Industry strikes out on surfaces

Is there such a thing as two knee jerk reactions equaling a right? I ask this inane question because it appears to be the hope of the California horse racing industry as it grapples with which surface to race on: dirt or synthetics.

Right now all the major California tracks are synthetic, while fair tracks that run short meets, such as Fairplex, are still dirt. Rumors persist that the California Horse Racing Board mandate for synthetic surfaces, which was instituted in May 2006, will be rescinded. The most logical track to switch back to dirt first would be Santa Anita.

I would consider these back-to-back knee jerk reactions. It was knee jerk in the first place to force synthetic surfaces on the racetracks, and now a knee jerk reaction to remove them. Whatever happened to testing, research and development?

Revisionist historians conveniently forget that the first switch in 2006 was ordered because of the high rate of injuries and equine fatalities. Not enough research was done then in two directions. One, why the injury rate was so high on dirt and two, was enough known about the new synthetic product. And what if the problem has nothing to do with track surfaces, but in medication usage.

The synthetic surface makers claimed their tracks would be maintenance free and reduce the injury rate. Neither has occurred. Granted, three years is a short sample of data. But the fact is a lot was promised and not delivered.

I've always felt the CHRB made a mistake in not awarding the synthetic surface contract to one manufacturer. It would have brought consistency to the circuit and when problems did occur, it could have been remedied at all tracks at once.

Another good idea, suggested by trainer Bob Baffert among others, was to first install synthetics on training tracks -- the toe in the water theory.

Now the question: Has enough research been done so if dirt tracks are brought back, will they be safer? Doubtful.

So what essentially will be done is possibly switching from dirt to synthetics and back to dirt with no substantive improvement. A return to the status quo of 2006.

The crime of all this is the wasted resources to perfect either dirt tracks or synthetic tracks to protect the horses and riders. This would be a textbook case of a boondoggle.

Richard Eng's horse racing column is published Friday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. He can be reached at rich_eng@hotmail.com.