Very interesting point made by Ed DeRosa regarding synthetics
DiscreetCat
Moderator
This article is from Ed DeRosa's blog over on the Thoroughbred Times site. I actually bumped into him in Vegas some years back, and was impressed with his horseracing knowledge. Definitely one of the sharper guys in the industry:
I was a math major in a former life, and the reason for my interest was statistics.
Most people don't trust statistics. I have no statistic to prove this, but one of the most popular quotes seems to be, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." This quote is especially popular during the rebuttal round of a political debate.
As a reporter, my cardinal rule when it comes to statistics is to use them to figure out the story rather than to tell the story.
One of the biggest stories in racing right now is the surface issue--especially as Santa Anita Park considers a return to dirt after two failed attempts at racing on a synthetic surfaces over the past 26 months.
The data suggests that the synthetic surfaces installed at tracks beginning with Turfway Park in 2005 are safe than their dirt predecessors. This should strike people more as common sense than the Rosetta stone of horse safety.
Yes, it's important to note that the new surface is safer than the previous surface, but to attribute that to synthetic versus dirt misses the mark.
Laurel, Gulfstream, and Oaklawn have all redone their dirt surfaces in recent years. Zia and Pinnacle are racing on completely new dirt, and Presque Isle is racing on completely new synthetic.
How do injury rates at Laurel, Gulfstream, and Oaklawn compare to locations that replaced dirt with synthetic? How does Presque Isle compare to Pinnacle and Zia?
How do the stats compare when categorized by age, sex, and class? How do those stats compare to the national average?
Based on everything I've read, I'm pretty comfortable saying that a new synthetic surface is safer than an old dirt surface, but it's more than fair to ask how those new synthetic surfaces compare to new dirt surfaces before damning dirt. After all, isn't it possible that the problem is the age of a surface and not the type?
I realize that these are the types of questions my employer should be answering, and we're trying, but standardized data across jurisdictions is hard to come by, and that's assuming it exists in the first place (this, of course, is another problem altogether, but Mary Scollay, D.V.M., of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is working to fix that).
Whether you're in racing for the majesty of the Thoroughbred or as strictly a business venture, the safety of the equine athlete is a primary concern. Citing simple statistics to prove a point rather than taking the time to dissect the problem is not only an injustice to the horse but also poor business.
I was a math major in a former life, and the reason for my interest was statistics.
Most people don't trust statistics. I have no statistic to prove this, but one of the most popular quotes seems to be, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." This quote is especially popular during the rebuttal round of a political debate.
As a reporter, my cardinal rule when it comes to statistics is to use them to figure out the story rather than to tell the story.
One of the biggest stories in racing right now is the surface issue--especially as Santa Anita Park considers a return to dirt after two failed attempts at racing on a synthetic surfaces over the past 26 months.
The data suggests that the synthetic surfaces installed at tracks beginning with Turfway Park in 2005 are safe than their dirt predecessors. This should strike people more as common sense than the Rosetta stone of horse safety.
Yes, it's important to note that the new surface is safer than the previous surface, but to attribute that to synthetic versus dirt misses the mark.
Laurel, Gulfstream, and Oaklawn have all redone their dirt surfaces in recent years. Zia and Pinnacle are racing on completely new dirt, and Presque Isle is racing on completely new synthetic.
How do injury rates at Laurel, Gulfstream, and Oaklawn compare to locations that replaced dirt with synthetic? How does Presque Isle compare to Pinnacle and Zia?
How do the stats compare when categorized by age, sex, and class? How do those stats compare to the national average?
Based on everything I've read, I'm pretty comfortable saying that a new synthetic surface is safer than an old dirt surface, but it's more than fair to ask how those new synthetic surfaces compare to new dirt surfaces before damning dirt. After all, isn't it possible that the problem is the age of a surface and not the type?
I realize that these are the types of questions my employer should be answering, and we're trying, but standardized data across jurisdictions is hard to come by, and that's assuming it exists in the first place (this, of course, is another problem altogether, but Mary Scollay, D.V.M., of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is working to fix that).
Whether you're in racing for the majesty of the Thoroughbred or as strictly a business venture, the safety of the equine athlete is a primary concern. Citing simple statistics to prove a point rather than taking the time to dissect the problem is not only an injustice to the horse but also poor business.