Synthetic report released :)

[curious]

Included is a comprehensive track discussion document produced by Professor Chris Rogers and the team at Massey University. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌	No images? Click here
NZTR Introduces Quality Assurance Programme for Synthetic Racing Surfaces At the commencement of the 2024 synthetic track racing season, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) commissioned Professor Chris Rogers, and the team at Massey University, to produce a comprehensive track discussion document. The objective was to consolidate the latest international research on racing surfaces, with a particular focus on the physical properties of synthetic tracks and how surface management influences hoof-surface interaction. The document provides a detailed summary of the physical characteristics of New Zealand’s synthetic tracks, current maintenance practices, and performance metrics. It also draws on global literature to contextualise New Zealand’s synthetic racing environment and describes the physical properties of synthetic racing surfaces, as well as how management can alter the hoof- surface interaction. Key Findings from the International Literature and Domestic Racing Venue Engagement: ·         Different track surfaces exhibit distinct hoof-loading profiles. Synthetic tracks demonstrate a more acute end to the deceleration phase of the hoof compared to turf tracks. ·         Horses adapt limb tension at impact based on their previous experience with a given surface. ·         Injury rates on New Zealand synthetic tracks are in line with international benchmarks, though slightly higher than those observed on domestic turf surfaces. ·         Horses are recording faster speeds on synthetic tracks compared to turf tracks during the synthetic season. ·         Like turf tracks, synthetic surfaces are responsive to environmental conditions such as temperature, as well as to maintenance and preparation protocols. NZTR to Implement Quality Assurance Programme One of the key recommendations from the Massey University report is the establishment of a coordinated NZTR Quality Assurance Programme. This initiative aims to ensure a consistent and uniform racing surface at the three synthetic venues: Cambridge, Awapuni, and Riccarton Park Racecourses. “The goal of commissioning this document was to ensure that our maintenance and preparation practices were best practice internationally, and to also understand further what factors alter the surface and how we can manage these effects more consistently” said NZTR COO Darin Balcombe. “The development of a quality assurance programme will provide all synthetic venues with consistent management practices, leading to improved track performance. “This coordinated approach will provide industry participants with confidence that each synthetic track is being prepared to its optimal specification, in alignment with the report’s recommendations and Martin Collins’ international best practices,” said Balcombe.   https://nztr.co.nz/sites/nztrindustry/files/2025-05/Synthetic track surfaces review_v4_6.pdf   Corporate Communications New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing nztrcommunications@nztr.co.nz

Synthetic track surfaces review_v4_6.pdf

[Chief Stipe]

Quality Assurance Programme...well well well.  

You read it here first.

[The Centaur]

"Coordinated" ...well I don't see mention or requirement of jockeys input. Afterall it's them who take the tumble on the surface. 

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, The Centaur said:

"Coordinated" ...well I don't see mention or requirement of jockeys input. Afterall it's them who take the tumble on the surface. 

What do Jockeys know about maintaining a Synthetic track?

BTW this communication went to all current owners - I guess @Comic Dog didn't get the memo.

Thanks for posting the communication @curious at the same time as @Pete Lane.

 

[Dark Beau]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Quality Assurance Programme...well well well.  

You read it here first.

No I didn't, I got it by email and then I read it on cafe race.

Edited yesterday at 06:25 AM by Dark Beau

[Chief Stipe]

@Pete Lane if you don't give a flying F about what is posted on here then why spend so much time talking about it elsewhere?  Same goes for @nomates aka Bob Scott (nomates)

BTW it was the dear old @Comic Dog that raised the timing issue first.  Obviously it wasn't on the mailing list.

[Chief Stipe]

Just now, Dark Beau said:

No I didn't.

Can't you read?  It was stated on here many weeks ago that NZTR needed to implement a Quality Assurance Programme.  Hopefully they'll apply/enforce some standards on Trentham as well.

[Dark Beau]

Altering my posts again or at least not quoting in full, the sentence that I wrote.

Edited yesterday at 06:59 AM by Dark Beau

[Pete Lane]

.

Edited yesterday at 07:25 AM by Pete Lane

[Special Agent]

Some of the findings not unexpected.

Higher injury rates, both fractures and soft tissue, on the synthetic compared to turf.

Injuries more attributed to track make up than track maintenance.

Race speed directly aligned to injury which is a result of track surfaces resembling a fast turf rating, raceday conditions to be altered to reflect a more forgiving surface.

Turns and camber an obvious problem for limbs.  I thought using the pacing and trotting gait an odd metric.

The report said there was insufficient data available for training on synthetic.  Of all the statistics for this study I would have though training numbers on synthetic, or other surfaces, would have been one of the easier figures to have sourced.

How does this report make everyone feel about the three New Zealand synthetic tracks?  Would it influence your decision to train or race on one?

[The Centaur]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

What do Jockeys know about maintaining a Synthetic track?

 

Thats a silly response Chief.

Below snippet from an American publication...

“I do know for a fact that when you fall on it, it’s a lot harder on you,” said jockey Richard Migliore said to Billy Finnly in a 2010 article for Thoroughbred Daily News. “It seems like when you fall on dirt or turf, you hit and then bounce and roll. It kind of disperses the energy a little bit. I fell on this track [at Santa Anita] about a year ago, and I got planted. I didn’t get hurt, but I was sore for a month. You see more blunt force kind of trauma. There have been some catastrophic injuries with riders, as we know, though I don’t know if it would have been different on dirt. Jockeys are definitely starting to wonder. There’s no doubt about that.”

There were also issues with how quickly these surface deteriorated, namely in California, when at one point, the issues got so bad that the track couldn’t drain properly.

******************

Now its not the job of jockeys maintaining the tracks but by logic their input is of prime importance.

[Special Agent]

Holly Andrew and Lisa Allpress broke legs at Awapuni and Riccarton respectively.  Ask them what they think of the synthetic surface.

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Holly Andrew and Lisa Allpress broke legs at Awapuni and Riccarton respectively.  Ask them what they think of the synthetic surface.

Are you serious?  Do you think it is any different to falling on a Good 2 rated track?  Is that why some Jockeys are calling for MORE irrigation?  Don't fall off a horse or the deck or a ladder or a stage!  You could break a leg.

An experienced horseman may tell you on any given day how the horse he rode felt on the track but what value is that opinion?  For a start it could be only specific to that horses physiology.  It might be useful to the trainer who decides that there could be something wrong with the horse or it isn't suited to that type of track.  

[Chief Stipe]

53 minutes ago, The Centaur said:

Thats a silly response Chief.

 

It's not silly and I stand by my statement what do Jockeys know about maintaining or even designing a synthetic track?  One of their tasks is to NOT fall off.  What you have quoted just says "it hurts when you hit the ground".  The Jockey even contradicts himself in the statement where he says he doesn't know if would be any different on dirt. 

However your quote also eludes to the fact that the tracks in California deteriorated rapidly.  There is no reference to when or where these comments were made so it is difficult to gauge if we are comparing apples with apples when looking at the NZ AWT's.

The key fundamental is to assess the tracks impact on horse health and safety.  If they can race on the surface and not sustain serious injury then it follows that the Jockey's are safer.

It doesn't matter what type of track you have - if you don't maintain it reguarly and properly it will become unsafe or unusable.  Such as what is happening with our turf tracks.

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Dark Beau said:

Altering my posts again or at least not quoting in full, the sentence that I wrote.

I don't touch anyone's posts.  I see @Pete Lane had second thoughts during the 5 minute cool down period and edited his.

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Special Agent said:

Some of the findings not unexpected.

Higher injury rates, both fractures and soft tissue, on the synthetic compared to turf.

Injuries more attributed to track make up than track maintenance.

 

That's not how I read it.  I think you are extrapolating the literature review findings to the NZ tracks.  Which is a misleading aspect of the report.  There is over two decades of research cited - nearly all of which was available BEFORE these AWT's were built in NZ.  

I disagree with your last statement too where you attribute injuires more to the make up of the track than poor maintenance.  What the report does highlight with respect to the maintenance is the considerable variation between the 3 tracks and variability within each track.  That is where the introduction of a Quality Assurance Programme ensuring maintenance procedures and standards are met will be beneficial. 

Hopefully it will be an independent QA Programme and not one that relies on the integrity and effort of the track managers and/or their managers.  I'm sure Trainers can help with monitoring!

[curious]

Yes. I don't think we have any data on soft tissue injury rates for here, at least not reported. Also, I agree that the report suggests that the primary issue is track maintenance standards and race day preparation, not track make up.

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes. I don't think we have any data on soft tissue injury rates for here, at least not reported. Also, I agree that the report suggests that the primary issue is track maintenance standards and race day preparation, not track make up.

What's the going rate for Literature Reviews?

[curious]

55 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

What's the going rate for Literature Reviews?

No idea. They are free though if you get a good graduate student to do them as an assessment task

[curious]

5 hours ago, Special Agent said:

The report said there was insufficient data available for training on synthetic.  Of all the statistics for this study I would have though training numbers on synthetic, or other surfaces, would have been one of the easier figures to have sourced.

I'm not sure about that. It may vary between tracks but is it recorded at the gap which track each horse is using? I.e. do they know whether horses work on the poly or another training track and is that reported to NZTR and available to the researchers? 

[curious]

9 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Quality Assurance Programme...well well well.  

You read it here first.

I think this is a good outcome. However it will have to be implemented and monitored carefully for it to work.

[curious]

There are clearly major deficiencies in the track maintenance practices and considerable variance between tracks. 

One quick example is the Clegg hammer readings which are apparently a contractual requirement of Martin Collins but Riccarton only started doing them this year and still don't publish them for racedays which is an NZTR requirement.

[curious]

There are some errors in the report too. For example, it says "Within New Zealand, turf tracks are prepared so they produce a track condition of a good 3
(penetrometer reading 2.3-2.5) for race day (New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, 2013)."

That's obviously very dated. The current policy says: "Clubs should aim to produce a track with a GOOD rating (i.e. a track with good grass coverage and
cushion) for the majority of the race meeting". That is either a Good 3 or 4 in today's ratings which were changed 3 years ago and include what was a dead 4 back in 2013.

Edited 22 hours ago by curious

[Freda]

That is a fairly fundamental error for a report of this importance. 

[Freda]

12 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Are you serious?  Do you think it is any different to falling on a Good 2 rated track?  

Most probably.

Fall off your motorbike on the road and you slide.     Fall off on a polytrack and you don't.  You hit the ground like a piledriver.