Synthetic report released :)

[Freda]

10 hours ago, curious said:

Yes. That's pretty much my conclusion from reading to date. At the moment they appear to be as safe or safer than firm grass tracks, particularly Cambridge, and that with a more rigorous maintenance and measurement regimen, preparation to a softer measurement, and trainers ensuring horses are adapted before racing on them, they would be as safe or safer than good grass tracks.

Preparation to a softer measurement seems to be tossed out the window when the surface is 'tightened' for raceday.  That has to increase the injury risk factor, one would think, if horses are adapted to a specific depth then face a significant difference at racing speed?

[curious]

16 minutes ago, Freda said:

Preparation to a softer measurement seems to be tossed out the window when the surface is 'tightened' for raceday.  That has to increase the injury risk factor, one would think, if horses are adapted to a specific depth then face a significant difference at racing speed?

I know it's not what they currently do, certainly at Riccarton generally the opposite, but that is one of the clear recommendations of the report for remediation and should be able to be effected immediately. It would also probably make the synthetics suitable for a wider range of horses and potentially improve starter numbers.

Analysis of race-day sectional times demonstrates that horses are running at faster speeds on
synthetic tracks than turf tracks. Faster speeds are a risk factor for injury, and preparation of the
synthetic surfaces could be altered to reduce the respective speed of horses on the synthetic tracks
and thus the injury risk profile.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, curious said:

Analysis of race-day sectional times demonstrates that horses are running at faster speeds on
synthetic tracks than turf tracks. Faster speeds are a risk factor for injury, and preparation of the
synthetic surfaces could be altered to reduce the respective speed of horses on the synthetic tracks
and thus the injury risk profile.

The correlation between speed and injury seems rather spurious in my mind.

I'm not sure the statement that horses are running faster on synthetic vs turf tracks stands up either.

[curious]

2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

The correlation between speed and injury seems rather spurious in my mind.

I'm not the statement that horses are running faster on synthetic vs turf tracks stands up either.

Why do you say it is spurious? I'd say it is well established.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Freda said:

Preparation to a softer measurement seems to be tossed out the window when the surface is 'tightened' for raceday.  That has to increase the injury risk factor, one would think, if horses are adapted to a specific depth then face a significant difference at racing speed?

How do they "tighten" it?  Run a roller over it?  Or is it the action of horses galloping on it?  Or weather?  If it is horses galloping on the surface would the track "tighten" during the course of a race meeting?

[curious]

5 minutes ago, curious said:

Why do you say it is spurious? I'd say it is well established.

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, curious said:

Why do you say it is spurious? I'd say it is well established.

But isn't like saying speed or race time is an accurate measure of the firmness of a track?  Let alone correlating it with safety.

 

[curious]

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

How do they "tighten" it?  Run a roller over it?  Or is it the action of horses galloping on it?  Or weather?  If it is horses galloping on the surface would the track "tighten" during the course of a race meeting?

Understand that they roll it and possibly groom at a shallower tine depth?

[curious]

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

But isn't like saying speed or race time is an accurate measure of the firmness of a track?  Let alone correlating it with safety.

 

The research I have seen doesn't use race times but last 600 times to assess the speed, thus largely taking race tempo out of the equation.

It correlates with injury rates on both that measure and reported track conditions.

Edited Saturday at 08:58 PM by curious

[Chief Stipe]

33 minutes ago, curious said:

Geez @curious this type of data might cut the mustard in social science but...

Take the Track Condition measure for example - hardly a quantitative metric largely subjective in this country.  Have they taken the Trentham and Riccarton data out of the analysis?  We know their track ratings are BS.  For that matter have they taken Trentham's times out of the data?

They've even taken the average track rating down to two decimal places - really?  The Firm track stats are from two meetings?!  

Does it seem logical that a 3.7% increase in speed results in over a 100% increase in fatality rate?

I wonder if they would release the raw data.

I'm afraid they are drawing the wrong conclusions from suspect data which will lead to poor decisions.

[Freda]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

The correlation between speed and injury seems rather spurious in my mind.

I'm not the statement that horses are running faster on synthetic vs turf tracks stands up either.

 

59 minutes ago, curious said:

Understand that they roll it and possibly groom at a shallower tine depth?

Yes.

[Freda]

45 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Geez @curious this type of data might cut the mustard in social science but...

Take the Track Condition measure for example - hardly a quantitative metric largely subjective in this country.  Have they taken the Trentham and Riccarton data out of the analysis?  We know their track ratings are BS.  For that matter have they taken Trentham's times out of the data?

They've even taken the average track rating down to two decimal places - really?  The Firm track stats are from two meetings?!  

Does it seem logical that a 3.7% increase in speed results in over a 100% increase in fatality rate?

I wonder if they would release the raw data.

I'm afraid they are drawing the wrong conclusions from suspect data which will lead to poor decisions.

Yes.

There are well-known variations in track conditions from track to track..e.g. a 4 at Riverton bears little resemblance to a 4 at Riccarton.

Stats alone can be very misleading.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Freda said:

Yes.

There are well-known variations in track conditions from track to track..e.g. a 4 at Riverton bears little resemblance to a 4 at Riccarton.

Stats alone can be very misleading.

No Stats alone are not misleading - if the data is flawed then the stats are flawed and the decisions ensuing are flawed.

What it does highlight yet again how important it is to standardise the measuring of track ratings (essentially firmness) across the country and to enforce Quality Control standards.  I would have thought that this would have been one of the prime responsibilities of NZTR, the National Track Manager and local track managers.  Even Horse Welfare and Safety have a need for accurate data.

The NZ data Massey University used in their report is suspect at best.

[curious]

34 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

The NZ data Massey University used in their report is suspect at best.

Maybe, but it's the only data they have which is why one of the key recommendations in the report "is to standardise the measuring of track ratings (essentially firmness) across the country and to enforce Quality Control standards.", as you say.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Maybe, but it's the only data they have which is why one of the key recommendations in the report "is to standardise the measuring of track ratings (essentially firmness) across the country and to enforce Quality Control standards.", as you say.

It is suspect and I doubt there has been any attempt to normalise it for the very reason there isn't enough collarborating data.

Hell @curious we have been banging on about this lack of data and its inconsistency for a very very long time.  I always had a hope that what we thought we were seeing was wrong.  

So will Riccarton and Trentham get away with what they have been doing going forward ( @Dark Beau ) ?  As we have been saying theorectically Trentham has been unsafe for two reasons - the track has been rock hard and has been rated as not.  The latter makes it hard for trainers to make informed decisions about the safety of their horses.

I'm surprised other forums have been apologists for this problem.  Not that many will connect the dots between the report and reality.

One concern I have is that we will become fixated on producing a Soft 5 track which isn't necessarily a safe track.  Firmness is only one metric and shouldn't be the sole one.

[Special Agent]

Data used is suspect and all the data we have = a report put out begrudgingly anyway but, the industry has what it asked for.

Variation of track conditions track to track despite the same rating, and quality assurance = from reading the report, as with turf, synthetic tracks have their own make up for whatever reason and contribute more so than crucial correct maintenance.

[Special Agent]

5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

early training of yearlings and 2 yr olds.  The science literature shows that horses that have undergone early age preps have a greater racing longevity and less injury than those that don't.

I've heard this quoted quite a bit recently by NZTR and other NZ racing subsidaries like it's something new.

Grey Way is a good example of this.  There were many more prior to him, back in the days when racing was less frequent, trials and irrigation were futuristic.

Talk by trainers and riders away from media is quite negative around what is happening in racing.  There are some frustrated bodies out there.

One aspect that is quite a hot topic is the trialling and vetting of horses that have not raced within the last 12 months, another cost to owners.  Well done to two in that category at Wanganui.  Pretty obvious Jordan Rogan's big divvy winner with jumpout wins under it's belt didn't need vetting.

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Data used is suspect and all the data we have = a report put out begrudgingly anyway but, the industry has what it asked for.

Who in the industry asked for a report the largest part of which is a Literature Review probably done by a graduate student!

5 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Variation of track conditions track to track despite the same rating, and quality assurance = from reading the report, as with turf, synthetic tracks have their own make up for whatever reason and contribute more so than crucial correct maintenance.

It is not impossible to calibrate your measurement systems to ensure that when a Soft 5.5 is published it is the same as any other track.  With a single measure being the result of multi-factor measures.

Variability in the measure doesn't help trainers or punters alike.

As W Edwards Deming said - to paraphrase:

"If you can't remove the variation then you can't shift the mean".  That is if you don't reduce the variation then you can't improve things.

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

I've heard this quoted quite a bit recently by NZTR and other NZ racing subsidaries like it's something new.

Grey Way is a good example of this.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it is a new practice just that the science supports the practice of stressing horses at an early age to prolong their racing.  However that is where the stats presented by Massey may be skewed e.g. what was the training history of the fatalities reported?

 

[Special Agent]

1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said:

It is not impossible to calibrate your measurement systems to ensure that when a Soft 5.5 is published it is the same as any other track.  With a single measure being the result of multi-factor measures.

Rubbish.  There are loose, deep, holding, puggy etc versions of the same heavy ratings for a start.

As Freda said about Riverton vs Riccarton, what about Wanganui vs Trentham vs New Plymouth vs Otaki.

That's why the jockeys' opinion after riding a track on race day is important, despite your opinion of them.

[Special Agent]

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting it is a new practice just that the science supports the practice of stressing horses at an early age to prolong their racing.  However that is where the stats presented by Massey may be skewed e.g. what was the training history of the fatalities reported?

 

Take a study purely on the Awapuni synthetic training fatalities then.  See if the volume and nature has any bearing vs pre synthetic.

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Rubbish.  There are loose, deep, holding, puggy etc versions of the same heavy ratings for a start.

 

But neither of those subjective terms are measures of firmness.  In terms of firmness a Heavy 10 is very very soft.

8 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

As Freda said about Riverton vs Riccarton, what about Wanganui vs Trentham vs New Plymouth vs Otaki.

 

You didn't read what I wrote.  I acknowledged variation between tracks and but that you can calibrate the measurement per track to deliver consistent ratings where in terms of firmness a Soft 6 at Riccarton is a Soft 6 at Riverton.  Most of us know that the ratings at Riccarton and Trentham are suspect regardless of any variation in the respective tracks.

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Take a study purely on the Awapuni synthetic training fatalities then.  See if the volume and nature has any bearing vs pre synthetic.

What's your hypothesis?

Do you think that Trainers have gone through a learning curve with how to use the AWT in their training regimes?

If there is a variation in fatality or injury rates between Cambridge and Awapuni and Cambridge has a lower rate what would you suspect is the cause?

[Special Agent]

Not buying into any arguments.

Trainers haven't had much option at some tracks.

You are the statistics man.

[Chief Stipe]

12 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Not buying into any arguments.

Trainers haven't had much option at some tracks.

You are the statistics man.

It's not an "argument".

Track ratings are important for a number of reasons.

For example if I'm a trainer and I've set my horse for a R65 1200m at Trentham but I know it will have issues on a very firm track.  On raceday morning the track is rated a Soft 7 and I say "great perfect".    The horse lines up and they run 1:07.4 (after adjusting for the hand timing).  My horse feels the track badly and can't keep up.  I now have a sore horse to take home and its upcoming programme screwed.

Isn't that a bigger problem than the track being a holding or puggy Heavy 10?

BTW that example I used is based on fact.