Tapeta, in use at Presque Isle Downs and Golden Gate Fields in the USA, is trainer Michael Dickinson’s clever composition of synthetic materials and sand, layered four to seven inches deep over a two-inch layer of porous blacktop above stone. To many horsemen, Dickinson’s invention is considered safer, more reliably consistent and superior to dirt. Nevertheless, synthetic composition racing surfaces of any make or description have made little headway at becoming the standard in North America since Turfway Park, Keeneland, Woodbine, the California tracks and Arlington Park installed them.
Gloria de Campeao has triumphed now on turf, dirt and Tapeta, a sign that a good horse is able to excel despite any footing. The sport’s seat of power is shifting to countries where horses run drug-free and dirt is a four-letter word, which makes the winner's record more noteworthy. Regardless, many other horses that perform well on dirt seem to struggle on substitute surfaces. Ultimately, Thoroughbred breeders will have to figure out which horses do and which do not. Their future success will depend on it.
Horses and their family planners aren’t alone in having to adapt to the new surfaces. Horseplayers, too, must learn how to pick winners in races that are run on surfaces they’re not familiar with. Needless to say, the rules that apply aren’t conventional. You can wait all you want for tracks to revert to how they all used to be, but that’s wishful thinking. As things stand, half of horse racing is technologically advancing while the other half is stuck in a time warp. Those who arrive last to any trend become losers.
Dickinson explains on his Web site that if Tapeta had been used for more than 100 years as dirt has been, he would be having difficulty switching racetrack owners from Tapeta to dirt. They would be arguing that dirt would cause more injuries to horses and jockeys, be more susceptible to weather changes, result in too many racing biases to satisfy bettors who want consistency and cause more fields to be strung out on the track with little change of places during a race.
Nevertheless, the wisdom of installing synthetic tracks everywhere is debatable. Predictably, those people whose voice should count the most – aka the horseplayers - are split 50-50 on the issue. Jeff Platt, president of the 1600 member Horseplayers Association of North America, is ambivalent about synthetic tracks. But he disagrees with Dickinson’s claim that man-made surfaces offer consistency. Platt believes that unlike a dirt track, the same synthetic track will create different running styles from day to day. “Even track maintenance men don’t know why,” Platt contended in a telephone interview.
Maury Ezra, one of Platt’s HANA Board colleagues, has a more practical view of the situation. “The bottom line with synthetics is that you can’t love a horse,” he believes. But both Platt and Ezra admit that their biggest payoffs have resulted from betting horses on artificial surfaces. They believe that the competition in the pari-mutuel pool isn’t as stiff because many good handicappers, frustrated with new challenges, are staying away from betting races held on synthetic tracks.
Statistics indicate that handle suffers initially when racetracks install a synthetic surface. In the first year of each change-over, the win rate on favorites has dipped below 30 percent. Platt contends that a speed-favoring runner, which is how many horses are bred in this country, can’t just dash out and hide from the competition as easily in artificial going as it can on dirt. And he knows from his computer records of 55,000 races that a lesser percentage of synthetic track runners fail to complete their starts.
Yet, the hubbub over synthetic racetracks seems to have barely gained breeders’ notice. Good conformation, a compatible pedigree and a strong book of mares remain the key factors when selecting a sire.
“There’s not enough data to tell which stallions are throwing horses that will run well on synthetics,” said Brian Collins, the Director of Bloodstock Services for Denali Stud. “You can’t breed for every single artificial surface that’s out there. People are buying because of State-bred programs or they like the athleticism or the pedigree, but not for synthetic tracks.”
Mike Akers, Chairman of Dapple Bloodstock, concurred. “The breeding decision is not that specialized to identify horses that will excel on a synthetic surface,” he said. “When we had only two surfaces, over time, we figured out which horses were better on one or the other. This will happen eventually with three,” Akers predicted.
Few people believe that synthetic tracks are doomed, despite the resistance of some horsemen to change, the hesitancy of the breeding industry to promote synthetic track-biased stallions and recent rumblings in California that racetracks there will re-install dirt racing strips. “The safety issue trumps everything else,” Akers believes. He is probably right.
On the other hand, when the world’s greatest horse racing becomes primarily a foreign activity, it’s more likely that economics will determine the future. The events of this past weekend predict it.
Follow Vic Zast on Facebook.com and Twitter.com


29 Mar 2010 at 03:57 am | #
Vic, Jeff, and Maury all of you do good work.
HANA is a credit to Horseplayers everywhere and the time and effort that the Board Members put in with no compensation is to be applauded.
When it comes to takeout and signal issues HANA has raised awareness and is causing changes in attitudes that will eventually change things for the better.
I agree with just about everything HANA stands for except giving the benefit of the doubt to artificial surfaces. Keenland/Polytrack/Martin Collins Internation is particularly bad because they are responsible for putting out most of the propaganda about synthetic surfaces and their virtues. In fairness they were installed with good intentions but when Keenland decided to partner with these other companies they did so because they thought every track in America would install Polytrack. Polytrack has proven to be the worst synthetic surface of all.
As far as 50/50 split among Horseplayers as to their preferences between dirt and sythetic that simply is not true. In poll after poll it is clear that the majority of Horseplayers prefer dirt.
Even in the HANA survey we have:
41.7% don’t really like wagering on artificial surfaes
31.7% don’t really have a preference
26% like wagering on artificial surfaces
When asked if they want artificial surfaces removed:
34% don’t want artificial surfaces removed.
19.7% don’t care
46.1% would like to have artificial surface removed.
The only question that comes close to 50/50 is whether or not HANA should be working to have artificial surfaces removed.
Maury,you’re dead on when you say “you can’t love a horse”.
Jeff, you’re right on about the inconsistency of artificial surfaces.
Bottom line is that the only thing that has proven to be true is that they are better in the rain in spite of what happened at Santa Anita.
Other that that artificial surfaces are:
More expensive to maintain.
They wear out with usage, maintenace, and weather.
There are many biases and there were’nt supposed to be any.
In California they said they would help create bigger fields. Another falsehood.
There are more injuries on synthetic but less fatalities overall. I think everyone would agree that there has not been enough time to make a solid evaluation on injuries and fatalites. What everyone should agree on is that synthetic surfaces haven’t lived up to the claims made by the sythetic infomercial. Not by a longshot. LOL
In California even 70% of Trainers want the stuff gone.
P.S. if I made a mistake in adding up the numbers let me know.
29 Mar 2010 at 04:28 am | #
Love Dirt is two four letter words!
Synthetics make predictability an ancient word that attacks handicapping… the basis of pari-mutuel wagering.
29 Mar 2010 at 06:15 am | #
Injury and fatality rates will continue to be high as long as horses, including exhausted and injured ones are allowed to train and race in stakes and lowest claiming races alike on powerful drugs.
The naive press gobbles-up fatality stats like gospel without asking questions such as exactly which fatalities are counted? Stats are massaged to suit agendas. Off-track fatalities directly related to on-track injuries are conveniently ignored because they are TOO MANY TO COUNT and no one want to open that can of worms.
There seem to be more training than racing fatalities lately. Could it be because horses train with more drugs than they race with?
Though freak accidents happen, most are not “bad steps” without warnings, injuries and chemicals.Give them a safer surface and horses will still be pushed over the edge as long as a solid safety net is not in place to save horses and riders from abusers and their drugs.
29 Mar 2010 at 06:57 am | #
I could address various issues, but let me tackle the “you can’t love a horse on synthetic” thing. Mr. Ezra should speak for himself and use the pronoun “I” and not “You.” Obviously, plenty of people are capable of forming strong opinions on synthetic races. Some of us are confident we’ve identified the key handicapping factors. Personally, I prefer grass and synthetic racing to dirt. There is a key similarity to both and that’s the importance of final fractions. I never feel more confident in a horse than when it is a standout on that front so long as the race dynamics are not such that they negate the advantage. What irks me about staements like Mr. Ezra’s is the implication that synthetic racing is somehow a random exercise. It’s one of the anti-synthetic crowd’s favorite mantra. and it just ain’t so. We got that same thing from Steven Crist this weekend in the wake of The World Cup. I need only one word to refute that notion. That word is Zenyatta.
29 Mar 2010 at 08:07 am | #
Synthetics are not safer than dirt, and you shouldn’t wrongly proliferate such disinformation.
In an article about how glorious the DWC was with their new synthetic surface and how safety is the bottom line, it’s inexplicable that you don’t note Timely Jazz, who broke down and died in the UAE Derby.
29 Mar 2010 at 08:24 am | #
Postscript: Little has been made about Timely Jazz breaking down in the UAE Derby. It’s apparent a horse can be injured racing on any surface, but Tapeta is considered to be relatively safe when compared to dirt. In this unfortunate case, Tapeta didn’t prove to make a difference.
Safety issues aside, it’s that the power in racing is shifting to Europe and Asia, where synthetic tracks are considered the proper substitute for turf, that will tip the balance against dirt. Over time, with attrition of influence accompanying the decline of North American racing, the tracks here that stay with dirt will represent a small, insignificant portion of the global sport.
I believe that eventually the market will place North American horse racing in a subordinate position to racing in other parts of the world and that will force change in terms of the kind of races that are run, the type of horses we breed and the kind of surfaces our horses race on. The argument between which surface is better, dirt or synthetic, will become, in effect, superfluous.
29 Mar 2010 at 08:33 am | #
“Predictably, those people whose voice should count the most – aka the horseplayers - are split 50-50 on the issue.”
I disagree. Safety should determine whether or not we should move to synthetics. Safety for both horses and jockeys. Horseplayers do not want to see injuries, but their primary focus is on wagering; not safety. Whether or not synthetics are safer than dirt (or turf for that matter) is still an open question. That is what studies are for. I have been wagering or horses for a long time. While I will have to adjust my handicapping if synthetics become the norm, so be it. And in fact, those who adjust their betting will benefit from those who are stuck in their old dirt track handicapping.
29 Mar 2010 at 08:41 am | #
Referring to my previous response, my disagreement was that horseplayers’ voice should count the most; not about the 50-50 split.
29 Mar 2010 at 08:53 am | #
Vic, why do we care what they’re racing on in Europe and Asia? Why should that impact us at all?
In addition, just what G1s, outside of the recently-run races in Dubai, are run on synths in either place or anywhere outside of the U.S.? And I’d love for you to direct me to an article that talks of them running the Arc on synths soon.
The rest of the world raced on turf all these years, but that didn’t require us to pull up our dirt tracks and race only on turf. Why do you think we can or should do that now?
Long live dirt racing—the racing which has produced superior racehorses to any in the world for many decades!
29 Mar 2010 at 02:57 pm | #
VZ,
Just scratching the surface on the synthetic issue just leaves us scratchig our heasds; particularly with regard to statistical analysis of what is occurring on synthetic as compared with both dirt and turf. I’m a little surprised that, as a journalist, you were content with just the revelation that “a lesser percentage of synthetic track runners fail to complete their starts.”
To me, that immediately begs the questions, 1) what was the distribution of total starts across surfaces, 2) what are the average and mean number of days following a start on synthetic as compared to that of each other surface, and 3) what percentage of horses making their final start did so on synthetic as compared with each other surface?
Perhaps you could persuade Mr. Platt to query his data base for the answers to those questions. If HANA has such a database at its disposal, it could provide the industry with considerable guidance on the surface issue without taking a polarizing stance. We could certainly use a statistically validated explanation of dimishing field sizes on synthetic here in Southern California.
To Mr. Ezra: if you can’t bet on the one you love, hate the ones you don’t bet on in the super.
29 Mar 2010 at 05:21 pm | #
Vic,
Were we separated at birth??? Again, and agin, I read your column and you are so spot on. Call or email sometime please!
Susan Kayne
1.877.WINS.BIG
29 Mar 2010 at 07:52 pm | #
I must still be missing something!
How many winners per race on Synthetics? One the same as on grasss or dirt or if you ran on the road.
Is the % of winning favourites the same? Yes.
So, by some mechanism that I am too foolish to spot, synthetic surfaces must identify those horses which the complainers wish to support and then somehow disadvantage them.
Races tend to be run differently on the new synthetics and on grass to the way they’re run on grass. When we had Equitrack at Lingfield everyone wanted to be out of the fierce kickback - now there isn’t really any kickback and they go slower. You just have to accept that.
Trainers aren’t averse to adopting any excuse when a horse gets beaten, but the fact is that defeat is more likely to be due to the way the race was run than to what they ran on.
They used to say in England[ before we had any artificials] that “a good horse will go on any ground”. That may have been too strong but “a good horse will go on good ground” was probably true. From an equine perspective Tapeta is certainly as near “good ground” as you will get consistently.
29 Mar 2010 at 07:52 pm | #
Vic - Gloria is actually trained in France, not England. But that aside, it was interesting to note that Eric Libaud, who trains Vision d’Etat, the French horse who flopped at the World Cup, criticized Tapeta as not allowing a horse’s foot to slide the way other synthetic surfaces he has run on do. I have to agree that synthetic tracks are definitely not consistent. The track in Deauville rode differently practically every day during the winter meet this year, and my horses’ performances varied because of it. But one thing that gets lost in this debate is the dimensions of the track matter far more than the surface. Any track offering nice wide turns is safer than most of the tiny ovals in America. So it because a false comparison when we discuss how much safer European turf is. I still maintain that you could put down dirt at Longchamp and the injury rate would not rise because the track is huge with sweeping turns and no medication is allowed on race day. These two points are far more important than surface. (Not that I am in ANY way advocating replacing the hallowed turf of Longchamp with dirt...)
30 Mar 2010 at 04:57 am | #
“Little has been made about Timely Jazz breaking down in the UAE Derby” - I’ll say! I watched the Dubai racing all day - aside from the statement made during the race that the horse had broken down, not another word was uttered. Was he alive? Was he dead? What happened? Nothing was said. It was bizarre.
Small wonder some consider horseracing a cruel sport, when the injury and death of a world class athlete during a world class sporting event isn’t considered worthy of comment.
Also - you say Tapeta “is considered” to be “relatively safe” compared to dirt. Considered by who? Compared to what dirt? The reportedly concrete-like, exhausted dirt California replaced with synthetics? Or the dirt at Saratoga, where only 1 horse died (during a monsoon, by the way) in the past couple of years?
30 Mar 2010 at 05:29 am | #
Ahh, Noelle D, you’ve touched on a good point. So all dirt tracks, like synthetic tracks, are different and the horseplayers have to adapt to their idiosyncracies in order to play them properly, huh?
By the way, I don’t get why horseplayers want consistency. Part of the sport of betting horses is trying to beat the odds, figuring out the variables. It must be that they think the deck is so stacked against them in unfair ways such as takeout, drug use, lack of information, etc. because, like golf, a fair tough challenge should otherwise be considered a good thing.
Losing is what creates horseplayers, not winning. Same holds true for video games. But that’s a subject for a whole other column - one that I’m certain would be met with much anger and controversy. I’m not ready for that yet.
Timely Jazz was put down.
30 Mar 2010 at 06:19 am | #
Vic,
Are you serious?
What do you mean,"you do not get why horseplayers want consistency”
It is not just Horseplayers, it is Trainers and Owners too that want consistency of the surface.
Are you advocating a lottery with a random number generator as your expertise? Only those who take from the top(Racetracks and the State) like that because the unpredictability forces multiple play tickets and downgrades the importance of handicapping,the traditional basis of pari-mutuel play.
How would you like to buy a fast horse,or enter a superior horse in a race and find your chances are no more than random for a victory because of the inconsistent surface?
A Recent survey in California found 70% of Trainers want to go back to dirt.
Are you serious or just want controversy?
30 Mar 2010 at 10:50 am | #
We’ve all heard about horses for courses, VZ, and while I agree that surface and track configuration have long been part of the challenges of both handicapping and horse safety, the yet-to-be-determined varied impacts introduced at the various synthetic installations have introduced unnecessary variables to those equations. Besides alienating a significant percentage of their customers, the alien surface installations in California appear to be causing their operators money in handle losses to go along with increased maintenance costs.
Please don’t procrastinate with your planned column on how “Losing is what creates horseplayers, not winning.” I want to still be around to read it while you can still write it. Like everyone else, horseplayers learn from their mistakes and—besides strengthening a player’s resolve—losing makes winning that much sweeter. I’m hoping you will provide far greater insight, however, because finding more ways to make horseplayers lose seems like a poor marketing strategy.
30 Mar 2010 at 11:03 am | #
Indulto,
Ha Ha..
V.Z. must be playing a joke.. “Losing is what creates horseplayers,not winning”
I too would like to see that article by V.Z. before I go…
V.Z. -Stop drinking so much Kool-Aid.
30 Mar 2010 at 11:14 am | #
Good post, rw. I wonder if Mr. Zast would like to see a random outcome in a race in which he enters a horse. Or a random outcome in a race between Zenyatta and Rachel, or a random outcome in the next race Quality Road competes in.
If synthetics were so great, horsemen and owners would be gushing over them. They’re not. By far, the vast majority dislike them immensely. Add to them the handicappers who similarly dislike them. So, racing, in another usual display of great wisdom, decides to ignore the two entities who actually pay for racing.
31 Mar 2010 at 09:01 pm | #
Bottom line for me as a participant/fan more than a player is: I have yet to see a race on synthetic that got me pumped, excited that I had seen a truly great performance.
Zenyatta’s Classic maybe came close, though mitigated by the impression (of mine, admittedly) that several very good (turf) horses seemed to stop pretty cold in the stretch more so than she was that much better, for a championship caliber race.
I’d like to see a serious poll of hardcore Del Mar fan’s opinions of the same impressions, maybe versus Saratoga folks.
In other words, synthetic racing just plainly bores me.
31 Mar 2010 at 09:12 pm | #
The only alternative, if the KA, CHRB, AND HRH Sheikh Mohammed are going to shove it down our throats “like it or not” we can always walk away from the game.
Maybe in a couple decades there will be a group of fans who never knew dirt racing, never knew it could be safe if people did the right thing, who will say amongst themselves: “My God, What were them idiots thinking, racing on dirt?”
16 Sep 2010 at 07:21 pm | #
Hi,
I haven’t owned a video game system since the Super Nintendo. I am interested in buying a more modern one to play Madden football and probably some other sports games. What is the best video game system to play those on?
Buy Wow Gold