The number of soft tissue injuries—you don’t see as dramatic a decrease, but it certainly is no worse than it was before. It’s just not as dramatic an improvement. I’m not entirely sure that (the belief there are more soft tissue injuries) is more than an old wives’ tale. I’ve seen no documentary evidence that would lead me to support that conclusion. It’s one of those things that I think a lot of people start talking about and it kind of gets a life of its own. But as far as I’m concerned, that’s anecdotal among trainers, and certainly it’s not the case among veterinarians as a rule.

Do you think the Breeders’ Cup should be run every year at a facility that has a synthetic track to lessen the chance of injuries, especially after the sloppy 2007 renewal at Monmouth Park?

It will be next year (at Santa Anita). Monmouth was a bad example of any dirt track; they had all that rain. I was there and I saw the track and it was the type of track that always causes concern for horsemen. I do think synthetic surfaces are an improvement, and that sentiment for the Breeders’ Cup to be run on them may very well be the case in a few years, but I’m not willing to say that’s going to be the definitive answer. There’s certainly more to injuries than just track surfaces. I think there have been definite changes in the way horses are managed, in the way they are trained, the way that veterinary care is provided—all those are things that you can’t take out of the equation. Certainly, the synthetic surfaces have ameliorated some of the long-term trends that have been going on in horse racing with injuries. I’ve never believed, by the way, that racing surfaces are the only problem.

If the surfaces can help change the trends, particularly with injuries, can that make the economics of the sport more appealing and draw more owners into racing?
Sure. There are two aspects of it. Obviously, the economics are a big aspect of getting people to participate. The other aspect is I think avoiding the negative connotations that horse racing has gotten over a series of incidents over the past few years. Those are certainly not positive, particularly for the incidental fans that see injuries and just really wonder in their own minds whether it’s worth it or not. I do think we have to recognize that whatever we do to provide a safe surface for race horses should be considered an obligation, not only for the horse, but for the sport.

Do you think there are any major drawbacks to synthetic surfaces?
The major drawback is the expense of putting in the new surfaces. The other drawback that I can see is that I still think we’re in the development stage with these surfaces. I think they are very exciting; they have a lot of promise. But for a race track to put $10 million into a racing surface that may not be the optimal surface—there may be something a little bit different down the road in a few years—I think is a real concern to a lot of race tracks. There are going to have to be some questions answered before every race track goes to them, particularly some of these smaller venues. Some of the problems that we’re seeing in maintaining these surfaces—racing associations are going to be aware of that and be a little bit hesitant to move forward until some of these problems get sorted out.

Bob Baffert
After beginning his career as a jockey and a trainer of Quarter Horses, Bob Baffert established himself as a national star in the 1990s. He has trained seven Thoroughbred champions and perhaps two more after saddling 2007 Breeders’ Cup winners Indian Blessing and Midnight Lute. The winner of three Eclipse Awards and national leading trainer by earnings from 1998 to 2001, Baffert has won two legs of the Triple Crown with four horses—Silver Charm, Real Quiet, Point Given and War Emblem. He also is the only American trainer to win the world’s richest race, the Dubai World Cup, twice, with Silver Charm and Captain Steve. Baffert raised concerns last summer about Del Mar’s Polytrack surface and moved some of his runners to Saratoga Race Course.

What are your thoughts on synthetic racing surfaces?
I like training over them; I prefer racing on dirt because I think dirt really tells you what kind of horse you have. It’s hard to get a line on a horse (with synthetic surfaces)—they either like it or they don’t. It’s a third surface. It’s good for really wet weather; it probably would be great for Aqueduct’s inner track. I think that what they’re best for is wet weather.
The really positive thing about the advent of synthetic surfaces is [race tracks] are finally putting money into the track surfaces. That was the biggest problem with the California tracks—they were old. With Santa Anita, Seabiscuit used to run on that surface.

What [new synthetic surfaces] did is make a level base, which is very important. But most of the track guys I’ve talked to have said, “Hey, if you give me $10 million, I could build you a state-of-the-art dirt track.”
Do you find that your horses tend to stay sounder when they train over synthetics?
I’m still getting problems. You get different kind of problems—tibias, hind ends. But everybody that speaks against these tracks, it’s almost like you’re against having safety for the horses.

At Del Mar, believe me, every trainer hated the track, but nobody would say anything because they couldn’t pack up and leave. They were stuck. It just wasn’t a fair surface. I want a safe race track, but I also want a fair race track.
Horses are still going to get hurt, unfortunately. I like to train horses on it, because it’s an even, softer surface, but I’d rather run on a dirt track.
How much of a difference did it make to move some of your horses to Saratoga—did they perform better than they would have at Del Mar?

I wouldn’t have known what I had if I had kept them at Del Mar. You don’t know what you have because at Del Mar, it was totally different in the afternoon and it was like anybody can win. It’s good for gambling. Del Mar has a great atmosphere, so people are going to show up no matter what you have; but for a trainer, we make a living at this. And a horse really couldn’t excel. He either loved it or he hated it, and if he hated it, the only thing to do was sit there and wait.
I think the Cushion Track at Hollywood Park is really good; it’s even and fair. Hollywood looks more like a dirt surface. I think the most important factor that synthetic surfaces have brought is that somebody finally spent the big money to fix the base. Now, if it doesn’t work out, they can always scrape it off and put eight inches of silty dirt on there and it will be great.

In California, we needed a change. These dirt tracks were bad. Del Mar’s track needed a change and it’s a lot better than it was before. . . At Del Mar, they knew they had a problem. They had such a bad rap about horses breaking down there in years past that they didn’t want any more negative publicity.

At Keeneland, they only run for a few weeks and it’s good to train on. It would be great to have (a synthetic surface) on a training track and then run on the dirt.
Should there be an evaluation period before more synthetic tracks are built?
I think they’ve got to give it a few more years. We’re just learning about them. I know there are headaches; the maintenance on them is really hard. It’s a challenge. It’s for bad weather. It’s great for tracks like Turfway, for winter racing, for areas where it really rains, but it’s not for dry weather.

With so many already installed, and with California representing about one-third of American racing, will these surfaces change the sport?
I think it’s going to keep certain horses out of California. I know there are certain breeding lines that were popular—sires that I won’t even get near now. I’ve really changed the kind of horses that I buy. . .
A grass pedigree is going to be important. I call the synthetic surfaces ‘white grass.’ There are some sires that you can see the big difference. Empire Makers—they love that stuff.

I think they still have a lot of kinks they have to work out of synthetic surfaces. Once they get it closer to looking more like dirt, it will be better; they’re just not there yet. I think eventually it will be on training tracks. That stuff would be great for Belmont Park’s training track—it would be awesome. Or put it on another track inside (the main track). Then when it rained, they could put everything on synthetic. What hurts horses is these wet, sealed race tracks—that’s hard on them. That’s really tough on them.

I think the jury is still out on this stuff, but with time, they’ll work the kinks out of it.
Can you give examples of what kind of horses you buy now versus previously?
No (laughs). I know now what to stay away from. I’m not saying anything, but I’ve got it down now. You have to train totally different on it. But the thing is, a really good horse will run everywhere.

I think the Tapeta and the Cushion are better than the Poly; the Poly is just not very fair. I run less horses at Keeneland now because you just don’t know what to expect there. You need more of a turf horse (on Polytrack). Now Midnight Lute, he ran well on Poly or whatever. He can handle the different surfaces.
I was talking to (WinStar Farm co-owner) Bill Casner the other day when he was out here; he really loves the synthetic tracks. I told him, “You love it because the Tiznows love it.”

And you know what’s a good example—that little horse (Daaher) that beat (Midnight Lute) in the Cigar Mile. He was just an ordinary horse (when running at Woodbine on Polytrack). It makes a good horse look ordinary and an ordinary horse look good. They said (his improvement) was due to putting on blinkers. They got him off the synthetic and he became a monster. . .
With synthetics, the horses either love it or they hate it, so it doesn’t give you a fair feeling of what you have. Some horses struggle over it. But nobody wants to say anything against it. I like them for the horses that like it. I have horses that move way up on it and I’ve got horses that couldn’t handle it. I got rid of those horses; I sent them away. I had about 20 that I told the owners, “They need to go where there is dirt. They’re not going to hack it here.”
Do you notice a big difference between the Polytrack, Tapeta and Cushion surfaces?

Every one is different. A lot of horses are going to be vulnerable on them; it takes their speed away from them. And that’s what this game is about: speed. That’s what the big argument was: Slow your horses down. Okay. We’ll just start buying slower horses. That’s one way I can slow them down. I tell my people we’re going to buy some slower horses.

If I was building a race track and I was forced to use a synthetic surface, Polytrack would be my least favored choice. When I’m joking I say Polytrack is like Las Vegas. Whatever happens on Poly stays on Poly.
California needed something and these surfaces have improved California racing. But Del Mar needs work. Once they get it tweaked, it’ll be great down there. All we ask for is safety and fairness.

Nick Nicholson
President of the Keeneland Association since 2000, Nick Nicholson oversaw the organization’s partnership with Martin Collins International to become the North American distributor of Polytrack. In 2004, Keeneland became the first American public facility to place Polytrack on its training surface; it followed up by converting its main track for the fall meet in 2006. Nicholson, who previously was executive vice-president and executive director of The Jockey Club and helped form the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, serving as the NTRA’s first chief operating officer, has been a strong advocate of safety in racing and champions synthetic surfaces in that regard.

Now that so many synthetic tracks have been installed around North America, what is your assessment of their functionality and how they might benefit racing?
I think it’s been a giant step forward for the horse. History will look back on the past couple of years and the next 10 years or so as a time when we became more aware of, and committed to, safer Thoroughbred racing. I think we’re at the beginning of the revolution, not the end. I feel very positive about it.
There were more injuries this fall at Keeneland than in the two previous meets. But overall, how has the injury rate changed?

It’s very interesting. We went for a year, or 11 months, in which I think we had three ambulance runs. And then in one hour and a half on that one Saturday in October, we had three. To say that we were befuddled is an understatement. Since those incidents, we’re back to being just fine. So I can’t tell you what happened; I can tell you it was an aberrant result from what we had seen every day here. But it also happened; we were crushed that it happened. You get lulled when you go weeks and weeks and weeks without any problem; you forget that it can happen. And then we had that brutal reminder.

So, what we’re trying to do is be very disciplined. We do not have all the answers. In fact we’re still trying to figure out the questions. We need to keep that attitude. We need to keep open-minded and we need to be objective, almost removed. We need to be very analytical and objective here. We need to look at all the variants and there were some variants that took place on those days in October. The weather was one; it was unusually hot and dry—it was record-breaking, the hottest ever. There was that dry, bright sunshine and perhaps it did some things to the surface of the track.

One of the factors that makes it difficult to analyze is that by and large the incidents that happened were very, very early in a race. In fact, in two of the instances, literally a few steps from the starting gate. You have to think what does the track have to do with that?

We shouldn’t look as this as the end of the revolution or that we have the perfect product, nor should we let these accidents deter us from the fact that this is a huge step forward for the safety of the horse and the rider, and I think that is clearly the case.

Will there be more of these surfaces installed or a pause for more study of them?
I think you’ll see some of both. I really haven’t spent much time worrying about that. I’ve never speculated much or thought much or cared much which track would be next. Every track has to make its own decision. And there is a race track company or two that just does not like to be told what to do and that, in my opinion anyway, is clouding some of the judgment here.

We’re thrilled we made the decision we made; that’s all I know about.
After the Breeders’ Cup, some in the European media suggested that future editions of the Cup should only be run at facilities with synthetic surfaces. Do you agree?
I thought that the people in New Jersey did the best that could be done under the circumstances and should be commended. The weather there was a prime example of how these all-weather tracks are indeed better. There’s no way to sugarcoat that—they are better. We had virtually the same storms at Keeneland and raced on a fast track. A well constructed vertical draining track is better in rainy weather than the horizontal draining tracks—in my opinion, that’s just a fact. We did not scrimp on our drainage system here and we’re glad we didn’t. It handles these downpours we get in Kentucky with ease.

There are two important elements to these tracks. One is the drainage system—it’s a totally different philosophy in drainage. And the other is the surface material. My personal guess is that the vertical drainage system will end up being seen as a major breakthrough and that the surface material, which is better than dirt, will continue to evolve and improve, and in five to 10 years from now, the surface we run on will be much better than what we’re running on now.
Are you continuing to do research and development on the surface material?
We are.

From your perspective at Keeneland, which conducts some of America’s most important races and also auctions more horses than anywhere in the world, how do you think these tracks can change racing and breeding?
The most important change that we should focus on is that horses and riders will be safer and they’ll be healthier. Whatever changes evolve from that, it will all work out. I don’t know what they’ll be, but if horses are safer and healthier and live longer and race longer, then that means that fewer jockeys and exercise riders are going to get hurt, and that’s the combination to keep our eye on. Whatever other effects it will have on the breed, we’ll just deal with them.

John Sikura
Owner and president of Hill ‘N’ Dale Farms in Lexington, Ky., where champion Vindication, a leading freshman sire, and 11 other stallions stand at stud, John Sikura wrote a letter to The Blood-Horse magazine last summer questioning whether synthetic tracks are as good for the sport as some have asserted. Sikura was particularly concerned about the Polytrack surface at Del Mar, which seemed to hinder speed horses.

What are your major concerns about synthetic race tracks?
I guess a lot of the ultimate trends and changes are unknown since it is a new surface. There’s a variety of different surfaces; people often interchange the word synthetic as a singular but really it’s a plural because there is some variation.
It seems like a politically correct statement, but in my opinion it’s inaccurate, to say less horses die so we must have a great surface. There are many questions but one of the most appropriate questions to ask is the ability, when you spend that kind of money, to build a safe race track with natural components. When you have a race track like Del Mar that has had severe problems, and you fix it with Polytrack, does that mean that no other remedy would have worked? We don’t know the answer to that.

We’re all for safe racing. As a breeder, the more times the horses that we breed can run, the better it is for stallions, for mares and all their progeny, and certainly for the welfare and safety of the horses. There’s never going to be a racing surface that is a panacea for injuries, that stops injuries. Horses have died on all kinds of race tracks; it’s a dangerous sport.

When you talk about a sport that’s also a business and can affect the lives of so many in such a dramatic way, then ultimately if you have a new surface, it must be one that allows the best horses to perform in the best manner or, if not, the integrity of the challenge of who’s the best horse is really lost.

If Storm Cats are no longer really Storm Cats, then you’ve upset the breeding industry. How have you affected the buyer? How have you affected the breeder? And our concerns as stakeholders are as legitimate, if not more legitimate, than a race track that wants to save on maintenance costs because when races come off the turf, they’ll run on the Polytrack and they don’t have to water the track.
You have to understand their motivations, too. We want a fair, consistent and safe race track. If we achieve those goals, then it’s a great remedy. But you still have to have the best horses give you their ultimate performance. If you dumb down the performance to where horses can’t exhibit their true qualities, then it’s a hindrance on the breed. It clouds true abilities and certainly affects the economics of everyone.

Have other synthetic surfaces besides Del Mar yielded skewed racing results?
I don’t know. Keeneland has had quite good reviews on their race track and I’ve understood that the Cushion Track that Santa Anita has installed has led a lot of people to speak in glowing terms.

I’m not anti anything. If you slow down horses where they run, by time, 40 lengths slower than they have before, of course that affects performances. We stand a very valuable sire in Vindication and when (his son) Mai­monides won by 11Z\x lengths at Saratoga, everybody was wowed and it created quite a stir. If that had translated to a short head victory somewhere else, that has a big effect on perception of ability.

What will happen now that so many of these tracks have been installed so quickly? Should there be a lengthy evaluation before others are constructed?
It’s important to know the motivation for installing synthetic surfaces. If it’s to save maintenance costs, then it’s a selfish goal. And if we do that under the guise of it is safe—but we really don’t know if it’s safe—then it’s self-serving. It would seem to me that if these tracks had put down a synthetic surface on their training track and left performing horses on a traditional surface, that would have been a very good, measured way to maybe evolve into it.

I heard Michael Dickinson quoted as saying that in five to 10 years, all the tracks will be synthetic surfaces. I don’t agree with that. I know that there are a lot of traditional horsemen that are not believers in a man-made product out-performing natural materials.

If at a race track all of a sudden there are a rash of horses that die, there’s something wrong with the track; there’s a significant fault somewhere and it has to be remedied. I think people improperly tried to simplify the argument—if you don’t put down Polytrack, you don’t care about the horses. I think that’s an unfair statement and I don’t agree with it.

People have to be able to bet on the races and have a true reproduction of form. That’s why people gamble and that’s a big part of our business. There are probably a lot of contributory factors to horses getting hurt, and we have to take all of those into account as well.

Are there other breeders who feel the same way you do?
Yes. A lot of people in Sara­toga were advocating synthetic tracks but they were racing at Saratoga. I saw what happened with Vindication and how visually impressive his offspring were (on dirt), and I doubt very much they would have had that performance on that synthetic surface at Del Mar. And that’s not to say that they won’t adjust that track to make it a little different next year. I’m not critical of something they’re doing; I think everybody is a little uncertain of how to handle the surface, how to maintain it, what to do with it. But to say here it is, get used to it—that’s not a respectful or fair answer to someone who has a legitimate concern or question.

I’m a large stakeholder in the industry and I have a lot of concern for all the things I think are important. Welfare of the horse is one of them but so are the other concerns, and they don’t have to be mutually exclusive, which again is the politically correct thing to say. To say if you don’t do this, you don’t care about the horse, that really oversimplifies the issues.

What do you see happening in the future?
I think there has been sort of a rush to try the Polytrack, and it’s still an experiment in progress. Whether Polytrack will proliferate, whether it will stay the same, will it be considered a great training surface that keeps horses sound but not a racing surface, I don’t know. . . I don’t think I’m judgmental on will it work or won’t it work, but I certainly have caution. I would not want to see someone radically install synthetic surfaces as the only option.

I don’t want to sound too radical; I’m open-minded. To do something for 100 years and then overnight do something to radically change it and say it’s wonderful—nobody can make a statement like that with any intelligence. You can say we hope, we think and there are some things we have to work on, but to say there is a single answer, that’s an oversimplification.

Michael Dickinson
A former top amateur steeplechase rider and three-time champion jump trainer in Britain before relocating to Maryland, Dickinson invented his Tapeta Footings surface and holds a patent on part of the manufacturing process for synthetic surfaces involving wax coatings. Tapeta has been installed at racing or training facilities in five countries after first being placed at Dickinson’s Tapeta Farm in North East, Md.

Dickinson, who trained two-time Breeders’ Cup Mile-G1 winner Da Hoss and who was the runner-up for an Eclipse Award, plans to devote himself full time to marketing Tapeta beginning in 2008.

How would you compare synthetic tracks to regular dirt tracks?
Dirt tracks are 100-year-old technology—little has changed in the last 100 years in the way we maintain dirt tracks. The alarming thing is we have about one fatality per 600 starts. The big point here is synthetics are one fatality per 2,000 starts. There you are in black and white. The synthetic data came from Dr. Anthony Stirk, who is the chief veterinary officer for the English Jockey Club. This was a survey on four different synthetic tracks in England from 2000 to 2006. It involved 100,000 starters over a five-year period on four different synthetic tracks.

The dirt statistics came from Dr. Rick Arthur in California. There were several studies out there and they’re not all the same, but that’s the one he gave me.
What was your experience as a trainer—what were the benefits?
A huge reduction in bone injuries, chips and fractures on the synthetic. We had only one fatality in nine years on our synthetic track at Tapeta Farm.
In looking at the problems experienced with synthetic tracks at Del Mar, Turfway Park and Woodbine (all Polytrack), which have ranged from slowness to the material clumping in horses’ hooves, what would you acknowl­edge as drawbacks?
I can think of only two reasons not to install a synthetic track. The first being tradition and the second is cost.

The problems you mentioned should not happen. Although I cannot comment on another product, I can say that we have been fortunate in that we have not experienced these issues with any of our installations. As part of our contract, we spend a lot of time with the track superintendent to ensure that they are comfortable with the maintenance of the surface and that there isn’t anything we have not addressed. The only thing we cannot handle is an ice storm. So, if anyone has the answer please let us know.

We all want a level playing field and good synthetic provides just that, as proven at Golden Gate and Presque Isle Downs. Our goal is for any running style to win. We just want the best horse to win whether he is a speed horse or a closer.
You have said dirt racing would become obsolete in North America because these synthetic surfaces are available. Do you still believe that?
No race track manager wants to spend $8 million. His job is to make a profit. To spend $8 million, he’s got to have some very good reasons, economic and otherwise.

The test is: who is going to benefit from it? Number one, the owners are. If an owner owns a horse, say it costs between $50,000 and $100,000, which isn’t very much these days, and you’ve got two tracks, one is synthetic and one is dirt, he’s going to go to the synthetic because he wants to protect his investment. Even if he is running for a bit less money, he wants to protect his investment. Once his $100,000 horse has a fracture, it’s over. So, number one, the owners will go to the safer track.

Number two, the jockeys. They have less falls.
Number three, you have reduction in maintenance.
Number four, it’s a huge reduction in water use, which is big.
What else have we got? The insurance companies are giving lower rates for synthetic tracks.

And the mutuel managers. There are fuller fields as horses can run more often and there are no sloppy tracks. As you know, this year the Breeders’ Cup was down 20 percent (on handle) and a survey they did of their major players indicated they didn’t like betting sloppy tracks.

And when a race comes off the turf, instead of 12 runners, we have three on a sloppy track. That hurts the race track.
And finally, peace of mind—to know that the race track manager has done everything he could do. Supposing a jockey gets hurt on a dirt track and they wheel him into court two years later because he’s hurt, and they say, “Here’s our race track, which is very good. Here’s our track superintendent, who is very good.” But the ruling comes from the judge which says, “You had a 100-year-old product when synthetic tracks have proven to be safer. You didn’t do everything you could, you were negligent—guilty.” That’s the way this world is going.
So, you still think dirt tracks won’t exist in the near future?
I do, absolutely.

The other thing we didn’t touch on is animal rights. Bar­baro was one thing and the Breeders’ Cup two years ago had fatalities and this year (Euro­pean champion George Wash­ington-Ire was fatally injured). The Breeders’ Cup came in for a huge amount of criticism from the foreign press; they were appalled.
Should the Breeders’ Cup be run only at facilities that have synthetic tracks in the future, as some in the European media suggested?

Absolutely, I hope we have witnessed the last Breeders’ Cup run on dirt.
What countries are you working in now and how much interest is there worldwide?
There is a huge amount of interest worldwide. We are in America, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Korea. We have inquiries from other countries: Ireland, France, Australia and New Zealand.
What do you think the future is with synthetic surfaces?

We’re spending a lot of time and money on R and D (research and development). That is half my time now. I want the best possible surface for the welfare of the horse and rider. We will never be able to completely eliminate all injuries or accidents but I know that we can reduce them and that has to be good.
How do you contemplate improving the product?
We are all trying to get better and better. We would like to use horsemanship together with science so that we can obtain measurable standards throughout the industry.

We have 58 jockeys on permanent disability (in North America) and we have two horse fatalities per day in American racing.
We’ve got to do something, haven’t we?

Tom Amoss
Born in New Orleans but now a resident of Louis­ville, Ky., after losing his Louis­iana home to Hurricane Katrina, Tom Amoss has collected nine training titles at the Fair Grounds and also has led his colleagues at Churchill Downs, Ellis Park and Ken­tucky Downs. Last year, his stable made him leading trainer of the inaugural meeting at Presque Isle Downs. Amoss, 46, took out a trainer’s license at 25 after walking hots for Hall of Famer Jack Van Berg while he was just a teenager. Amoss occasionally works as a television racing analyst.

As the leading trainer at Presque Isle, and with your experiences at traditional dirt tracks, what is your opinion about synthetic surfaces?
On the positive side, the synthetic surfaces are definitely safer. I carry a stable of 50 horses around to different tracks and I can tell you that we’ve had much less incidence of injury when they are training over the synthetic surfaces. From that standpoint, they’re definitely a plus.

On the negative side, synthetic surfaces bring a form all their own; it doesn’t correlate to what the horses have done in the past on traditional dirt surfaces. So, it makes it very difficult to place your horses with confidence and it makes for some different results, and that’s very frustrating from the standpoint of a trainer who is getting horses ready to run.

Along with that, I would say that watching the races at the tracks I’ve been at, the races are typically slower than on the dirt tracks, and racing has a sense of almost looking too slow as you view it—it’s boring. This last negative is a perceived negative on my part but the other things are facts that I’ve seen throughout our stable. The last one is sentiment—that synthetic racing is similar almost to the trotters.

Is there a push for more of these tracks to be installed?
When you look at what California has done, a requirement that all tracks become synthetic, you realize there is a certain momentum to make a switch and the question of whether that momentum is premature or not is really what’s at stake here. Most of these surfaces have been down for less than five years.
The question I would pose to the industry would be this: If you would compare it to buying a new car, no matter what the quality of your car is, I’m sure the first 20,000 miles are going to drive great, but what happens after that? With these synthetic surfaces, they’re brand new and everybody’s very comfortable with them, but what happens in the long term? We don’t know how the surface is going to take the wear and tear of continual training and racing over them; we have no idea.
And yet, as is usually the case in the United States and with people in the United States, we clamor for something that works right off the bat without fully researching it. I can give you examples of other things like it that we now look back on and say, “That was a mistake.” Something as simple as the dietary drugs out there that had such popularity in the past, we found bring problems to people. I just don’t think we have enough time with these surfaces to say emphatically this is the way we need to go. I find it to be premature and I think it’s really quite frankly fueled by what has been in the media.

Do you find big differences in the various track products?
The Tapeta that they had at Presque Isle Downs, whether it was the fact it was the Tapeta at Presque Isle or the Tapeta itself—I don’t know the answer to that and I’d like to make that clear. But it brought a result much different than anything in the horse’s past performance. I can back that up with the number of winning favorites over the Presque Isle surface. It was very low, compared to the industry average. And the average win payoff for the races there was much higher than the industry average. The Tapeta has brought a real change of surface, no different than going back to when we first started racing on the grass and the grass brought about different results than the dirt.

Dale Romans
A Louisville, Ky., native and son of the late trainer Jerry Romans, Dale Romans is a major force in his home state and has won multiple training titles at Churchill Downs, Keeneland and Turfway. The 41-year-old has saddled more than 1,000 winners, including Roses in May, victor in the $6 million Dubai World Cup in 2005, and 2004 American champion turf runner Kitten’s Joy. He also has sent divisions of his stable to compete at Gulfstream Park and Del Mar.

What is your opinion of synthetic surfaces?
Personally, I prefer the dirt surface but it’s a good option to have for a place to train. I don’t think that any track is going to suit every horse, and I think it’s still way early to see how they’re going to hold up—or to be spread around the country or be mandated anywhere. I like having it as an option but I wouldn’t want to be forced to use Polytrack all the time. Only time will tell (how good it is).
Why do you prefer the traditional dirt surfaces?

We didn’t see any less training injuries when I trained on the Polytrack than when I did on the dirt courses. The catastrophic injuries seem to have gone down in the races, but we’re still having some training issues.
After racing on Polytrack at Keeneland and Turfway, what did you think of the Del Mar surface?

I had a lot of horses come back with injuries; no catastrophic breakdowns, but a lot of injuries. I don’t really know what the cause was, but the Poly hasn’t been as consistent as people thought it would be when they first installed it. I think they’re still tinkering with it a little bit. It’s good to keep working for the safest race track we can find, but to rush to judgment on it, it’s still a little bit early. We still need to be looking at the bigger problem of why horses are breaking down so easily.
Do you think the industry has rushed to judgment that synthetic tracks are best?
I think it definitely has, just by mandating it in California. It was way too early for something like that.

Will more synthetic tracks be installed or will more study be given to their performance?
It seems to me like we’re in kind of a holding pattern to see what happens. There are enough of them out there and they’re in different climates and there are two or three different types, so I think we can really get a good read of what is the best product and what is the best product for what climate. Give it a few years and see what we need to do—if we need to do anything.
Have you noticed changes in terms of what kind of horses usually win in Kentucky?
It’s become another option. You have turf, you have dirt and you have Poly. You have some horses that like the Polytrack and some horses seem to like the turf and some like the dirt. It’s just one more option. You have to run on it to see whether they like it.

Do the synthetic tracks have the potential to change the sport and breeding patterns?
I think it definitely depends on how many of them show up around the country and how many opportunities there are to run on them. But it shouldn’t stop us from looking at the bigger problem of why horses are running less than they did years ago.

We’re preparing more horses for sales than we ever did and I think they’re being raced a little bit differently. We’re doing a lot of corrective surgeries we’ve never done before. There’s obviously steroids used in developing horses. There’s a lot of things that could be looked at; I don’t know of any one thing to pinpoint as this is what’s causing it but I know that even dirt race tracks should be better today than they were 30 years ago with technology, and yet horses are breaking down at a much higher rate and running much less. We need to figure out what the problem is and what’s different today than it was 30 years ago.
I think (the focus on sales, corrective surgeries and use of steroids) are the biggest factors and I’d hate to hear people say that we’re going to put in a safer surface and our horses are going to break down less. I want to figure out why they’re breaking down to begin with, at a higher rate than they used to. I don’t think there is (enough emphasis on that); I don’t think we’ve come close to researching it the way we should. If we put all the money into it that we put into installing Polytracks, we may have been able to figure out something that we’ve done wrong, either raising or breeding or correcting their legs, and fix that before we fix the surfaces.
It’s politically incorrect to speak out against Polytrack and I don’t want to be a naysayer; I just think there are other things we need to keep looking at.

Scott Lake
North America’s leading trainer by winners in 2006 with 528, Scott Lake also was leading his colleagues for 2007 through November. At age 42, the Mid-Atlantic based trainer saddled the 4,000th winner of his career on October 31. Lake also ranked as third-leading trainer during the inaugural meeting this past September at Presque Isle Downs on its Tapeta surface although his experience there was marred by the fatal breakdown of his stakes-winning filly Cantrel in the track’s very first race, the Inaugural Stakes.

What is your general view of synthetic racing surfaces?
Great to train over but I don’t like running over them. A lot of horses don’t handle it. And you’ll see a lot more soft tissue injuries.
At Presque Isle, I was there for 30 days, and we saw a lot more soft tissue injuries. They had three catastrophic breakdowns which I don’t think would be (any less than on) a dirt track.

Another point is that bettors don’t like it when they get horses that don’t handle it real well.
Synthetic tracks differ and some contend they are not always fair. Do you agree?
If you look at the numbers from Presque Isle, the first three weeks of the meet, I think it would be that the speed hardly held at all. As it got a little colder at the end of the meet, the track tightened up and the speed horses were able to hold. But it seemed like during the first three weeks of the meet, if you were three, four, five or six lengths off the lead, in that range, you had an 80 percent chance to win. That was my assessment of it.

I’ve been over the Keeneland track, and I didn’t really like the Polytrack at all. I liked the Tapeta a little bit better. I think it’s a good surface to train over, but as far as running over it, I’m not sold on it at all.

Do you find it deeper, is that why there are more soft tissue injuries?
When you walk on that track at Presque Isle Downs and you go down the backside at, say 4:30 or 5 o’clock in the afternoon, the sun is going down and it casts a shadow on the rail down the backstretch. If you were walking on that shadow and stepped one step off of that into the sunlight, you sunk down about three more inches than you were on that shadow. When they hit that thing, it’s not a natural surface for them.

When I was in school and you played basketball on a wooden court and you left there and went and played on one of those indoor/outdoor courts that were almost like a rubbery cushion and you bounced back off of it, that’s the same kind of difference.

Why do you like to train horses on synthetic surfaces?
You could go out there and gallop a horse over that Tapeta track and say, “Wow. He’s going super. He didn’t go that way over a dirt track.” But if you take him out and jog him down a road at the end of the morning, he’s no sounder than he was when he was training over the regular track. With the Tapeta, they just kind of bounce over it a little bit easier.

The three catastrophic breakdowns at Presque Isle were all very, very nice horses. My filly broke her leg on opening day; (Grade 2 winner and millionaire) Super Frolic broke his leg down the backside, and another horse, a 2-year-old who won first time out and ran a big number, real fast on that track, broke down after the wire. To me, it just seems like those horses who are better horses will run over anything and they won’t change their stride; they’ll extend themselves 1,000 percent, no matter what. And they’re the ones that you see break down on that surface, whereas the cheaper ones protect themselves a little bit by changing their style of moving rather than the horses that are going to run over anything.

Did you have any feelings when Cantrel broke down that it was due to the surface?
I don’t think it was the track itself. My belief is that it was an unnatural surface for her and she was trying 1,000 percent and took a bad step over it.
Do you think we’ll see more of these tracks installed, perhaps expanding into the Mid-Atlantic region?

There’s a lot of talk about them. I think everybody’s jumping the gun a little bit. I honestly believe if you put a training track in each one of these places and horses use that surface to train over and then you went and ran over a regular dirt track, you’re going to see a big decrease in breakdowns.

John Franzone
Chairman of the Maryland Racing Commission, John Franzone has been on the front lines of those endeavoring to save Maryland racing in the face of competition from nearby states that allow slots at race tracks. He chairs a Racing Commission panel known as “Keep It In Maryland” and has testified before state lawmakers on the challenges facing the sport.

What is your overall impression of how synthetic surfaces have performed, and do you think they have a future in Maryland racing?
I’ve seen some of the data that obviously shows they are safer and I think they probably will be everywhere.

But the question I have is which one is the right one? There are so many competing products. As cars go, it’s not the same Model-T it was years ago. So what are they going to be 10 years from now? But you’ve got to start somewhere. We do have a good start, and competition is a good thing. Competition drives innovation, and innovation usually leads to a better product.

The concern that I have is that we’ve really only studied one aspect of this, the concussion to the horse. But I’m just curious if this material is a toxic material.
Anything that has a petroleum base to it puts up a little bit of a red flag to me. When you see these horses come back in a mud bath, obviously it’s not good, but they’re inhaling this stuff along with the jockey, and is there any negative side to that? Are we making their legs better but destroying their lungs? That’s another thing that needs further study.

It may be totally unfounded or it may be an issue. It’s like working around asbestos dust. Twenty years later, you found out that this isn’t good stuff. I don’t think anybody that looked at this had an immediate concern there was something toxic to it that would cause problems. But I would rather breathe in basically organic material than I would a petroleum product.

If Maryland voters approve slots in the November referendum and racing’s economic picture improves, would the commission begin discussions about whether these surfaces should be installed at Pimlico and Laurel?
I’m not really in favor of the big brother approach unless it’s absolutely necessary. One of the few good things that Magna did when they redid that turf course (at Laurel), they also improved the dirt track. Our track management is excellent; they do an excellent job with the racing surfaces. But sure, it should be a collective discussion among the commission, the race track managers and the horsemen. Personally, I think we’ve got a good surface. We don’t need to jump to put (an artificial) one in, and let’s just kind of sit back and see how this all shakes out in the next couple of years.

If someone scientifically said, here’s the latest, greatest product and you can take a bath in this stuff and it can’t hurt you, I’d say maybe we should move toward that if it’s conclusively proven to be better for the horse.
And this is my own personal opinion, we’re just going the wrong way with horse training and what we’re doing there. American trainers get so hung up on speed. Pretty soon, if this keeps going, we’re not going to have to worry about ovals because the only thing we’re going to be able to do is Quarter Horse race since they can’t do the distance anymore. Not to go off on a tangent, but these horses are so inbred, the basic circulatory and breathing characteristics these horses possess just get passed down because it’s mitigated by the use of drugs. You think this horse is a great runner but he’s a great runner only if he’s on clenbuterol. He really shouldn’t be bred; it’s a bad trait.

I’d rather see them outcrossed to Hanoverians and see how they do as opposed to what we’re doing. Why not train to run mile and a half races and forget about this crazy speed stuff? Pick up the pace as you go. Everything is too drag-race oriented.

Do you think the sport will change due to the spread of synthetic surfaces?
The industry needs to—and this is where I was hoping the NTRA would go but it doesn’t seem like it really focused on that agenda. Look at breeding and what we’re doing here. I agree with (Dogwood Stable president) Cot Campbell that racing really should go back to hay, oats and water. This is all a joke. . . In every other sport, basically, the times get faster and the athletes get bigger and stronger, but we’re going backwards. The use of drugs continues to be crazy. It’s totally out of control. It confuses the breeding industry, which is all wrapped up in this fervor for speed. Protect the breed, with quality racing with some more endurance racing and a little more logic in the business, and it would save everybody a fortune because injuries to these horses—not to mention how bad that is for the animal—are a huge economic cost.

Richard Hoffberger
Longtime president of the Maryland Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association (MTHA) and president of The Hoffberger Insurance Group in Baltimore, Richard Hoffberger knows the racing industry from a variety of perspectives. An owner, breeder and pinhooker with horses based in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Kentucky at various times of the year, he also presides over a company that provides bloodstock and farm insurance to the Thoroughbred community.

What are your views on synthetic tracks?
The problem we’re seeing with the stuff is that a lot of the race track managers don’t have any experience on how to work with it. While certainly the number of catastrophic breakdowns seems to be reduced—I don’t have any hard scientific data here with me that it is or isn’t but I accept everybody’s word that the catastrophic breakdowns are significantly less—we are starting to see high suspensory injuries and bone injuries that we never saw before.

The other thing that happens, and this doesn’t pertain to any kind of surface. . . but in the horse industry, we track the number of fatal breakdowns that occur on the race track and that’s a horse that’s dead on the race track. But what we’ve never done is say, okay, a horse was injured on the race track, went back to the barn, and we put him down in three days. Or the horse is finished and will never run again. Most horses stop running because of injuries; that’s just the nature of our business. Why don’t we track that? Because as horse owners, we don’t want to advertise that a horse had a problem. And as trainers, we don’t like to advertise it. And trainers who to some extent are at the mercy of the race tracks, have a little bit of reluctance to put their thumb up—to say to the race track management, “Your track is bad.” The statistics that we have are very difficult to analyze because we’re not comparing apples to apples.

An owner of one of the surfaces called me after he saw what I wrote about synthetics in the MTHA newsletter, and said certainly there are less injuries at Arlington Park. . . . But so many horsemen at Arlington say their horses are having injuries that are career-ending. Certainly I wouldn’t expect Arlington to promote that.

And another thing—I don’t have data on this, but a lot of horses that have been running and training on synthetic tracks have gotten fractured hips. Usually a fractured hip only occurs when you bump into something; it’s a fairly rare injury on the race track. If you’re on a surface that bounces but bounces hard, if a shock wave goes up your leg, it gets to the end of the leg. In a horse’s hind leg, the end is the hip. What some veterinarians think is happening is that if the surface is hard but it might have some bounce to it, the shock is kind of like lightning going up the leg and that’s what’s causing the fractured hip, which is consistent with high suspensory injuries. These injuries are not necessarily life threatening, but they are career-ending.

I am a believer in synthetic tracks; I just think there’s a lot of information we have to gather and we have to learn how to maintain them. So I wrote this comment in the newsletter several months ago, and some race track people called me and said that’s the dumbest thing; you’re really wrong. I had a lot of trainers stop me and say, “You’ve written what everybody’s thinking”. . .
Another issue is, as an industry, we don’t know how to solve the (maintenance) problems. A race track superintendent told me that certainly you have to have a different kind of surface in southern California, where it gets to be 100 degrees on the track, than you do in Canada, because you have different weather conditions. Even surfaces in Maryland and Philadelphia are changed for the winter. They know how much salt to put on them; they know what to do. We don’t have that experience on the synthetic. While the trainers don’t like to talk about it, they’re having problems with their horses (as a result).

Should lengthy analysis be done before any other tracks put in these surfaces?
I would think they would want to do a little more research before they put more in. How you build a race track in southern California is different than how you build a race track in New York. Assuming the same surface is used, what happens when it is 115 degrees and it’s melting the wax is a different reaction than when it’s 20 degrees for days at a time and you don’t want the thing to freeze.
Another thing is, the trainers will tell you they’re ’scoping the horses and finding little pieces of rubber in the horses’ lungs. . . It sounds bad; I don’t know if it is bad. And it might not be, since the average horse lives to be 18 years and 3 months old, and if rubber causes a problem after 20 years, the horse is going to be dead anyway.

There are a lot of questions. Do I think that synthetics are the wave of the future? Yes. Do I think it could be real good? Yes. Do I think that California jumped the gun by mandating that it had to be done? Yes. But if tracks want to go ahead and put in synthetic, they should go ahead and do it.

My gut tells me there is a difference between training and racing on this stuff. The comments that you hear out at Fair Hill Training Center (which has a Tapeta surface)—you can’t find a bad word.

The horse industry is kind of noted for believing what we want to believe and jumping into the frying pan, and maybe that’s what happened in California. I hope not. It seems like they had a problem in California and mandated synthetics because no one was smart enough to say we can show you how to fix dirt (tracks).
I’m glad we don’t have synthetic surfaces in Maryland. I don’t think that the track superintendents have had a chance to figure out what to do with it when it’s 20 degrees. We know what to do with the (dirt) track when we get the weather report and it says two inches of rain on Sunday and then that night it’s going to drop to 20 degrees. These guys know what to do to that track and have it open by 7 o’clock the next morning. If you’re wrong in what you do with a different surface, you’ve got problems.

Andy Beyer
A racing columnist for The Washington Post since 1978 and author of four books on handicapping, Andy Beyer originated the speed rating formula that bears his name. Beyer also has been a regular contributor to Daily Racing Form, which in 1992 began publishing his Beyer Speed Figures as part of horses’ past performance lines. Beyer has written critically about synthetic surfaces, particularly the Polytrack at Keeneland, which he said “has given rise to a style of racing that is alien to most Americans. The most prized quality of American Thoroughbreds—speed—has become a liability. Polytrack has turned the sport upside down.”

What are your concerns about racing on synthetic surfaces?
I might be in a minority but as a gambler, I certainly don’t like the change—maybe because I’m 64 years old and at this age I don’t feel that I want to re-learn the sport. If I were going to learn a whole new game, given the state of horse racing, maybe I’d just take up something else. There are just so many differences, and they are subtle ones in many cases. So to this point, I am just sticking with playing at traditional dirt tracks.

I feel the racing industry has to some extent been sold a bill of goods on artificial surfaces. Obviously, the industry should do everything it can for horse safety. But if tracks had said let’s spend $10 million to build the best, safest, most well-designed dirt track that we possibly can, would the safety with them be less than with an artificial surface? I don’t know the answer. But I think certainly in the case of California, because of all those breakdowns at Del Mar, there was almost a panicky response of “We’ve got to do something.” When you look at the nature of California racing and the number of trainers who wheel and deal with claiming horses and in many cases are suspected of using illegal substances, I just think to say this was all the fault of the race track is really a simplification.

What are some of the major differences you’ve noted in dirt versus synthetics and what is particularly frustrating for gamblers?
When artificial surfaces came in, we all thought they were going to be uniform and unchanging, whereas the dirt tracks clearly do change from day to day. But track superintendents seem to have an almost limitless ability to manipulate these tracks. Polytrack at Keeneland was one of the fastest racing surfaces ever seen in America, based on our track variants for our speed figures. Del Mar this summer, also Polytrack, was certainly the slowest racing surface ever seen in California. There can be a tremendous change in the speed of the track from day to day or week to week, depending on how they manipulate it, what they do with the wax and so on.

What makes these surfaces so difficult and impossible to deal with as a gambler is when horses are moving from dirt to artificial and artificial to dirt, you frequently don’t know what to expect. You can guess, may­be, that a horse with a particular pedigree may like an artificial surface, but there’s really no way to know for sure. And when you have situations like you’ve got in Kentucky—they go from Keeneland to Churchill —you just don’t know what to make of horses’ form. And from Hawthorne to Arlington. That adds an element of gigantic uncertainty. Now if you had a race track that ran year-round, once everybody had form on an artificial surface, you wouldn’t have that element and you could handicap how they had performed on the artificial surface. This going back and forth is impossible.
We’ll get dirt horses going to the Breeders’ Cup (on Cushion Track) next year, and who is going to be able to bet with confidence?

Some international media called for all Breeders’ Cups to be run at facilities with synthetic surfaces and blamed the sloppy Monmouth track for the fatal injury to George Washington. What is your reaction?
Every year they don’t do well, the Europeans have an excuse. Florida is too hot, California is too far. Here you had a horse with whom there was absolutely no reason to think he was anything but a turf horse, so I don’t think that’s valid. But the fact is, everyone who has observed artificial surfaces has noted, by and large, there is more of a correlation between turf form on artificial surfaces than there is dirt form. A lot of times, you’ll see horses with pure turf form go on the Keeneland Polytrack and win. I would say it is somewhat self-serving for a continent that is basically all turf racing to say, “Gee, we’d like Polytrack.” I guess they would.
Of the different artificial surfaces, I believe that Keeneland’s clout in the industry has certainly been a big factor in the fact that Polytrack is the most commonly used of these surfaces. But have you seen a track in North America with Polytrack that hasn’t had major problems with it? They had to rebuild Turfway; trainers were practically rioting the first season at Woodbine. If anyone was taking an objective look at the performance of Polytrack, I think there would be a lot of questions raised. But it just seems to be almost a conspiracy to just tell the “good news” about artificial surfaces.

Do you think there will be more of these surfaces installed?
I can’t answer that question. I think it was very interesting when Bob Baffert pulled his horses out of California and went to Saratoga. That underscored one of the issues here. The thing that has made American horses, the hallmark of the American Thoroughbred, is speed—particularly the California Thoroughbred. For racing commissions, without really much study or thought, to say, “We’re going to change the whole world and say that speed isn’t really that important in Thoroughbred racing,” is a pretty radical shift. When horses start going to stud, I’m just wondering, as Baffert said, is a horse clonking up to win a mile and a quarter at Del Mar in 2:07 going to thrill the breeding world? Is that what we bred horses for?
I’m a little bit biased on the subject. But whenever you read anything about artificial surfaces, it’s always “good news.” When horses broke down at Del Mar on the dirt, it was always a big story. When a Polytrack track has a rash of breakdowns, it’s sort of in the 17th paragraph. I don’t think we’re seeing a really even-handed assessment in the industry of the pros and cons.

Tim Ritchey
Best known as the trainer of 2005 Preakness and Belmont Stakes winner Afleet Alex, the champion 3-year-old colt of his generation, Tim Ritchey began riding horses before he turned 3. He went on to be an accomplished show jumping, dressage and three-day event rider before becoming a professional steeplechase jockey. After later working as an exercise rider and assistant trainer, he built up his own stable, beginning in 1974 at Waterford Park. A leader in the Mid-Atlantic region, he has won five training titles at Delaware Park.

What do you think of synthetic tracks?
I’ve only run one time on one and I’m not so sure it’s the answer, to be honest.
My feelings are, if they had a place to teach people how to take care of dirt tracks and what kind of dirt should be on them, we’d be better off. You can go to school for a lot of things, but as far as I know, I don’t think there is any school that will teach you what surfaces need to be put on race tracks, what percentages of clay, what percentages of sand and everything else should be used. I really feel if they had something like that, where they could teach people how to become track superintendents besides people just going to work for somebody and learning it on their own, I think the money would be a lot better spent than spending millions of dollars on a synthetic surface.

Maybe synthetics are the answer—I really haven’t run over them enough—but I know they spent a lot of money doing it in a lot of different places. Some of my friends have trained over it and some of them like it, some of them hate it. There have been a significant amount of breakdowns on some of those race tracks. And they’re going to run into some of the same problems there, as far as people knowing how to take care of them properly. If they’re mismanaged, obviously they’ll fall apart, too. I just think they jumped the gun on it and the industry has really dropped the ball by not having places where people can learn all the scientific data, everything that needs to be done to have a safe race track. I’ve run on dirt race tracks that have been properly managed and then you see a change in the track superintendent and right away, all of a sudden a year or two later, the track goes to hell.

I just think the money would be better spent educating people and having people do apprenticeships with those who know what they’re doing or go to school or whatever. I’ve always been very happy with good, safe dirt tracks.
Which synthetic track did you race on?

Turfway Park. I’ve gotten input from a lot of friends of mine who have run at Presque Isle, Keeneland, Woodbine. Some are happy with them, some of them have had complaints. But I just think we’ve jumped the gun on all this.
As a trainer, you come up under horsemen, you serve your apprenticeship and you become an assistant trainer before you get a trainer’s license. But if someone works on a race track and drives a tractor for a while and then he gets a little expertise, he becomes a track superintendent. Well, some of them are qualified and some of them aren’t. I think we need to have some kind of a way to give these people proper experience, proper education on a dirt race track.
The synthetic tracks are going to have the same problems you have with dirt. What they’re doing now is trying to educate them on how to take care of the synthetic surfaces. I think they need to educate them on how to take care of the dirt surfaces.

In your observations, do you think synthetic tracks are fair to all runners and the bettors?
After you have a certain amount of horses run over it, you can see which horses like it and which horses don’t. Some horses that run well on the dirt at Laurel may not run well on the dirt at Philadelphia because they are different kinds of surfaces. But until you get that history on a horse’s performances, you don’t really know. And it’s the same thing with synthetic tracks. Some of them seem to handle them and some of them don’t seem to handle them. I do know there is still a significant amount of fly-back with a synthetic surface from the races I’ve watched.
From a handicapper’s point of view, you really need to watch horses and see how they run over it. I’m really glad they put that (synthetic track notation) in the Racing Form: that gives the handicappers some kind of line. Until you’ve seen a horse run over it several times, you really have no idea, so it’s a little tough to pick winners.

You look at Keeneland in the first meet or two, and they had a lot of longshots. That’s kind of changed a little bit in that now it’s got a history in what pedigrees, what horses actually handle the track.

If the numbers of these tracks increase, how will the sport change?
There are certain horses that pedigree-wise are more for the turf and others more for the dirt, and then you’re going to have certain pedigrees that are going to excel on the synthetic surfaces. Some sire lines have a way of producing a horse that can get over the ground in a way they’re going to like the turf or they’re going to like the dirt or also in the way they like a synthetic surface. So, you’re going to see some kind of change, if they move to a lot of synthetic surfaces, in the dominant sire lines. I know right now there are certain sire lines that I believe have become stand-outs on synthetic surfaces.

Larry Murray
As the trainer for Sondra and Howard Bender and the manager of their Glade Valley Farms near Frederick, Md., Larry Murray is a key figure in Maryland racing. Based at Laurel, he has worked with Glade Valley since 1979, developing the program that earned the Benders the title of Maryland’s leading breeder from 2001 to 2003.
What are your thoughts about synthetic racing surfaces?
I haven’t had a lot of experience with them; I’ve only been at Keeneland to run on it a few times, and it’s fantastic. But I’m not too sure that it isn’t a little overrated at this point.

While I was there at Keeneland this fall, I saw two catastrophic breakdowns, and I don’t know that the synthetic surface is going to eliminate breakdowns. They have had problems with it.

Horses that run are going to break down, no matter what they run on, to some degree.

I wasn’t too sure that Cali­fornia did the right thing by mandating that everybody had to switch to a synthetic surface. They had a lot of trouble with some of their race tracks—Del Mar had that bad time this summer—and horses have been running on dirt for a long time and most horses survive.
So, I don’t know where I stand on the synthetic surfaces. I think certainly if you have a race track that has a problem, and there are some on the East Coast that a lot of horsemen have trouble with, maybe that’s something to try. But I think there are still some bugs to be worked out of the synthetic race tracks as far as the maintenance and the upkeep goes.

Do you think the synthetic surfaces would be a boost for Maryland racing, assuming that the overall economic conditions improve to make installation feasible?
We’re in such big trouble here in Maryland that that’s the least of our worries. We’re hanging on by a thread and the news gets worse by the day. Maryland is not in any position to even think about synthetic surfaces.
Will synthetic tracks change both training and racing?
Absolutely. I think it has changed the whole game. It used to be everybody bred for speed and most synthetic surfaces I’ve seen, that’s the last thing you want.
Will that aspect of the synthetic revolution change breeding philosophies? Has the approach at Glade Valley changed?

Not yet, because here on the East Coast it’s not a factor, and I don’t know anybody that’s getting ready to change over to a synthetic surface. But certainly, if I raced mainly in California, I’d have to think about changing.