Is there any proof that synthetic surfaces are safer than conventional dirt surfaces? The Jockey Club study overseen by vet Mary Scollay found 2.02 fatalities per 1000 starts on dirt versus 1.47 fatalities per 1000 starts on artificial surfaces. The numbers are reported from 34 racetracks, nine of which have synthetic surfaces. Is it legitimate to compare these figures and come to a conclusion? The difference in ratios is at the cusp of being statistically significant. However the comparison is invalid. You can’t draw conclusions based on comparing synthetic surfaces, all installed in the last few years, with all dirt surfaces, many of which have had the same base for decades. We should expect any newly installed surface to have lower breakdown rates than then what was replaced. It would be an indictment against artificial surfaces if there was not the decline breakdowns as have been experienced at most tracks that have changed surfaces. The unknown is what the fatality rate would have been had those tracks rebuilt their base and installed a conventional dirt surface.

An interesting aside, Del Mar spent $8 million in their switch from dirt to polytrack last year and saw fatalities fall from 14 to 6. Track CEO Joe Harper said, “I would have spent $80 million, the results have been so good”. So is saving one horse’s life worth $10 million?