SARATOGA RACE COURSE PARALYZED BY POLITICS, PARADOX & PALLIATIONS

September,2023

 On August 3rd, 1863, a four day meet marked the first-year thoroughbred horses raced over the ground that was previously a harness track. Casino Operator and soon to be Congressman John Morrisey, including wealthy cronies John Hunter, first chairman of the Jockey Club; W.R. Travers and Cornelius Vanderbilt joined forces in the redevelopment of the Saratoga racecourse. While the great depression, the war years and the early to mid 1970’s took their toll on North American horse racing, Saratoga emerged in recognition of some of the finest and safest racing conditions in America!

 Sadly, those conditions gradually eroded and fell victim of new management, policy changes and provisions in the last decade that gradually culminated in the recent tragedies and neglect that American racing patrons, horses and horsemen suffered in 2023.

 RELATIVE HEADLINES

 BOXHOLDERS CRINGE - DRESS CODES-CLUBHOUSE TRADITION AXED AT SPA

 2023 SARATOGA HORSE DEATHS BRING NYRA SOUL SEARCHING

 $500,000 GR1 TEST STAKES FINISH AS GRIM AS IT GETS

 14 HORSE DEATHS AT SARATOGA SINCE 23 OPENING

 SARATOGA CASUALTIES 2ND TO HORSE RACING DEATHS IN 2012                        

2014 NYRA RACING DEATHS INCREASED AFTER TASK FORCE CONVENED IN 2012

 But after reading and hearing the rhetoric and dialogue that transpired in an attempt to remove the aspersions associated with leadership, let’s review some of those realities and actors that were associated with the catastrophes in the making and perhaps emit some input from those involved that cannot talk.

 CAUSALITIES & QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO RACING BASES & SURFACES

 One dirt “racing” and two turf “racing” surfaces and one dirt "training surface" at Saratoga are measured in the tragedies. The turf training surface at Oklahoma was not a contributor according to the reports.  Why do these differing compositions matter? The average healthy horse in training conditions and races approximately 270-300 days a year on “prescription bases” constructed and comprised of a compacted stone or lime-stone bases beneath a 3 ½ to 4” cushion generally. The composition of that cushion contains a mixture of 7+% clay and the balance of fiber, silt and sand depending on climates occurring in the east, west, north and southern U.S. (the composition of “cushions” and base construction on racetracks and training tracks are subject to great debate and depending on the experience of the trackman or superintendent are historically subject to approval by experienced senior staffers and qualified board members (“to whit” Professor Pratt, MIT thermodynamics was involved as a consultant in NYRA racecourse composition and measurement for 20 years prior to 1980.

 WHY DO WE RACE MAINLY ON TWO DISTINCT SURFACES IN THE U.S.?

 Turf (grass) racing began to gain popularity in the early 50’s in New York, California, Florida and New England and provided a broader and more elevated appreciation of the equine asset.  As we know, Europe, England, Ireland and Scotland have offered turf racing exclusively to their horse herds until recently, providing a more natural racing surface and footing (sans bases) to their herds while promoting significantly more soundness to their pedigrees.

 In North America dirt racing appeared to provide a more efficient and affordable hedge against inclement weather and requiring less repair than turf from increased utilization. Clay bases have been replaced by stone and limestone by road builders employed in the equation as they provide easier manipulation and drying-out conditions by track superintendents but soon provided more damaging to the overall herd substantially.  As tracks were made shallower and more malleable with an increasing supply of sand and less clay and fiber by in-house superintendents who had little understanding of the anatomy of the racing animal or the rules of physics and banking utilized in auto racing. These changes combined with prescription bases has become a threatening route of destruction under rainy conditions. The load balancing factor has been sadly neglected in horse racing but studied and implemented in all racing cars and motorcycle events.  The loading and banking factor is more important to the racing horse than hay and oats.  Everyone wants to talk about surfaces in equine dirt race tracks but neglect the negativity and damaging aspects of stone and cement bases, especially on turns. Transitional turns should be mandated in the building of horse tracks as they are in vehicular racing.  It is interesting how many uneducated comments on the Saratoga massacre were quick to blame the mechanical heredity of the horse and not the lack of physics and mechanics on behalf of the “road builders” responsible for track base constructions and surface formula analysis.

 If one has never ridden a horse in competition, whether it be a cutting horse or a race horse it is difficult to communicate the impacting interface of the animal to the present surface he encounters. Concussion during lead changes in horse racing is the biggest and most destructive experience of a racing horse’s life!

 The English aptly describe it as “give in the ground”. There wasn’t any at Saratoga that would allow a cushion for a 1000 lb. horse on turf or dirt as was evidenced by the fractions.

 WHY TURF TRACKS SHOULD HAVE DEEPER COMPOSITIONS

 Race horses accommodate their own load factor in and out of turns IF the courses offer enough depth to allow the body mass to become perpendicular to the angle of attack without correction.  Without the correction of a hard platform the skeletal construction is seriously over-tasked during the thrust and necessary correction, especially during lead changes going into and out of the turns. It is estimated that 300 lbs is added to the skeletal linkage of the inside limb of a1000 lb horse at full gate during lead changes without adequate banking and cushion. Without transitionally constructed turns the navigational experience at Saratoga on grass or dirt traveling at fractions of 21, 44 and 1 minute for 5 ½ furlongs with inadequate cushion is a recipe for fractures!  (Saratoga did not offer racing at that distance 15 years ago for reasons not obvious to current day participants and recipients of the schedule)

 A DEADLY PRESCRIPTION

As NYRA prepared for its annual summer attraction it was fielding one of the most fragile and low valued equine collections of its racing herd in 50 years. (not including the stakes performers)

 Beaten claiming races and increasingly shortened distances attracted entries from C and D quality tracks. Starter allowances and optional claiming recorded a plethora of results that consistently recorded charts of starters beaten 30, 50 lengths per event and topping out at over 100 lengths between the contestants in the final furlongs.  Contests this uncompetitive have not been recorded at a single venue in American history. This is a high-risk problem that inadequacy of performance brings to a race meet of any kind let alone what used to be a summer showcase. It was a disgrace!        

 In the last 10 years Saratoga has recorded some of the fastest track records in sprint races (around turns) in the world. Both turf and dirt sprints carry records of three quarters of a mile in 1.07 and change and five and a half furlongs in a minute.  Dirt and dust flying on turf and dirt tracks and producing sprint speeds of quarters in 21 seconds, half miles  in 44 seconds; three quarter miles in 1.08 by mediocre horses was indicative of unsafe circumstances even before the rains came and continued over sloppy conditions.

 PRIORITIZING TRACK CONDITIONS

 It was interesting and puzzling to witness the common listing condition of the main track surface as “Muddy”, eradicating the historically published condition of Sloppy, even after several hours and days of pouring rain and abnormal speed recordings. This historic condition published as “Sloppy” was eliminated and replaced as Muddy and appeared on track and in the Jockey Club’s corresponding Equibase charts. (horses cannot physically perform in 21, 44 and 1.08 on a track evaluated as “muddy” condition by any accepted policy!  Was the track condition analysis a covert concoction published for the mainly satellite bettors in an attempt to alter and increase handicapping?  The historic “Sloppy” condition, a wagering tool in saturated track conditions for more than a century,  was replaced by “muddy” and never appeared for the entire meeting even though Mr. O’Keefe stated in his press statement that Saratoga had record rainfall. “Heavy and Slow” have also been eliminated from the NYRA lexicon, indicating a major change of track components. On one rainy afternoon the track listing was presented as fast after only two races of a muddy indication on a very cloudy and rainy day. This heightens the conspiracy!

 JOCKEYS PROTEST 1

 The series of fractures that resulted were ongoing on both turf and dirt. Jockeys protested at the racing secretary’s office following the first accidents and then again after spills and fractures continued.

 NYRA officials responded in the first instance with a public apology to bettors after a race distance change occurred within the framework of a plethora of exotics without notification.  But non made to horsemen and jockeys.

JOCKEYS PROTEST 2

 Following the second tranche of devastation jockeys again met with NYRA  at which time the CEO claimed to have walked the course a 6.30 a.m.; announced that the tracks were safe and if anything was wrong the superintendent would know as he had recently rebuilt the main track. He further stated that Saratoga was experiencing record rainfalls. (a report from the Fed meteorological published that Saratoga Springs rainfall in August 23 ranked 79th in the last hundred years.

 Nothing was said about the turf tracks where fractures, falls and injured horses, including several from around the world continued every day into the last week of racing.

There was no lexicon of science or fallibilism delivered from the meeting onlyHISA’s announcement that it was launching another investigation into the surface conditions. Even Mick Petersen, new HISA hire was mute.  Petersen has been consulting to many tracks for years.

 PR NIGHTMARE

 It was a PR nightmare extrapolated from what should have been a premeditated conclusion from inadequate knowledge about a developing and worsening condition.

 The main political question that is being asked around the racing world is why the Churchill Downs meeting, with nine euthanized horses resulting from a dry track was called off and Saratoga with fourteen dead in rainy conditions wasn’t. (HISA)

 The most serious question cloaked in the future and that will go unanswered, is the probability that there will be another 100 or more horses, while having escaped death, will be seriously damaged and may not continue to race.

 The Saratoga training (dirt) track, previously famous for its field (non prescription base)where many champions including Bold Ruler, Seattle Slew, Secretariat, Affirmed et al trained was replaced by a limestone prescription base similar to the main track racing conditions across the road.  Why?

 The result of severe casualties on NYRA tracks in the past decade is increasingly significant.  Failing to reveal what science tells us and failing to understanding that conditions should favor the horse will not be kind to racing as a sport and industry and will likely support an end to it.

 Wealthy persons who fly in the back of airplanes do not accept limited abilities from those who fly in the front of them. Our horses should be the recipients of a litmus test worthy of the safety in their performances

 Perhaps the Jockey Club’s “accreditation criteria” for American tracks could include a more science-based list of iterations that would deal directly with criteria affecting the thoroughbred horse and the racing conditions whereat he performs.

The solution, if allowed, MUST NOT be an experiment conducted by random, unqualified persons or non-horsemen!

 Dave Stevenson

 ADDENDUM 1

Sarah Jane Hobbs, PhD, of the University of Central Lancashire Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, in the U.K. comments on the physics of equine participation.

Hobbs gave a one-hour presentation on locomotion in circles during the Centaur Biomechanics Virtual Equine Sports Science Summit on Oct. 3.

The mechanical equation for centripetal acceleration takes both radius and velocity into consideration, but by different amounts, Hobbs explained. “So the speed of the turn will be more influential than how sharp the turn is,” she said.

Applied to the horse, this means the faster he goes around a curve, the greater centripetal force he must create to make the turn. He does this through “pushing outward” with his body, she said. “The outward push can be achieved by changing limb position, body position, or muscular effort, and the effect of these changes can have an influence on the horse’s balance,” said Hobbs.

Horses also tend to lean inward—some more than others, depending on their muscular development and discipline, with dressage horses leaning less than racehorses, for example. The lean makes the horse “shorter,” in that his vertical height from ground to withers is reduced, which is important for clinicians to keep in mind as a possible compounding effect on lameness and subsequently lameness exams.

How Circling Affects Lameness and Lameness Exams

How a horse copes with a turn can affect his gait, making him appear more or less sound than he would be on a straight line. “Circles can exacerbate lameness on the outside forelimb, probably due to increased vertical ground reaction force (the way the ground pushes back against the horse’s feet), or on the inside hind limb, possibly due to altered pelvic and limb posture,” said Hobbs.

Meanwhile, subtle outside hind-limb lameness might appear improved on a curve. “It could actually be masked on a circle due to the hind-limb asymmetry that you would find normally during turning,” she explained.

Horses might also look lame on turns even if they’re not, she added. “Circles can give the impression of inside forelimb or inside hind-limb lameness, with a head nod on the outside forelimb or hip hike on inside hind limb,” said Hobbs.

High-Speed Turns: Should Tracks Be ‘Banked’?

At high speeds, the centripetal force needed to make a tighter turn can be so great that the horse slows down—an important consideration for racetrack, training track, and cross-country course designs, said Hobbs. When the ground is soft, horses can dig their hooves in better for these curves—but with the countereffect of having a longer stance time (when the foot is on the ground). When the ground is hard, horses must compensate for the centripetal force in other ways to keep from falling, either by slowing down or changing their positions in ways that could, in certain circumstances, lead to musculoskeletal injury or excess wear and tear.

“Banking” tracks might be a solution to help horses negotiate high-speed turns, said Hobbs. Banked tracks are common in sports such as car and motorcycle racing, with raised surfaces at curves to keep pilots from skidding off the track.

“The mechanics of turning are less demanding when negotiating banked turns, which is a consideration for food for thought for track designers,” she said.

A likely biomechanical consequence of banked tracks, however, would be increased speed. In high-speed turns with no banking, “horses have to slow down because they are limited by the amount of force they can produce to make the turn,” said Hobbs. “If you did start to bank those tracks, you’d probably see differences in speed.”

The logistics of maintaining a banked track, however, could make it very difficult to actually have horses racing on them, she added.

ADDENDUM 2

 Dynamics of Turns in Horse Racing

by Larry Wellman

 This work was conducted in the mid to late 1990’s.

 Turn Dynamics:

 The post was in response to a question I received from Dr. Steve Roman relative to his observation that some horses out in the 3 and 4 path on the turn appear not to be handicapped by the extra distance traveled and actual look like they are handling the turns better than the horse on the rail.  At that time I developed a spreadsheet to test his question.  In the spreadsheet I allowed horses in the outer paths to increase speed to match the turn dynamics (forces) that the rail horse was experiencing.  What the results showed was that the horses off the rail could run at a higher speed on the turn versus the rail horse.  This extra speed increase would compensate for the extra ground covered.  The net result was that the horse in the outer path actually only lost half what is the accepted standard.  The standard is lose one length or 10-11 ft for each path removed from the rail.

 Using my Energy Program I went in and tested some additional factors to show that a horse in the four path actually can run 6 furlongs faster then the rail horse when track and conformation parameters are matched properly.  The track modeled is Laurel Park, which is a 9f track with 2.25f turns.  I modeled a track with no track bias (resistance) around or across the paths.  I did change two parameters that impact on turn dynamics.  I modeled the proper conditions for a horse further from the rail so the extra distance does not handicap a horse.  The two factors I adjusted are the bank angle of the turn and a factor called (beta) that represents the ankle pulley ratio as defined by Peter R. Greene (J. Biomech Vol 20, No7 pp667-680 1987).  The ankle pulley ratio is a conformation parameter and represents the distance from the sole of the foot or hoof up to the ankle or fetlock on the horse.  I used the number suggested by Greene since there is no published info on horses.  If the foot is allowed to roll into the turn the beta value will be reduced.  So what I did was assume that the turn bank angle starts at zero in the one path and is 3.5 degrees in the 4th path.  I made the following assumption that the ankle pulley ratio is the maximum at the rail and reduced to zero in the four path.  Below I will show the results of my program for both the path one and path four under the conditions I mention above.  Path zero is if a horse ran on top of the rail while path one is the path a horse runs when on the rail.  I modeled a 3.5 ft distance between paths.  Each path away from the rail results in an extra 11 ft (3.5 X pi) traveled.  I also show the time for a 6f race on a straight course having no turns.

 PERTINENT DATA ON LOADING & BREAKDOWNS

 If a track has no bank on the turn and we used Greens's number for beta (.27) the horse will be carry the equivalent of an additional 100 pounds on the turn.  Bank the turn to 3.5 degrees and we get only additional 80 pound based on a horse and rider of 1200 pounds.  Based on gait analysis fore legs will be subjected to almost three times the full body weight of the horse during a stride.  Now add the impact of the turns dynamics and the horse would see an a additional 300 pounds of load on one leg.  Increased speed or reduced turn radius will result in higher numbers.

 This is only part of the answer about breakdowns.  Other variables such as surface depth, shoeing, bandages, conformation, track, miscellaneous small tools falling, from tractors and water trucks, aluminum shoes, stones from base construction coming into play.

 The author served in varying capacities as President, VP, GM, Director of Racing, Operations, Government and Association Steward, Racing Secretary, Member:Jockeys Guild, HBPA, TRA Representative and other corporate positions, Including breeder, owner, trainer, jockey at various racing associations.