In horse racing, there's no consensus on track surfaces

In the fractious sport of horse racing, even dirt can create controversy.

The issue is dirt tracks versus synthetic surfaces, a debate that has come to the forefront since the Eight Belles tragedy at the Kentucky Derby.

Many believe synthetic tracks, which include about 80% sand and a mixture of fibers and waxes, can reduce injuries and deaths among horses. Others say dirt tracks, if properly maintained, are better for the sport.

The evidence, while sometimes conflicting, favors synthetic tracks. The Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation in Lexington, Ky., studied 60 tracks and found a 25% reduction in "catastrophic fractures" on synthetic surfaces. It reported an average of 1.47 deaths per 1,000 starts on synthetic surfaces and 2.07 deaths per 1,000 on dirt.

A different survey released this year at the Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit reported a ratio of one injury every 215 starts on synthetic surfaces compared with one every 136 on dirt.

The same survey came up with a confusing 1.95 deaths per 1,000 on synthetic compared with 1.96 on dirt.

Synthetic tracks have been used for many years in Europe but have been installed in the United States only in the last couple of years. They are in use at only nine out of 129 tracks in North America, including four in California -- Hollywood Park, Santa Anita, Del Mar and Golden Gate Fields.

The others are Arlington Park near Chicago; Turfway Park and Keeneland in Kentucky; Woodbine near Toronto; and Presque Isle in Erie, Pa. These five tracks voluntarily made the change partly because of racing days lost to cold-weather conditions.

The California Horse Racing Board voted to require most of the state's major tracks to install the synthetic surfaces by the end of 2007 in hopes of reducing the fatality rate among horses.

Critics called it a rush to judgment, saying more experimentation was needed. They got some ammunition along the way.

The new mandated main track at Del Mar was fast in the morning, but, under the afternoon sun, became slow.

Then, in January and February, Santa Anita lost an unprecedented 11 days of racing -- although three were made up -- because of heavy rains and a drainage problem with its new track.

Repairs were made and the drainage problem went away, but the Arcadia facility, which spent nearly $11 million to install its synthetic surface last summer, will have to replace it or overhaul it this summer.

In addition, the new surfaces have raised the ire of the betting public, who find the tracks much more difficult to handicap.

At the recent short spring meeting at Keeneland, betting was down more than 12%. Contrary to public opinion, tracks want as many winners as possible so that they will keep betting more money. A few winners at long odds do little to enhance the mutuel handle.

But in the end, the sport wants to make it about the horses.

"If it's even a little bit safer I'd like to see all the tracks go to it," said Barbara Vanlangendonck, a Florida bloodstock agent.

Eight Belles' death "was devastating. The loss of life was horrible and the loss of genetic material that this filly could've added [would have helped] the industry."

California's grand experiment also yielded some interesting data. There were 2.81 fatalities per 1,000 starts at Santa Anita from July 2004 to April 2007. That number dropped to 1.71 after the synthetic track was installed. The number has gone from 2.87 to 0.97 at Hollywood Park.

Opponents of synthetic tracks say fatalities during morning training sessions have not been reduced, although there is no reliable data to either back this claim or refute it.