Replying to George Hills:

Madam, I absolutely disagree with your rant. From my own experience I find it rather muddled, vague and incorrect.

First of all Mr. Hill, my name is Rick Waller and I wrote the comments you refer to as a rant. I can assure you every comment I've made is absolutely true and documented. I have studied this issue from day one.

I race on these trecks, and at others in other States.

I have attended meetings,exchanged emails with CHRB officials, including Dr. Arthur. I personally know a consultant that deals directly with the track superintendants in various States.All of the synthectic tracks share common problems. Thoroughbred race horses are adaptable creatures.They can adapt to a variety of surfaces when the surface is consistanly the same. The failure of synthectic race tracks is the inabilty of the grounds crew's to maintain a consistent surface. The reasons are as varied as the racing jurisdictions involved. While I admire and support the goal of a safer racing surface, no owner should be forced to put the soundness and the life of his horse on the line while the experiment to find this surface continues. I invite you to attend the upcoming TOC Summit meeting at Santa Anita on Februrary

13th. Call (626) 574-6620 to RSVP. You should expect to hear more "rants" as you call it, from the owners that pay to put horses on the track.

I ran the first race on a synthetic track in 1967, at Tropical and Calder, and my idea at the time was to stop breakdowns, because I was training horses for people who didn’t have a lot of money and, when a horse broke down, they were out of business. But I didn’t have the answer--far from it--and it still hasn’t accomplished what it was meant to do: eliminate breakdowns. One of the troubles with the synthetic track is that it confuses the horseplayers. If a horse comes from California, you don’t know if he’ll handle the dirt or not, and a lot of horses didn’t go to California for the Breeders’ Cup, because of the synthetic track. I think we have to go back to the dirt tracks. It cost about $1.8 million to put in a synthetic track, and it’s not maintenance free. I thought it would be, but it’s not. Now, if you spent $2 million on a dirt race track, you’d have an excellent track. You can put down a dirt track pretty cheap. If we went to great expense on a dirt track and really refine all your materials, you could put down a pretty good track, with proper drainage and everything. The problem with the synthetic tracks is that the drainage gets clogged with the residue that comes down from the surface. I didn’t have the answer--it wasn’t near what they are today. But it still hasn’t accomplished what it set out to do, and it hasn’t become the all-weather track we hoped it would be. The cost of them, plus the danger of cancellations, is just about as bad as with the dirt. So all we’ve done is put down an expensive track, in my estimation. It hasn’t accomplished its goals, and it has confused the horse player.

The first synthetic track was way behind; it was like the first automobile and the automobile today. It started the synthetic football and baseball fields, however. It was forerunner to those. It was a soft, rubbery track. The problem with it was the same problem we have today--a horse doesn’t slide on it. It would have been fine if a horse would slide on it a little bit, but it won’t, especially on his hind legs.

We didn’t get to run on it enough to find out. We took it over to Tropical and put a dirt cushion on it. It worked well there for several years, but as the base deteriorated, they had to take it out.

I was hoping synthetic would work. My hopes were when they put it down, you wouldn’t need a turf track either--you could just run on the synthetic. But now, I think they have to go back to dirt tracks, for two or three reasons. When you run the Breeders’ Cup over the synthetic tracks, the Europeans win a bigger share of the races, and lot of the horseman from the East Coast won’t run over those tracks, because they don’t know if their horse will handle it or not. And the horses that do go out there--like the horse that won the GI Belmont S. and the GI Travers S. [Summer Bird]--he went out there and ran poorly, and you know he was a better horse than that. And several horses didn’t run their race. But if everybody had a dirt track, you wouldn’t have that excuse--it would be more formful. A lot of our handle comes from professional handicappers, and they don’t like the synthetic tracks. They’re part of our business. The breeders are finding out that, without racing, there’s no breeding. For 50 years, the breeders have paid absolutely no attention to racing. They sell the horses, hope they do well, and if they don’t, what the hell, we got the money. But now they understand that, without racing, they’re going to sell their horses for ponies. Racing is very fragile right now.

The early returns seem to indicate a reduction in catastrophic injuries. Are the less serious injuries more numerous than on dirt, or are they just different?

Artificial surfaces are by definition engineered, and it seems that they could be engineered to be compatible with the mechanics of a horse’s stride, and more forgiving to dismounted jockeys. And I expect there’s more room for engineering improvements with artificial surfaces than with dirt.

I found the comments of trainers instructive. There seems a direct correlation between success and acceptance of the new surfaces. This isn’t a new phenomenon in sports. As playing surfaces have changed, teams have been rebuilt and playing techniques changed to adapt to them.

One last point: when I first started watching horseracing it seemed that there were more older horses racing on turf than on dirt, and that the races were more competitive. Was that just my imagination?

THE GLAMOUR DAYS IN THOROUGHBRED RACING BEGAN IN THE 1850'S & IT LOOKS LIKE ITS ENDING IN 2010. LOOK AT MY FOLLOWING LIST & YOU WILL SURELY GET THE PICTURE OF THE DOWNFALL OF RACING. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT DIRT RACING GAVE US: BELDAME, COLIN, EXTERMINATOR, DOMINO, IMP,GREY LAG, PAN ZARETA, ROAMER, REGRET, SYSONBY,MAN O' WAR *PRINCESS DOREEN WITH 94 STARTS & RAN AGAINST THE BOYS 82 TIMES. MENOW, DISCOVERY, SEABISCUIT, WAR ADMIRAL, WHIRLAWAY,COUNT FLEET, ASSAULT,CITATION,GALLORETTE,POLYNESIAN,STYMIE,SWAPS,

TOM FOOL, NASHUA, NEVER BEND, NATIVE DIVER,NORTHERN DANCER,CRAFTY ADMIRAL,FORT MARCY,ACK ACK BOLD RULER,BUCKPASSER,KELSO,HILL PRINCE,FOREGO,SEATTLE SLEW,TOSMAH,ALYDAR,AFFIRMED,DAHLIA, CHRIS EVERT,RUFFIAN,SUSAN'S GIRL, TA WEE,WHAT A SUMMER, LADY'S SECRET,GO FOR WAND, SERENA'S SONG, SKY BEAUTY,SILVERBULLETDAY,HEAVENLY PRIZE, SECRETARIAT, WAJIMA, SPECTACULAR BID, CONQUISTADOR CIELO, SUNDAY SILENCE, A.P.INDY, THUNDER GULCH, HOUSEBUSTER, UNBRIDLED, HOLY BULL, SILVER CHARM,VICTORY GALLOP,SKIP AWAY & MANY MANY MORE CHAMPIONS I DID NOT MENTION. WHERE WOULD WE BE WITHOUT THE GREATS OF THE YESTERYEAR. ANSWER. WE DONT HAVE THEM AS YOU ALL KNOW & THATS ANOTHER BIG REASON THAT RACING IS IN DEEP TROUBLE.GET RID OF SYNTHETIC TRACKS & CLOSE THE STALLION BOOKS AT 40 & STOP THE WATERDOWN EFFECT ON THE BREEDING INDUSTRY. --EUGENE LEVEY, 80 YEARS OLD.

Replying to Barry Irwin:
Team Valor's 4yo colt Kinsella broke down while finishing a work at Santa Anita this morning (Monday January 25). He was a $2.2 million Saratoga yearling sale topper. He was sound

My heart goes out to your whole operation.

An overall sweeping mandate of use of sythetics in all California Locations; was well intended, but now as we are learning a bit premature--- but something must be learned with locations, and especially when a surface makes a Horse slower. Think about it, a race Horse that is slower?

The jury is still out on synthetics, but maybe, just maybe, the study on synthetics, may just have us look again with maintaining conventional dirt in a better way, (just like Napa Valley), and how to maintain the dirt surface so our Horse can compete at the speed they were born with with, as well as safety for them and those that ride them.

Replying to Barry Irwin:
Thanks for making my point for me, sir!

I have not made your point for you. We don't like racing on artificial surfaces, dirt or synthetic - Americans do. It's as simple as that really.

Either way, our horses are not bred for artificial surfaces.

1) The old dirt tracks weren’t working. That’s why we made the switch. At Del Mar and Arlington the breakdowns were sickening and putting us on the radar screen of PETA and the Humane Society. There is some amnesia going on here.

2) The dirt tracks have been around for 100 years and synthetics in this country for 4. We need to give ourselves a chance to get it right. Most people agree that at its best it is safer than dirt.

Another point that needs to be emphasized is the success of synthetics internationally for 20 years. It's becoming the international standard.

Finally I believe the reason many trainers don’t like it is their horses are bred for dirt. You can see that from the types of trainers who are pro and con. This to me is the biggest issue with synth. It's more like grass. It's like saying from now on all horses must run on grass. Many would be at a disadvantage. The breed needs to change because our horses can no longer cope with conventional dirt but until it does a mix of dirt and synth as we have now is probably the best solution.

Replying to George Hills:

Barry, why would we need or want to have major races on polytrack when we have perfectly good grass to do it on?!

Thanks for making my point for me, sir!

Replying to Barry Irwin:
1. If all weather tracks are so wonderful, why are there no major races run on the stuff in England, where they have been racing on various synthetic surfaces for several years?2. If one wants to learn why various jurisdictions and racetracks have installed synthetic tracks, I suggest that one take the time to follow the money.

Barry, why would we need or want to have major races on polytrack when we have perfectly good grass to do it on?!

Replying to R & Sharon Waller:
First of all, Santa Anita does not have polytrack so you cannot make a comparison. Del Mar's Polytrack is also not identical in make up to any other. Keeneland,Arlington and Turfway are the closeest in formulationand they all have individual problems caused by weather and maintainance methods.In Europe and Hong Kong the racing meets are much shorter and there is a good deal more grass racing going on. Also, they dont necessarilly train on their synthetic surfaces either. Did you know that you cannot bank a turn on a synthetic track? It doesnt work like dirt. Banked turns reduce bone and soft tissue stress. Did you know that synthetic tracks don't serve bone developemnet well in young horses. You need concussion to remodel young bones.The big deal about synthetics is the lack of shear which causes everything from Tibia fractures to high suspensory damage. There was a recent UC Davis study presented to the CHRB that infact staed a necropsy study of more than 300 thoroughbreds revealed an almost exclusive rear end injury rate attributed to synthetic tracks and about an even number of front end caused deaths attributed to both dirt and synthetics.So, if synthetics are really no safer( The CHRB State Vet Dr. Arthur has admitted that synthetics may be no safer), and if synthetics are more costly to maintain, and if you cannot call them "all weather" then why would any one want such a track. Think of anything that is man made that is more durable than made by mother nature. Santa Anita is smart to get rid of it.A Horseman who's raced on both.

Madam, I absolutely disagree with your rant. From my own experience I find it rather muddled, vague and incorrect.

2. If one wants to learn why various jurisdictions and racetracks have installed synthetic tracks, I suggest that one take the time to follow the money.

They then go on to say that Europeans don’t necessarily train on their synthetic surfaces. How many of the top 100 trainers in the UK do not train on a synthetic surface?

much research has occurred and stats re injuries and performance measures such as times of races

interesting to see how things develop

We need competent research to determine which “brand” is superior in reliability, consistency across climate differences, and safety. Based on anecdotal and preliminary data, the Tapeta surface appears to be superior on all three criteria, but we need additional research to prove this perception beyond a reasonable doubt. (Given that Michael Dickinson is an outstanding horseman, has a brilliant mind, and has achieved remarkable feats as a trainer, I would not be surprised to see his Tapeta surface be confirmed as superior to all others).

Whichever synthetic surface “wins out,” it should be installed at all racetracks. This consistency will address the two main issues simultaneously: (1) safety for the horses; and (2) uniformity for the bettors. Even with the use of the same “brand,” some variability will always be in play between locations (just as it is currently with dirt surfaces). However, the variance will be reduced considerably, and we will have much happier gamblers.

The safety of horses (and the perception of the public regarding our racehorses' welfare and our efforts to protect them) is of paramount importance. But, achieving relative uniformity of surfaces for handicappers and major bettors is also essential.

Without the bettors, we have a sport, but not a business.

Replying to George Hills:
The keys to synthetic surfaces are the right product, correct installation, proper maintenance and good drainage.

California gets about 17 inches of rainfall per year compared to Singapore's 93 (ninety three) inches.

Has anyone heard the Singapore Jockey Club complain about their Polytrack??

First of all, Santa Anita does not have polytrack so you cannot make a comparison. Del Mar's Polytrack is also not identical in make up to any other. Keeneland,

Arlington and Turfway are the closeest in formulation

and they all have individual problems caused by weather and maintainance methods.

In Europe and Hong Kong the racing meets are much shorter and there is a good deal more grass racing going on. Also, they dont necessarilly train on their synthetic surfaces either. Did you know that you cannot bank a turn on a synthetic track? It doesnt work like dirt. Banked turns reduce bone and soft tissue stress. Did you know that synthetic tracks don't serve bone developemnet well in young horses. You need concussion to remodel young bones.The big deal about synthetics is the lack of shear which causes everything from Tibia fractures to high suspensory damage. There was a recent UC Davis study presented to the CHRB that infact staed a necropsy study of more than 300 thoroughbreds revealed an almost exclusive rear end injury rate attributed to

synthetic tracks and about an even number of front end caused deaths attributed to both dirt and synthetics.

So, if synthetics are really no safer( The CHRB State Vet Dr. Arthur has admitted that synthetics may be no safer), and if synthetics are more costly to maintain, and if you cannot call them "all weather" then why would any one want such a track. Think of anything that is man made that is more durable than made by mother nature. Santa Anita is smart to get rid of it.

A Horseman who's raced on both.

California gets about 17 inches of rainfall per year compared to Singapore's 93 (ninety three) inches.

Has anyone heard the Singapore Jockey Club complain about their Polytrack??