Horse Racing Fantasy Community

Actually, adante, horses breakdown on both surfaces. In a two year study at a handful of tracks across America, the data is almost the same. One death per 1000 races, dirt, or synthetic. I read this in The Thoroughbred Times magazine that I subscribe to.
I say 1000, but my memory might be a little off. It might have said 2000. I forget. I read this a few months ago.
They say synthetics are safer than dirt. I say where's the proof. The studies so far indicate no difference. I say a well maintained dirt track is just as good, if not better.

I said that the source of my information was from "The Thoroughbred Times". This may be an error on my part. I'm trying to find the article and haven't located it yet. Still looking and would like to confirm. I still think it was from this magazine.

I did read what I reported though. I'm not sure of the time period for these breakdowns, but it couldn't be too long, since Santa Anita's current meeting hasn't been going on too long.
Of course, horses train while a meeting isn't running. I suppose the workout breakdowns could have occured then. I don't know. They could have occured (sp) during the meeting that's running now. Again, I don't know. Still looking.

yeah, I am thinking Santa Anita just opened back up about four weeks ago or so.

At the risk of infringing on copyright, I'm a subscriber too and searched their web site. Is this the story you had in mind, soundofrum? It is dated from March 17, 2008. I have cut and pasted it below:
-------------------------
Program reports fatality rates for dirt, synthetic tracks nearly equal

by Jeff Lowe

The fatality rate for racing on synthetic surfaces has been nearly identical to the rate for conventional dirt tracks in the early statistics gleaned from an on-track equine-injury-reporting program that began last June.

Regulatory veterinarians representing 42 racetracks have participated in the project, and program developer Mary Scollay, D.V.M., outlined the initial composite statistics on Monday morning at the Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit at Keeneland Race Course.

Injured horses are not identified in the reports, and Scollay did not give results for specific racetracks.

The fatal-injury rate for dirt racing has been 1.96 deaths per 1,000 starts since the study began, compared with 1.95 deaths per 1,000 starts on synthetic surfaces.

The first few months of the study had produced more favorable results for synthetic surfaces. Through early fall of 2007, the fatality rate was 1.19 per 1,000 starts on synthetic surfaces compared with 1.79 per 1,000 starts on dirt.

“I think … it says that we can do very well with the synthetics, we can do significantly better than the dirt tracks, but we’ve hit some glitches,” said Scollay, the association veterinarian at Calder Race Course and Gulfstream Park. “I don’t think this is necessarily bad news, but it says that we’ve got a lot of learning to do.”

Non-fatal injury rates favored synthetic surfaces, with ratios of one injury per 215 starts on synthetic tracks and one every 136 starts on dirt.

Jeff Blea, D.V.M., president of the Southern California Equine Foundation, said reports of arthroscopic surgeries and condylar fracture repairs decreased by 15.8% and 19.6%, respectively, in Southern California in 2007, which was the first full year with the Cushion Track surface in place at Hollywood Park and the first Del Mar and Oak Tree at Santa Anita meets with synthetic surfaces.

Jeff Lowe is a Thoroughbred Times staff writer