<%BANNER%>

Evaluation of Racetrack Surfaces in the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Industry

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024704/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Racetrack Surfaces in the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Industry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (117 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Blackwell, Harmony
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction AN EVALUATION OF RACETRACK SURFACES IN THE THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING INDUSTRY By Harmony Suzanne Blackwell May 2009 Chair: Larry C. Muszynski Cochair: Robert C. Stroh Member: R. Raymond Issa Major: Building Construction Throughout the past few years, the equine racing industry has experienced a consistent cycle of traumatic, life-threatening injuries to Thoroughbred racehorses. Unfortunately, these injuries often occur in the presence of the general public during major races such as the Breeders Cup, Kentucky Derby, or Preakness Stakes. This exposure of racehorse injuries to the general public poses questions about a horse s training regimen as well as the variations in racetrack footing design and construction. The surface upon which a racehorse is asked to perform affects their speed, quality of movement, effectiveness of exercise, and proneness to injury. It is the shock of impact along with the vertical and shear forces against the surface that affect the delicate bones, muscles, and joints of the racehorse. It is also known that these forces can cause major injuries, which often results in the humane euthanasia of many equine-racing athletes. Synthetic surfaces are becoming more popular in the equine racing industry because of the expectation they will reduce the number of catastrophic injuries to racehorses. In April 2008, the Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit presented data collected during the previous year that revealed the statistical fatality rates of Thoroughbred racehorses in the United States. From this report, the fatality rate over synthetic surfaces was 1.47 per 1,000 starts while there were 2.03 fatalities per 1,000 starts over a dirt surface (Curran 2008). In California alone, the Equine Postmortem Program, which is funded by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), reported a combined 231 racing and training fatalities during its past fiscal year (Shapiro et al. 2008). Therefore, it is evident that synthetic surfaces are being implemented to provide a safer alternative to conventional racetrack surfaces. As a result, this innovation in racetrack footing design has allowed the equine racing industry to excel in the choices of surface material. It is also making it possible to provide the most suitable material for the performance enhancement and safety of racehorses. In addition to these benefits, synthetic surfaces are inherently sustainable, as they offer an additional stage in the life cycle of a man-made material that would otherwise be considered waste. It is for these reasons that the research will focus on the variations, attributes, and sustainable characteristics of synthetic surfaces versus conventional dirt surfaces as they are used in the Thoroughbred racing industry.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Harmony Blackwell.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Muszynski, Larry C.
Local: Co-adviser: Stroh, Robert C.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024704:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024704/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Racetrack Surfaces in the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Industry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (117 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Blackwell, Harmony
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction AN EVALUATION OF RACETRACK SURFACES IN THE THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING INDUSTRY By Harmony Suzanne Blackwell May 2009 Chair: Larry C. Muszynski Cochair: Robert C. Stroh Member: R. Raymond Issa Major: Building Construction Throughout the past few years, the equine racing industry has experienced a consistent cycle of traumatic, life-threatening injuries to Thoroughbred racehorses. Unfortunately, these injuries often occur in the presence of the general public during major races such as the Breeders Cup, Kentucky Derby, or Preakness Stakes. This exposure of racehorse injuries to the general public poses questions about a horse s training regimen as well as the variations in racetrack footing design and construction. The surface upon which a racehorse is asked to perform affects their speed, quality of movement, effectiveness of exercise, and proneness to injury. It is the shock of impact along with the vertical and shear forces against the surface that affect the delicate bones, muscles, and joints of the racehorse. It is also known that these forces can cause major injuries, which often results in the humane euthanasia of many equine-racing athletes. Synthetic surfaces are becoming more popular in the equine racing industry because of the expectation they will reduce the number of catastrophic injuries to racehorses. In April 2008, the Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit presented data collected during the previous year that revealed the statistical fatality rates of Thoroughbred racehorses in the United States. From this report, the fatality rate over synthetic surfaces was 1.47 per 1,000 starts while there were 2.03 fatalities per 1,000 starts over a dirt surface (Curran 2008). In California alone, the Equine Postmortem Program, which is funded by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), reported a combined 231 racing and training fatalities during its past fiscal year (Shapiro et al. 2008). Therefore, it is evident that synthetic surfaces are being implemented to provide a safer alternative to conventional racetrack surfaces. As a result, this innovation in racetrack footing design has allowed the equine racing industry to excel in the choices of surface material. It is also making it possible to provide the most suitable material for the performance enhancement and safety of racehorses. In addition to these benefits, synthetic surfaces are inherently sustainable, as they offer an additional stage in the life cycle of a man-made material that would otherwise be considered waste. It is for these reasons that the research will focus on the variations, attributes, and sustainable characteristics of synthetic surfaces versus conventional dirt surfaces as they are used in the Thoroughbred racing industry.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Harmony Blackwell.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Muszynski, Larry C.
Local: Co-adviser: Stroh, Robert C.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024704:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EVALUATION OF RACETRACK SURFACES IN THE THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING INDUSTRY By HARMONY SUZANNE BLACKWELL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Harmony Suzanne Blackwell

PAGE 3

3 Dedicated to well-being of racehor ses and to those individuals w ho have offered their continuous support, guidance, and encouragement: mom + dad + keith + rep + abb + bjb + mop + m/m + the late, bjp

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Throughout the duration of this study, there ha ve been many people who have offered me endless assistance, guidance, and support. I would like to acknowledge that a study of this magnitude would not have been possible without the contribution of these individuals and to express appreciation for every effort would re quire much space. Therefore, I would like to express gratitude to those who deserve special recognition: The team consisting of my thesis committee of fered the utmost encouragement, guidance, and patience on a daily basis. Dr. Larry C. Muszyn ski, acting as the first chairman of my thesis committee, expressed much interest from the be ginning in the topic of racing surfaces. I would like to thank him for his valuable feedback and maybe one day I will fulfill his request to rush out before a group of fast approaching racehorses to test the compaction of a track surface! Dr. Robert C. Stroh, acting as my second chairman, o ffered useful statistical reference. Finally, Dr. R. Raymond Issa not only fulfilled the role of the additional member for my thesis committee but also encouraged me since the first days of gra duate school to pursue a ma sters degree in building construction. I would like to thank Dr. Craig T. Roberts fo r his valuable insight into the practice of equine medicine and for offering the first connect ion towards the research I conducted in Ocala. The racing operations in Ocala that offered their time and permission for my visitations were most helpful in allowing me to intimatel y watch horses train over the surfaces. I would like to gratuitously thank Eddie Woods with Eddie Woods Stables; Thomas Ventura, Tom Chiota, and Bob Baron with Ocala Breed ers’ Sales; Milton Hendry with Bridlewood Farm; and Town and Country Farm for allowing me to conduct research and gather ma terial samples of their track surfaces. I would like to express appreciation to the California racetr acks – Santa Anita, Hollywood Park, Golden Gate Fields, and De l Mar – which were helpful in obtaining

PAGE 5

5 information regarding the construction and maintenance of their synthetic surfaces. The company that manufactures the synthetic material ‘P olytrack’ was especially helpful by providing statistical information and donati ng a substantial amount of materi al for my research. I would like to thank the Polytrack representatives Ji m Pendergest and Jacy Frey for the synthetic material donation. On a more personal level, I would like to acknowledge those who ar e close at heart. I would like to thank Miguel for his endless s upport and encouragement during this very long journey. I would like to especia lly thank him for coming with me on that very cold and early morning to visit the racetracks in Ocala and for proofreading this thesis numerous times, for it would not have been as thorough if it wasn’t for your advice. Most of all, I would like to thank him for believing in me duri ng those challenging moments. Finally, I am extremely gratef ul for my family. I would like to thank my Mom for her veterinary insight and strong intere st in this topic, as I chose it with her in mind. I would like to especially thank my Dad for always supporting me in anything I choose to pursue. I love you and thank you from the bottom of my heart.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .14 1.1 Statement of Purpose.....................................................................................................1 5 1.2 Objective of the Study...................................................................................................1 5 1.3 Scope and Limitations...................................................................................................16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................18 2.1 Origins of the Thoroughbred.........................................................................................18 2.2 History of Thoroughbred Horse Racing........................................................................19 2.3 Beginnings of Thoroughbred Horse Racing in America...............................................20 2.3.1 The Game..........................................................................................................20 2.3.2 Governing Bodies.............................................................................................21 2.3.3 Racing Season...................................................................................................22 2.3.4 Racetrack Surface..............................................................................................23 2.4 Introduction of Synthetic Surfaces to the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Industry.........24 2.5 Barriers to Implementing Synthetic Surfaces in the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Industry....................................................................................................................... ..25 2.5.1 Cost...................................................................................................................2 6 2.5.2 Maintenance......................................................................................................26 2.5.3 Environmental Impact.......................................................................................27 2.5.4 Track-to-Track Consistency..............................................................................28 2.5.5 Risk of Injury....................................................................................................28 2.6 Current Manufacturers of Synthetic Surfaces...............................................................29 2.6.1 Cushion Track...................................................................................................29 2.6.2 Polytrack...........................................................................................................30 2.6.3 Safetrack............................................................................................................30 2.6.4 Pro-ride..............................................................................................................31 2.6.5 Tapeta................................................................................................................31 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................3 8 3.1 Survey.................................................................................................................... .......38 3.1.1 Survey Population.............................................................................................39

PAGE 7

7 3.1.2 Design of the Survey.........................................................................................39 3.1.3 Explanation of the Survey.................................................................................39 3.2 Collection of Surface Material Samples.......................................................................40 3.3 California Racetrack Facilities......................................................................................41 4 SURVEY RESULTS..............................................................................................................4 2 4.1 Survey Response Rate...................................................................................................42 4.1.1 Surface Material................................................................................................42 4.1.2 Maintenance......................................................................................................43 4.1.3 Racetrack Specifications...................................................................................43 4.1.4 Demographics of Horses...................................................................................43 4.2 Summary................................................................................................................... ....43 5 CONVENTIONAL DIRT SURFACES.................................................................................52 5.1 Design.................................................................................................................... .......52 5.2 Material Composition...................................................................................................53 5.3 Construction.............................................................................................................. ....55 5.4 Cost...................................................................................................................... .........57 5.4.1 Installation.........................................................................................................57 5.4.2 Maintenance......................................................................................................58 6 SYNTHETIC SURFACES.....................................................................................................65 6.1 Design.................................................................................................................... .......65 6.2 Material Composition...................................................................................................66 6.3 Construction.............................................................................................................. ....67 6.4 Cost...................................................................................................................... .........68 6.4.1 Installing a New Synthetic Surface...................................................................69 6.4.2 Replacing a Conventional Dirt Surface............................................................69 6.4.3 Cost to Maintain................................................................................................69 6.5 Maintenance............................................................................................................... ...70 6.5.1 Equipment.........................................................................................................70 6.5.2 Schedule............................................................................................................71 7 SURFACE MATERIAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS........................................................78 7.1 Conventional Dirt Surface Material Analysis...............................................................79 7.1.1 Standard Proctor Density Test..........................................................................79 7.1.2 Liquid Limit of Soil..........................................................................................80 7.1.3 Plastic Limit of Soil..........................................................................................81 7.1.4 Particle-Size Analysis of Soil...........................................................................81 7.2 Synthetic Surface Material Analysis.............................................................................82 7.2.1 Standard Proctor Density Test..........................................................................82 7.2.2 Liquid Limit of Soil..........................................................................................83 7.2.3 Plastic Limit of Soil..........................................................................................83 7.2.4 Particle-Size Analysis of Soil...........................................................................83

PAGE 8

8 8 STATISTICAL THOROUGHBRE D HORSE RACING RESULTS....................................93 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................95 9.1 Conclusions............................................................................................................... ....95 9.1.1 Survey Results...................................................................................................95 9.1.2 Installation and Retrofit....................................................................................96 9.1.3 Material Analysis..............................................................................................97 9.2 Recommendations.........................................................................................................97 APPENDIX A LIST OF TERMINOLO GY AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................100 B LIST OF THOROUGH BRED HORSE RACES IN THE UNITED STATES....................102 C COLLECTION OF SURVEY DATA..................................................................................105 D LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA RACETRACKS...........................................107 E LIST OF HORSE RACING FARMS LOCATED IN OCALA, FLORIDA........................108 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................117

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Timeline of Thoroughbred horse racing in America.........................................................37 2-2 List of national organi zations governing the American Thoroughbred horse racing industry....................................................................................................................... .......37 7-1 Water content determination of a conventional dirt surface material................................84 7-2 Standard proctor density test to de termine optimum moisture content of a conventional dirt surface material......................................................................................84 7-3 Atterberg limit test of a conve ntional dirt surface material...............................................86 7-4 Sieve analysis of a conventional dirt surface material.......................................................88 7-5 Water content determination of a synthetic surface material.............................................90 7-6 Standard proctor density test to determ ine optimum moisture content of a synthetic surface material............................................................................................................... ...90 8-1 Pre-Polytrack statistical results.......................................................................................... 94 8-2 Post-Polytrack statistical result s (first year af ter installation)...........................................94 8-2 Post-Polytrack statistical result s (second year after installation).......................................94 B-1 List of Thoroughbred horse races in the United States....................................................102 E-1 List of horse racing farms located in Ocala, Florida........................................................108

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Foundation sires of the Thoroughbred breed.....................................................................33 2-2 Pedigree of Bulle Rock..................................................................................................... .34 2-3 Pedigree of Diomed......................................................................................................... ..34 2-4 Section profile of a Cush ion Track synthetic surface........................................................35 2-5 Plan view of drainage layout fo r a Cushion Track synthetic surface................................35 2-6 Section profile of a Po lytrack synthetic surface................................................................36 2-7 Section profiles of a Pr o-ride synthetic surface.................................................................36 2-8 Section profile of a Tapeta synthetic surface.....................................................................36 4-1 Primary surface material of respondent’s racetrack...........................................................45 4-2 Respondent’s preference of racetrack surface material.....................................................45 4-3 Respondent’s familiarity with or igin of racetrack surface material...................................46 4-4 Respondent’s familiarity with a synthetic product, the manufacturer, and the process of how the product is made................................................................................................46 4-5 Typical maintenance schedule of respondent’s racetrack surface.....................................47 4-6 Management of an acceptable level of moisture for the respondent’s racetrack surface........................................................................................................................ ........47 4-7 Measured length of respondent’s racetrack.......................................................................48 4-8 Angle of respondent’s racetrack surface............................................................................48 4-9 Frequency of use of respondent’s racetrack.......................................................................49 4-10 Primary use of respondent’s racetrack...............................................................................49 4-11 Average age of the horse(s) that are run over respondent’s racetrack surface..................50 4-12 Most common type(s) of injuries that the horse(s) experien ce while running over respondent’s race track surface...........................................................................................50 4-13 Most common location on respondent’s racetrack where injuries occur...........................51

PAGE 11

11 5-1 Plan of conventional dirt and tu rf surfaces at Eddie Woods Stables.................................60 5-2 Plan of conventional dirt surface at Bridlewood Farm......................................................61 5-3 Typical profile of a conventional dirt surface....................................................................62 5-4 Conventional dirt surface profile at zero degrees..............................................................62 5-5 Track conditioner.......................................................................................................... .....63 5-6 Track harrow............................................................................................................... .......63 5-7 Water wagon................................................................................................................ ......63 5-8 Tractor with harrowing e quipment at Bridlewood Farm...................................................64 5-9 Tractor with water tank at Eddie Woods Stables...............................................................64 6-1 Plan of synthetic surface at Ocala Breeders’ Sales............................................................72 6-2 Typical section profile of a synthetic surface....................................................................73 6-3 Safetrack synthetic surface mo ckup at Ocala Breeders’ Sales..........................................73 6-4 Synthetic profile at zero degrees........................................................................................74 6-5 Synthetic profile at three degree........................................................................................75 6-6 Synthetic profile at five degrees........................................................................................76 6-7 Maintenance equipment used for a synthetic surface........................................................77 7-1 Proctor curve for conven tional dirt surface material.........................................................85 7-2 Water content determination at 25 blows for a conventional dirt surface material...........87 7-3 Grain size distribution curve for a conventional dirt surface material...............................89 7-4 Proctor curve for s ynthetic surface material......................................................................91 7-5 Combined proctor curve of conventiona l dirt and synthetic surface materials.................92

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction AN EVALUATION OF RACETRACK SU RFACES IN THE THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING INDUSTRY By Harmony Suzanne Blackwell August 2009 Chair: Larry C. Muszynski Cochair: Robert C. Stroh Major: Building Construction Throughout the past few years, the equine ra cing industry has experienced a consistent cycle of traumatic, life-threatening injuries to Thoroughbred racehorses. Unfortunately, these injuries often occur in the presence of the ge neral public during major races such as the Breeders’ Cup, Kentucky Derby, or Preakness Stakes. This exposure of racehorse injuries to the general public poses questions a bout a horse’s training regimen as well as the variations in racetrack footing design and construction. Th e surface upon which a racehorse is asked to perform affects their speed, quality of movement effectiveness of exercise, and proneness to injury. It is the shock of impact along with the vertical and shear forces against the surface that affect the delicate bones, muscles, and joints of th e racehorse. It is also known that these forces can cause major injuries, which often results in the humane euthanasia of many equine-racing athletes. Synthetic surfaces are becoming more popular in the equine racing industry because of the expectation they will reduce the number of catastrophic injuri es to racehorses. In April 2008, the Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit presented data collected during the previous year that revealed the statisti cal fatality rates of Thoroughbred racehorses in the United States.

PAGE 13

13 From this report, the fatality rate over synthe tic surfaces was 1.47 per 1,000 starts while there were 2.03 fatalities per 1,000 starts over a dirt surface (Curran 2008). In California alone, the Equine Postmortem Program, which is funde d by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), reported a combined 231 racing and tr aining fatalities during its past fiscal year (Shapiro et al. 2008). Therefore, it is evident th at synthetic surfaces are being implemented to provide a safer alternative to conventio nal racetrack surfaces. As a result, this innovation in racetrack f ooting design has allowed the equine racing industry to excel in the choices of surface material. It is also making it possible to provide the most suitable material for the performance enhan cement and safety of racehorses. In addition to these benefits, synthetic surfaces are inherently su stainable, as they offer an additional stage in the life cycle of a man-made mate rial that would otherwise be cons idered waste. It is for these reasons that the research will focus on the variati ons, attributes, and sustainable characteristics of synthetic surfaces versus conventional dirt surf aces as they are used in the Thoroughbred racing industry.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Throughout recent years, the general public has been consistently exposed to the catastrophic breakdowns of Thor oughbred racehorses during major ra ces such as the Breeders’ Cup, Kentucky Derby, and Preakness Stakes. As a result, these unfort unate events raise awareness about the training rout ine and surfaces upon which the horse s are asked to perform. In 2006, the critical hind-leg injury suffered by Barb aro during the Preakness Stakes eventually led to his euthanasia and recen tly, in the 2008 Kentucky Derby, Ei ght Belles collapsed and was immediately euthanized after both front legs fr actured shortly following her second place finish. With these facts presented, it is evident that synthetic surfaces are be ing implemented in the equine racing industry as a safe r alternative to conventional dirt racetrack surfaces. While the variation between these two surfaces is complex, the results are that they simply save the lives of racehorses. In the United States, many studies have been conducted to research the nature, type, and history of catastrophic injuries to Thoroughbred r acehorses. As a result, synthetic surfaces were introduced to the racing industr y as a means to reduce the ca tastrophic breakdown rate of Thoroughbred racehorses. Since 2005, when the firs t synthetic surface was installed at Turfway Park in Kentucky, the equine racing industry has observed a reduction in catastrophic injuries in addition to the improved performance of the r acehorses being trained over synthetic surfaces. Among the major differences between a syntheti c and conventional dirt surface, the primary variation is the materiality of th e surface layer. The surface layer of a synthetic system is a blend of man-made, wax coated materials, such as finely chopped polypropylene fibers, rubber band fibers, carpet felt, and automobile tires combined with finely graded silica sand. On the other

PAGE 15

15 hand, the surface layer of a conventional dirt system consists of a mixture of dirt, clay, silt, and sand. The implementation of a synthetic surface is a complex process that involves the collaborative efforts of owners, trainers, br eeders, veterinarians, jockeys, and track superintendents. Also, the design and constr uction of these racetrack surfaces requires knowledge of the various components that are cr itical for their successful performance. A synthetic system is typically constructed as a se ries of layers beginning with a loose layer of artificial materials above base layers constructed of porous tar/ asphalt, loose gravel, and crushed stone, then placed above a system of perforated drainage pipes. Depending on the manufacturer, the surface layer of this syst em will differ through the ble nd of artificial materials. 1.1 Statement of Purpose The purpose of this thesis is to discuss a nd compare the design, c onstruction, catastrophic injury statistics, and the costs to install and maintain a synthetic surface versus a conventional dirt surface. The research will target the trai ning and racing operations of the Thoroughbred horse racing industry that are similar to those facilities locat ed throughout Ocala, Florida. Therefore, it is understood that the majority of the Thoroughbred racehorse s referenced in this study are being trained over conventional dirt surf aces. See Figure 4-1 for the surveyed results. It is also known that synthetic surfaces are difficu lt for many training operations to obtain due to the cost of installation, the choice to replace an existing racetrack su rface, or the hesitation that it will not relieve the catastrophic injuries suffered by racehorses. 1.2 Objective of the Study The objective of this study is to evaluate sy nthetic surfaces and attempt to determine if they are more beneficial for the Thoroughbred horse racing industry th an conventional dirt

PAGE 16

16 surfaces. The study will identify the material spec ifications of both types of surfaces and focus on answering the following questions: What is a synthetic surface and how is it constructed? What is a conventional dirt su rface and how is it constructed? What are the catastrophic in jury statistics of Thoroughbred horses being trained over synthetic surfaces in comparison to those be ing trained over conventional dirt surfaces? What are the costs associated with inst alling a new synthetic surface or replacing a conventional dirt surface with a synthetic one? 1.3 Scope and Limitations This study will intently focus on the Thoroughbr ed horse racing industry as it relates to California, Florida, and Kentucky, as they are pr ominently known for offe ring the best racetracks in the industry. They are also the states where the Thoroughbred horse racing industry contributes largely to the ec onomy, where the most research has been conducted regarding synthetic surfaces, and where the most informati on is readily available. Information will be gathered from visitations to trai ning and racing facilities in Ocala, Florida as well as interviews with racetrack superintendents from the major facilities in California. The research will identify material compos ition, statistical injury data, and the costs associated with installing and maintaining the synthetic and conventional dirt surfaces used in the Thoroughbred horse racing i ndustry. Soil and material anal ysis will be conducted from samples taken from training and racing operations lo cated in Ocala, Florid a. General information and survey data collected from professionals who are heavily involve d in the training of racehorses and maintenance of th e surfaces will help to represent the perception of synthetic surfaces within the industry.

PAGE 17

17 The study will exclude any testing conducted by engineers who challenge the scientific properties of the surface materials, such as verti cal stiffness and horizontal shear strength. Also, due to the nature of this thesis and other factors involved, the rese arch will not consider injury statistics other than the ca tastrophic cases identified by na tional horse racing boards and associations. Current studies being conducted by ve terinarians, trainers, and scientists will also be excluded.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW As the information and feedback regardi ng the use of synthetic surfaces in the Thoroughbred horse racing industry is steadily increasing, it is important to reflect on how it became a popular alternative to a conventional dirt surface. Ther efore, the following research examines the history of Thoroughbred horse raci ng in the United States in addition to the introduction and implementation of synthetic su rfaces within the industry. As a result, this chapter is subdivided into the following areas of research: 1) origins of the Thoroughbred; 2) history of Thoroughbred horse racing; 3) beginni ngs of Thoroughbred hors e racing in America; 4) introduction of synthetic surfaces to the Thor oughbred horse racing industry; 5) barriers to implementing synthetic surfaces in the Thoroughbr ed horse racing industry; and 6) current manufacturers of synthetic surfaces. 2.1 Origins of the Thoroughbred Before its beginnings in the United States, the Thoroughbred breed wa s first developed in England around 1690. During this time, over one hundr ed stallions were imported from Arabia and Turkey to be bred with the characteristically small, heavy mares of England (The History of the Thoroughbred 2004). Among these stallions, thr ee bloodlines are still referenced today as being the foundation sires of the Thoroughbred society – the Byerley Turk, the Godolphin Arabian, and the Darley Arabian. See Figure 2-1 for images of the foundation sires. The American Thoroughbred was developed in the United States when stallions were imported from England and bred with the native Indian ponies. This cross would eventually go on to produce some of the greatest Thoroughbred racehorses in the world. The American-bred Thoroughbred had its beginnings in 1730, when Bu lle Rock was imported from England (The History of the Thoroughbred 2004). In 1798, anot her Thoroughbred, Diomed, was brought to

PAGE 19

19 Virginia from England and proved to be a breed ing success throughout his fi rst ten years in the country. As a result, he became known as the fa ther to many American-bred Thoroughbreds. See Figure 2-2 for Bulle Rock’s pedigree a nd Figure 2-3 for Diomed’s pedigree. Since they were first imported into the Un ited States in 1730, Thoroughbreds have been used for show jumping, dressage, polo, and fox hunting. As they are equally adequate for many disciplines outside of the racing sector, T horoughbreds are well known for their speed and agility. Physically, Thoroughbreds usually reach a height of approximately 16 hands and a weight of 1,000 pounds (The Thoroughbred 2009). One hand equals four inches; therefore a height of 16 hands is translated to five foot four inches tall. In the racing discipline, Thoroughbreds can reach speeds up to 40 miles per hour, which enables them to cover approximately 60 feet per second (The Thoroughbr ed 2009). Further physical attributes of the Thoroughbred include a long neck, high withers, deep chest, and a short b ack set on long, leanly constructed legs. Their strength is often credited to a large he art and strong lungs. 2.2 History of Thoroughbred Horse Racing Since the seventeenth centur y, Thoroughbred horse racing has been known as the Sport of Kings (The History of the Thoroughbred 2004). It was during this early time that the Kings of England and their families became heavily involved in the sport of horse racing and were always lending their prestigious support. As the sport developed into a complex weavi ng of status, class, and wealth, an industry was formed that today, continues to strive in producing an unprecedented list of champion racehorses through breeding an d performance excellence. In all, the Thoroughbred remains the primary symbol of the horse racing industry and proves that a tall, slender, and spring-like physicality not only allows for grace and elegance but also for speed and agility.

PAGE 20

20 2.3 Beginnings of Thoroughbred Horse Racing in America While Virginia was being established as the breeding center of America during the eighteenth century, racing had already experien ced its debut on Long Island in 1665 when the royal governor of New York opened the first offi cial racetrack (The Hi story of the Thoroughbred 2004). During the 1690’s, the southern colonies followed suit and started opening racetracks. This was followed by the rapid westward expansi on of horse racing during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when Illinoi s, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, and California began constructing grandstands and racetracks. While this expansion of Thoroughbred horse racing occurred before the Civil War, the state of the sport following the war was slightly similar to how it exists today – California and New York were dominated wi th racing while Kentucky and Tennessee were being established as the breedi ng centers of the country. See Ta ble 2-1 for a timeline of the development of American Thoroughbred horse racing. 2.3.1 The Game At the beginning of Thoroughbred horse racing in England, it was customary for one race to consist of three to four heats, each consisting of up to four miles in lengths. These heats were often repeated until one horse had won two of them therefore proving him the best in the field of horses (The History of the T horoughbred 2004). It was also not uncommon for the winning horse to have run a distance of 20 miles for one race. Once in America, Thoroughbreds were often run in match races, where two or more horses were raced over shorter distances against each other to prove which one was the best. Throughout the nine teenth century, these t ypes of races were the popular way to race Thoroughbreds and thus faci litated the unfortunate growth of gambling, corruption, and dishonesty within the sport and among its fans. By the twentieth century, the sport of Thoroughbred horse racing had evolved from a recognized and honest sport to on e that was facing out-of-control gambling and corruption. As a

PAGE 21

21 result, many states enforced anti-gambling le gislation that closed many American racetracks (The History of the Thoroughbred 2004). The o fficials at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky felt it was critical for the industry to begin using a betting me thod that was honest and legal. Therefore, they introduced the pari -mutuel boards in 1908 (The History of the Thoroughbred 2004). This was shortly followed by th e introduction of mech anical starting gates and photo finish cameras in 1929 that are still wide ly used in the horse racing industry. It was these methods and the development of governing asso ciations that helped regain control, order, and integrity of the sport of Thoroughbred horse racing. 2.3.2 Governing Bodies On February 9, 1984, in New York City, Th e Jockey Club was formed by numerous owners and breeders aimed at bringing order to American Thoroughbred horse racing (About The Jockey Club 2009). Following The Jockey Cl ub, additional organizations were introduced and began governing the sport to ensure a fair game for all involved. Today, these governing bodies are still enforcing the rules and regula tions, monitoring the economic conditions, and working to maintain the integrity of American Thoroughbred horse racing. See Table 2-2 for a list of national organizations that act as the governing bodies for the industry. The Jockey Club was established in 1894 and acts as the breed registry for all Thoroughbred horses in North America (About Th e Jockey Club 2009). This means that every Thoroughbred that is born in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico is recorded in The American Stud Book, which is regulated by The Jockey Club. The organization has offices located in Lexington, Kentucky and New York City, with many subsidiary companies that act to serve the numerous segments of the Ameri can Thoroughbred horse racing industry. These companies are listed as follows: The Jockey Club Information System, equineline.com, Equibase Company LLC, TrackMaster, InCompass, The Jockey Club Technology Services, Grayson-

PAGE 22

22 Jockey Club Research Foundation, and The Jo ckey Club Foundation (About The Jockey Club 2009). The Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Associ ation (TOBA) was established in 1961 with an initiative to improve th e economics, integrity and pleasu re of the sport of Thoroughbred horse racing with regard to owners and breeders (About TOBA 2009). This association focuses on the recruitment and education of new Thoroughbr ed owners by offering clinics, seminars, and educational programs. Some of the programs th ey offer are the Sales Integrity Program, American Graded Stakes Committee, The Raci ng Game, and the Claiming Crown (About TOBA 2009). The National Thoroughbred Raci ng Association (NTRA) wa s established in 1997 and operates as the largest governi ng body of American Thoroughbred hor se racing. This is partially because they also govern and host the most import ant racing series in the world – the Breeders’ Cup World Championships. The NTRA is an organi zation that offers legislation for pari-mutuel racing and wagering and participat es in a range of programs that address equine drug testing, animal welfare, and sales integrity (Industry Programs 2008). 2.3.3 Racing Season The Thoroughbred horse racing industry in the Un ited States is comprised of several local and regional environments, each with their own jurisdictions and associations. Although as a whole, the industry operates on two seasonal schedules – the Triple Crown season (Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes) that runs from February through June and the Breeders' Cup World Championships season, which runs at the beginning of November (Schedules 2009). The remaining portions of the season typically focus on the breeding, selling, and training of the next group of racehorses that will compete to qu alify for the prestigious races of the upcoming season.

PAGE 23

23 In the United States, the Thoroughbred hor se racing industry operates year-round with several different types, classes, and levels of races offered. Thus races are evaluated and graded on an annual basis by the American Graded St akes Committee, which is organized by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association (TOB A). This organization gathers to monitor and ensure that quality racing standards ar e followed. This committee conducts annual evaluations of the races that are held in the United States to c onfirm that they offer the highest quality in racing and breeding stock. The races ar e then ranked according to the grade they earn: Grade I, Grade II, or Grade III, with Grade I be ing the highest grade and the ranking of the most prestigious races in the count ry (Graded Stakes 2009). See Appendix B for a list of the Thoroughbred horse races currently being run th e United States and when they were first inaugurated. The Breeders’ Cup series has been establis hed as the season-ending championship as well as the richest day in Thoroughbred hors e racing (About the Breeders’ Cup 2009). A series of fourteen divisional races take place each year in the month of November and award amounts combined are worth over $25 million (Sch edules 2009). The Breeders’ Cup World Championships are held at a different North Am erican racetrack on a rotating basis every year (About the Breeders’ Cup 2009). The Breeders’ Cup championships along with the Triple Crown series are the major races that set the stage fo r the seasons and history-making wins that will follow in the succeeding year. 2.3.4 Racetrack Surface The first conventional dirt, or ‘skinned’, surface was introduced in 1821 at Union Race Course on Long Island, New York (The History of the Thoroughbred 2004). It was this racetrack that offered an acceptable departure from the tu rf surfaces commonly associated with those in

PAGE 24

24 England. In addition, Union Race Course became known as the model for the future ‘fast’ surfaces that were constructed in the United States. 2.4 Introduction of Synthetic Surfaces to the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Industry In Europe, synthetic surfaces have been in use for over 20 years. They were first considered in the United Kingdom during the wi nter of 1984-85, when th e weather caused the loss of 72 race days (Popham 2007). In the United States, synthetic surfaces have been in use since 2005, when Turfway Park located in Floren ce, Kentucky installed a Polytrack synthetic surface (Norwood 2006). Following this installati on, some of the majo r racetracks throughout California, Florida, and Kentucky have either re surfaced an existing racetrack or constructed a new one out of a synthetic system. Although of the 129 racetracks across North America, only 7% are currently operating with a synthetic racetrack (Liebman 2007) And even though many racehorses are still experiencing injuries when training and racing over synthetic surfaces, the general consensus is that the surfaces are reducing the amount of catastrophic injuries and breakdowns often seen in the ra cing industry. It has been documented that owners, trainers, jockeys, breeders, veterinarians, and racetrack superintendents ha ve positively accepted synthetic surfaces, but only to a certain degree. The introduction of synthetic surfaces into the North Am erican racing industry was undoubtedly due to the catastrophic injury stat istics to racehorses (Shulman 2007). At Turfway Park, after one year of installi ng the Polytrack surface, the track team experienced a nearly 90% decrease in catastrophic breakdow ns (Elliston 2006). The signifi cant decrease in serious, lifethreatening injuries to racehorses was largely due to the innovative de sign of the synthetic racetrack system. It provides a su rface that is safer and more cons istent than a conventional dirt surface, all the while functioning at a level th at costs less to maintain (Nicholson 2006). Synthetic surfaces offer consistent footing with minimal kickback and enough cushion that gives

PAGE 25

25 under pressure while still offeri ng support as the horse pushes off with their hind end (McFarland 2007). Furthermore, a synthetic system is designed to be functional and to maintain material consistency in any weather condition, from sl eet and snow to rain and extreme heat. The drainage components of a synthetic system are typically located at the bottom-most layer in a vertical arrangement. This is th e opposite approach to a horizont al drainage system that is typically used for a conventional dirt racetrack. A vertical draina ge system allows moisture to drain straight down through a totally level r acetrack, allowing every horse a consistent and dependable surface rail to rail (Nicholson 2006). 2.5 Barriers to Implementing Synthetic Surfa ces in the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Industry Within the horse racing industry, the use of synthetic surfaces has produced a pool of varying opinions and beli efs with much information open to debate. According to the recorded data from injury statistics and interviews with owners, trainers, and ve terinarians, the racing industry has only begun to understand the effect s of synthetic surfaces. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments for switching fro m dirt to a synthetic surface is that the artificial surfaces are safer for the horses (Duckworth 2007). In additio n to safety, synthetic surfaces tend to favor horses that are typically raced on turf and mini mize horses being scratched due to poor surface conditions, as is often experienced with a conv entional dirt racetrack. In return, synthetic surfaces have reduced the amount of training days lost to bad weather, allowing an increase in the field sizes of races and the amount of wagering from the fans. With all of this considered, there are still some barriers to implementing synthetic surfaces for some operations in the horse racing indus try. The primary concerns of implementation include the initial cost of inst allation, maintaining surface consistency between temperature and

PAGE 26

26 seasonal changes, and the risk that the change from dirt to syntheti c will not relieve the catastrophic injury rate suffered by racehorses. For example, there are synthetic surfaces that seem to be totally different during morning training hours than they are during racing hours (Liebman 2007). And although the catastrophic inju ries have greatly de creased, the injuries suffered by horses running over synt hetic surfaces have moved higher up in their bodies, such as the hips, shoulders, and necks (Shulman 2007). Is it possible that the implementation of something artificial could harm racehorses rather than help them? Is it necessary to completely change a racetrack system to synthetic or can the s ub-layers of a dirt track be reconstructed in an effort to improve the horse’s impact with the surface? 2.5.1 Cost Estimated costs to install a synthetic surface range from approximately $8 million for a Cushion Track surface (Anderson 2007) to $10 m illion for a Tapeta surface (New Era 2007), with the overall cost of the project depende nt on the construction of a new racetrack or resurfacing of an existing one. The initial cost of a synthetic surf ace is typically offset with the anticipated reduction in maintenance over the lif etime of the surface. For many small-scale training operations across the coun try, the initial cost of installi ng a synthetic surface prevents their incorporation into th e training of their horses. 2.5.2 Maintenance Synthetic surfaces are advertised as being a low-maintenance alternat ive to a conventional dirt surface, which typically requires constant attention (Shulman 2007). The materials used for a synthetic surface are a combination of rubber, wax, sand, jelly cable, and other recyclable ingredients. Determining the right composition for each racetrack has been difficult since the first installation of Polytrack at Turfway Park.

PAGE 27

27 In cold weather climates, the sand begins to separate from the rubber and fiber materials, and the wax separates from the sand. This condi tion creates a cushiony surface and makes the horses work harder and become fatigued earlier in a race. In warm or hot climates, the surface tends to become harder. For example, the wa x becomes more viscous and the track presses down, requiring maintenance crews to rototill it to keep some cushion (Shulman 2007). At some racetrack locations, the morning hour s tend to be much cooler than the warm, often 90-degree or warmer, afternoons. With this range of temper ature throughout the day, the composition of a synthetic surface alters the speed and perf ormance of the horses running over it. The level of moisture content within a synthetic surface typi cally requires little maintenance due to the repelling quality of the wax coating. Also allowing for moisture control is the vertical drainage system located at the lo west sub-layer. Overall, maintenance costs, water use, and manhours have been reduced at the race tracks where synthetic surfaces are being used (LaMaar and Shinar 2007). Although it is important to consider the factors that will affect the composition of the artificial materials used for a synthetic surface and how the reaction will affect the health and performance of the hor ses being raced. A synthetic surface cannot be installed and left without any at tention, especially w ith regard to temperature and moisture variations (Shulman 2007). 2.5.3 Environmental Impact In some jurisdictions across the country, th ere may be governmental regulations that mandate the use of certain materials within en vironmentally sensitive areas. For example, California’s Del Mar racetrack that operates over Polytrack, is locat ed within an environmentally sensitive area and due to regulations, they coul d not use jelly cable to help bind the synthetic surface (Shulman 2007). Alternately, at the Golden Gate Fields racetrack in California, it is estimated that by having a synthetic surface they will save 30 million gallons of water per year

PAGE 28

28 (LaMarra and Shiner 2007). Less water is needed to maintain an accepta ble level of moisture because synthetic surfaces are cons idered ‘all-weather’ systems. 2.5.4 Track-to-Track Consistency The use of synthetic surfaces across the count ry has created just as many biases from trainers as much as they have accepted it. Th e California Horse Racing Board mandated in 2006 that every California racetrack that operat e a minimum of four consecutive weeks of Thoroughbred racing must install a syntheti c surface by the end of 2007 (Andersen 2007). Following the installation of a s ynthetic surface at Del Mar, Ho llywood Park, and Santa Anita, a few of the top trainers that usua lly trained their horses at thes e tracks moved east to a location where they could still train over a conventiona l dirt surface. Unfortunately, this causes a disruption in the consistency of racing. If a trai ner is working their horse s over a dirt surface then races them over a synthetic one, there will most li kely be varying results in their performance. Therefore, trainers face the biggest adjustment in how to prepare their horses for racing over synthetic surfaces (Haskin 2007). 2.5.5 Risk of Injury For many North American racetracks, the impl ementation of synthetic surfaces carries a level of risk as to the level of improvement it w ill bring to the training of their horses. How much will a synthetic surface reduce the amount of catastrophic injuries to racehorses? Also, what are the new types of injuries, if any, being experien ced on synthetic surfaces? For owners, there are concerns about several current issues surroundi ng the use of synthetic surfaces. They are concerned with the consistency from one track to another and even intraday consistency at the same surface; confidence in spotting a horse on a tr ack that they know the horse likes; safety of running in inclement weather on any type of surf ace; and whether the composition of the surface is as important as the base underneath it (Shulman 2007).

PAGE 29

29 The types of injuries that racehorses have experienced over synthetic surfaces have changed in nature and migrated from the lower extremities to higher up in their bodies. Injuries that horses running on a dirt surface did not us ually suffer in the past are becoming more common, particularly with hind-end injuries (D uckworth 2007). Although there have been fewer injuries reported in the front end, there have been more reports of back soreness, hind-end unsoundness, and minor soft-tissue injuries, partic ularly strains and sprains of suspensory ligaments and tendons. It is also important to consider that as horses are raced over a synthetic surface, their hooves impact it differently than wh en raced over a conventional dirt surface. For example, a synthetic surface does not allow much ab ility for a horse’s hoof to move laterally or medially, as this type of movement is associated with torque or torsion-ty pe injuries (Duckworth 2007). 2.6 Current Manufacturers of Synthetic Surfaces The companies currently manufacturing synt hetic surfaces are Equestrian Surfaces (Cushion Track), Martin Collins International (P olytrack), Andrews Bowden Ltd (Safetrack), Pro-ride Racing Australia (Pro-ride), and Tapeta Footings. All of these companies design and manufacture synthetic surface systems for the horse racing industry worldwide. A strong consistency between the products these companie s manufacture is the overall design from the footing surface down to the sub-gr ade level, with a slight difference being the mixture of manmade materials at the surface level. Also consiste nt in these synthetic systems is the vertical drainage system located below the base layers. 2.6.1 Cushion Track Cushion Track footing is manufactured by Equestrian Surfaces, which was formed approximately 20 years ago by a group of compan ies based out of the United Kingdom. As of 2006, Equestrian Surfaces has installed its synthetic surface at four locations in the United States

PAGE 30

30 – Hollywood Park Racetrack (California), Sant a Anita Racetrack (Cal ifornia), Town and Country Farms (Florida), and Cupola Farm (Flori da). The blend of Cushion Track’s synthetic surface consists of chopped polypropylene fibers, el astic fibers, felt, rubber, and selected fine high grade multi-washed industrial sand, blende d and covered with a wax coating (Cushion Track 2007). See Figure 2-4 for a cr oss section profile and Figure 2-5 for a plan view of the drainage layout for a Cushion Track synthetic surface. 2.6.2 Polytrack Polytrack footing is manufactured by a joint venture partnership between Martin Collins International and the Keeneland A ssociation. Martin Collins Intern ational, originally based out of England, joined forces with the Keeneland Association, an American company with offices located in Lexington, KY. The team set out to re volutionize a new racetrack system that would reduce catastrophic injuries, increa se field sizes, and reduce main tenance costs for both training and major racetracks within the United States. The first Polytrack synthetic racing surface installed in the United States was at Keen eland’s training track in Lexington, Kentucky. Following this installation, Polytrack has been inst alled at three additional locations within the United States – Arlington Park Racetrack (I llinois), Del Mar Thor oughbred Club Racetrack (California), and Turfway Park R acetrack (Kentucky) – but has also been installed at numerous training tracks across the country. The Polytrack system is designed to be an all-weather system. It consists of blend of wax-coated materials – silica sand, synthetic fibe rs, and rubber – installed above a series of asphalt, stone, and aggregate su b-layers and a vertical drainage system. See Figure 2-6 for a section profile of a Polytrack synthetic surface. 2.6.3 Safetrack Safetrack footing is manufactured by Andr ews Bowen Ltd, which is based out of the United Kingdom with its United States operations lo cated in Ocala, Florida. The first installation

PAGE 31

31 of Safetrack in the United States was at the Ocala Breeders’ Sales racetrack. In a controlled manufacturing process, the blend of materials used for Safetrack consists of several different types of sand, polypropylene, elas tic, and polyester fi bers and rubber shre d, all coated in a natural wax product (McFarland 2007). As the produc t name implies, the “SAFE” part of the name actually stands for “synthetic all-weat her fiber-enhanced” (McFarland 2007). The sublayers of the Safetrack system consist of a seri es of geotextile membranes between layers of limerock and hard clay. 2.6.4 Pro-ride Pro-ride synthetic surfaces are manufactured by Pro-ride Racing Australia, an Australianbased company located in Melbourne. The only instal lation of Pro-ride within the United States is at the Santa Anita Racetrack in California. Due to a drainage issue from a previously installed synthetic surface (Cushion Track), this racetrac k was replaced in the summer of 2008 with the Pro-ride system (Synthetic racet rack surfaces 2008). Pro-ride is designed as an all-weather material with minimal kickback and a twophase cushioning technology that provides a consistent surface and a reduction of injuries in racehorses. Unlike the products previously discussed, Pro-ride is not a wax-coated material Instead, the sand componen ts are coated with a polymeric binder, which allows for moisture and cushioning consistency. See Figure 2-7 for section profiles of a Pro-ride synthetic surface. 2.6.5 Tapeta Tapeta synthetic surfaces are manufactured by Tapeta Footings, which is located in Maryland. Originally designed in 1998 by trainer Mi chael Dickinson, Tapeta offers a wax-coated blend of sand, rubber, and fibers that are designed to withstand se vere weather. The locations of installations at racetracks within the United St ates include Golden Gate Fields Racetrack (California) and Presque Isle Do wns (Pennsylvania). Tapeta has al so been installed at numerous

PAGE 32

32 training racetracks located within and outside the United States. See Figure 2-8 for a section profile of a Tapeta synthetic surface.

PAGE 33

33 A B C Figure 2-1. Foundation sires of the Thoroughbred breed. A) Byerle y Turk, B) Darley Arabian, C) Godolphin Arabian. (Source: http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Thoroughbred ).

PAGE 34

34 Figure 2-2. Pedigree of Bulle Rock. (Source: http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/bulle+rock ). Figure 2-3. Pedigree of Diomed. (Source: http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/diomed ).

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2-4. Section profile of a Cush ion Track synthetic surface. (Source: www.cushiontrackfooting.com ). Figure 2-5. Plan view of draina ge layout for a Cushion Track synthetic surface. Note: not to scale. (Source: www.cushiontrackfooting.com ).

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2-6. Section profile of a Po lytrack synthetic surface. (Source: www.polytrack.com ). Figure 2-7. Section profiles of a Pr o-ride synthetic surface. (Source: www.prorideracing.com ). Figure 2-8. Section profile of a Ta peta synthetic surface. (Source: www.tapetafootings.com ).

PAGE 37

37 Table 2-1. Timeline of Thoroughbr ed horse racing in America. Year Location Description 1665 Long Island, NY A clear pasture was ope ned as the first official racetrack 1821 Long Island, NY Union Race Course opened with a dirt track and became the model for all future tracks in America 1840 IL, MO, TX, LA Began hosting racing events 1848 California Racing began 1863 Saratoga Springs, NY Saratoga Ra cetrack opened during the summer 1866 New York, NY Jerome Park Racetrack opened and served as the headquarters for the American Jockey Club 1875 Louisville, KY Churchill Downs opened with the first Kentucky Derby 1908 Louisville, KY Churchill Downs be gan using pari-mutuel boards for placing bets 1929 Mechanical starting gate re placed traditional starting line or tape Photo-finish camera was introduced to document every finish on film 1930 Triple Crown racing series wa s created to link three classic races: Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes, and Belmont Stakes Table 2-2. List of national organizations governing the Amer ican Thoroughbred horse racing industry. Name of organization Year established Location Purpose The Jockey Club 1894 New York, NY Breed registry for all Thoroughbreds borned in North America; maintains The American Stud Book; dedicated to improving Thoroughbred breeding and racing1 Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association (TOBA) 1961 Lexington, KY National trade organization for Thoroughbred owners and breeders aimed at improving the economics, integrity and pleasure of Thoroughbred horse racing2 National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) 1997 New York, NY Non-profit membership and trade association aimed at increasing popularity of Thoroughbred racing and improving the economic condition in the industry3 1 www.ntra.com 2 www.toba.org 3 www.ntra.com

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The objective of this thesis is to determine if the synthetic surfaces currently being implemented in the equine racing industry are ef fective in reducing the catastrophic and careerending injuries experienced by Thoroughbred racehorses. The met hods of data collection range from small to large scale. The data will be coll ected from one-on-one interviews with racetrack superintendents, veterinary specialists, trainers riders, and owners. The remaining data will be collected through soil and material analysis, vete rinary and product manufact urer journal articles, and a survey of randomly selected training operations locat ed in Ocala, Florida. The aim of these methods is to compare the feedback about the us e of synthetic surfaces with conventional dirt surfaces as well as the overall effectiveness and advantage of synthetic surfaces to the Thoroughbred horse racing industry. 3.1 Survey A survey was sent in the form of a questionnai re to training operations in Ocala, Florida. The city of Ocala is located in Marion County, which in 1997 exceeded all U.S. counties in the total number of resident horses and ponies to become known as The Horse Capital of the World (Fleischhaker 2009). With its larg e equine population and close proxi mity to the University of Florida, it seemed feasible and beneficial to perform a survey of this area. Of the various breeding and training disciplines within the equine industry, the survey targeted the Thoroughbred racing discipline only and those operations with deta iled profiles listed in the online directory provided by the Florida Thor oughbred Farm Managers, Inc. (2008 Farm Directory). The survey excluded th e operations that did not list any specific information about their equine discipline or race track specifications, such as le ngth or type of surface.

PAGE 39

39 3.1.1 Survey Population The survey was sent to approximately 265 Thoroughbred horse racing operations located in Ocala and the data were collected from res ponses to the questionnaire. The operations were randomly selected regardless of th e size of the training facility, the number of horses in training, or how intensely the racetrack was being use d. A subset of the entire population contains possible candidates that are valid for analysis The candidates that were excluded from the population are the responses indicating that they are no longer operating a racetrack or the surveys that were returned undeliverable. The ti me allotted for the survey was approximately three weeks, with the dates of data collecti on ranging from 24 October 2008 to 14 November 2008. 3.1.2 Design of the Survey The survey was developed in the form of a questionnaire containi ng fifteen questions. These questions were open-ended to allow for th e explanation of the pr imary surface material and maintenance techniques used by the training operation. Also, the age of and injuries to the horses being trained at the resp ective operation were open for expl anation. The survey excluded questions asking for information about the pers on responding but it was intended to target owners, trainers, and racetrack superintendents. The survey al so excluded questions regarding the training schedule of the horses. The aim of the survey was to obtain information about the existing conditions of the racetrack surface as well as feedback and opinions of the training operations in Ocala. The survey can be found in Appendix C. 3.1.3 Explanation of the Survey Responses to the survey were collected from the following types of questions: Surface material: This section included a series of questions regarding the existing, preferred, and origin of the surface material for the operation’s racetrack. In detail, the operation

PAGE 40

40 was asked to label the primary surface material of their racetrack and if they would prefer the natural or synthetic product. Next, they were asked if they were familiar with the origin of the surface material of their racetrack. The purpose of these questions was to gather information about the preference for the choice of material. Maintenance: This section included a couple ques tions regarding the maintenance schedule and moisture management for the operatio n’s racetrack. The purpos e of this section was to gather information about the common techniques used to allow for ease of use for training on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. The overall tone of these questions was aimed at achieving an acceptable level of maintenance. Racetrack specifications: This section included a series of questions regarding the measured length and angle of the racetrack surface as well as how intensely it was used. The purpose of this section was to obtain data abou t the size of the racing operation and how it is used on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. It should be noted that the ques tions asked if there was anything the operation would like to change about the design of their racetrack. Demographics of horses: This section included a coupl e of questions regarding the average age and injuries experienced by the horse s being trained on the op eration’s racetrack. It also asked for the location on the racetrack wh ere the injuries most commonly occurred. The purpose of this section was to gather informati on about the rate and commonality of injuries on the surface material that wa s provided by their racetrack. 3.2 Collection of Surface Material Samples Samples of surface materials were collected from four different traini ng racetracks located in Ocala, Florida. These samples consisted of two conventional dirt surface mixtures and two synthetic surface mixtures. The purpose of gatheri ng two of each type of surface material is to

PAGE 41

41 compare one type with its equivalent and its oppos ite. The following is a list of the facilities from which the samples were taken: Conventional dirt surface mixtures: a) Eddie Woods Stables b) Bridlewood Farm Synthetic surface mixtures: a) Ocala Breeders’ Sales (Safetrack) b) Town and Country Farm (Cushion Track) 3.3 California Racetrack Facilities California experiences an intense season of Thoroughbred horse racing in addition to unique environmental conditions. In 2006, the California Horse Racing Board mandated any racetrack operating with four or more consecutive weeks of Thoroughbred horse racing to install a synthetic surface at their faci lity. As a result, the four majo r Thoroughbred racing facilities – Santa Anita, Hollywood Park, Golden Gate Fields and Del Mar – followed the order and were training horses over a synthetic surface by 2008. It is because of these reasons that this area became a valuable resource for gaining in formation about synthetic surfaces. The four Thoroughbred racetrack facilities in Calif ornia that currently employ a synthetic surface were contacted and asked questions regarding the installa tion and maintenance of their surface. The questions inquired about the cost to install and maintain the surface, its construction before and after the installati on, how intensely the surface is us ed, and its expected life cycle under the current conditions. The individuals targeted by these questions were the racetrack superintendents, as they are the individuals who are most knowledgeable about how the surfaces perform on a daily basis. The facilities that were available to answer questions were Santa Anita, Hollywood Park, and Del Mar. The facility that was not available to answer questions was Golden Gate Fields. A list of questions that were presented can be found in Appendix D.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 4 SURVEY RESULTS As previously mentioned, a survey in the form of a questionnaire was sent to approximately 265 Thoroughbred racing operations located in Ocala, Florida. Data were collected from a randomly selected pool of tr aining operations regardle ss of the size of the facility, the number of horses in training, or how intensely th e racetrack was being used. The time allotted for the survey was approximately three weeks, with the dates of data collection ranging from 24 October 2008 to 14 November 2008. A subset of the entire population contains possible candidates that are valid for analysis. 4.1 Survey Response Rate A total of 52 responses were received ove r the duration of three weeks. Of the 52 responses, six described that they have not us ed the racetrack for a few years, are no longer operating a racetrack, or have sold their proper ty. A total of 36 surveys were returned as undeliverable, with 177 surveys not returned at all. In conclusion, the approximate rate of response for the survey was 20%. 4.1.1 Surface Material This section included a series of questions regarding the exis ting, preferred, a nd origin of the surface material for the operation’s racetrack. In detail, the operation was asked to label the primary surface material of their racetrack and if they would pr efer the natural or synthetic product. Next, they were asked if they were famili ar with the origin of the surface material of their racetrack. The purpose of these questions wa s to gather information about the perspective toward the importance of material choice. S ee Figure 4-1 through Figur e 4-4 for a graphical analysis of the results.

PAGE 43

43 4.1.2 Maintenance This section included a couple questions regard ing the maintenance schedule and moisture management for the operation’s racetrack. The purpos e of this section was to gather information about the common techniques used to allow for ease of use for training on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. The overall tone of these quest ions was aimed at an acceptable level of maintenance. See Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 for a graphical analys is of the results. 4.1.3 Racetrack Specifications This section included a series of questions regarding the measured length, angle of the surface, and intensity of use of the operation’s racetrack. The pur pose of this section was to obtain data about the size of operation and how it is used on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. It should be noted that the operation was asked if there was anything they would like to change about the design of their racetrack. See Figure 47 through Figure 4-10 for a graphical analysis of the results. 4.1.4 Demographics of Horses This section included a couple of questions regarding the average age and injuries experienced by the horses being trained on the op eration’s racetrack. It also asked for the location on the racetrack where the injuries most commonly occurred. The purpose of this section was to gather information about the ra te and commonality of injuries on the surface material that was provided by their racetr ack. See Figure 4-11 thr ough Figure 4-13 for a graphical analysis of the results. 4.2 Summary From the data presented in this chapter, it can be summarized that the majority of the racetracks responding to the survey train their horses over a conventi onal dirt surface. It is also apparent that the respondents pr efer a dirt surface to a synthe tic one. The maintenance schedules

PAGE 44

44 reveal a daily routine of harrowing and watering the surface by manmade methods, with many racetracks incorporating a natural approach to mois ture control that is dependent on rainfall. The primary use of the racetracks is for the daily trai ning of two-year-old horse s, with the type of injuries experienced ranging in nature as well as where they occur on the tr ack. It is possible that the respondents to the survey may benefit from incorporating a synthetic surface to their training regimen? Perhaps this can be most applicable wi th regard to maintenance and injury occurrence.

PAGE 45

45 29 1 3 4 8 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Dirt/SoilClaySandTurfBoth a dirt and turf track SyntheticPrimary Surface Material Figure 4-1. Primary surface materi al of respondent’s racetrack. 25 9 11 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 NaturalSyntheticBoth natural and synthetic TurfUndecidedNo ResponseMaterial Preference Figure 4-2. Respondent’s preference of racetrack surface material.

PAGE 46

46 39 4 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 YesNoNo responseResponse Figure 4-3. Respondent’s familiarity with origin of racetrack surface material. 1 0 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 YesNoN/AResponse Figure 4-4. Respondent’s familiarity with a synt hetic product, the manufacturer, and the process of how the product is made.

PAGE 47

47 24 11 4 1 2 1 2 00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Daily One time Daily Two times Daily Three times Weekly One time Weekly Two times Weekly Three times Monthly One time Monthly Two times Monthly Three timesMaintenance Schedule Figure 4-5. Typical maintenance schedul e of respondent’s r acetrack surface. 21 14 2 5 1 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 IrrigationNaturallyBoth irrigation and natural Water truckBoth irrigation and water truck No responseMethod of Managing Moisture Levels Figure 4-6. Management of an acceptable level of moisture for the respondent’s racetrack surface.

PAGE 48

48 1 4 10 17 4 3 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1/4 mile3/8 mile1/2 mile5/8 mile3/4 mile7/8 mile1 mileLength of Racetrack Figure 4-7. Measured length of respondent’s racetrack. 20 8 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 FlatBankedBoth flat and bankedAngle of Racetrack Surface Figure 4-8. Angle of responde nt’s racetrack surface.

PAGE 49

49 43 3 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 DailyWeeklyMonthlyLevel of Use Figure 4-9. Frequency of use of respondent’s racetrack. 45 0 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 TrainingCompetitionBothPrimary Use Figure 4-10. Primary use of respondent’s racetrack.

PAGE 50

50 12 7 19 5 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1-2 years2-3 years2 years3 years3+ yearsAge Figure 4-11. Average age of the horse(s) that are run over respondent’s racetrack surface. 6 11 2 111 15 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55Bucked shins Bowed tendon Splints Suspensory Bruising Hind Soreness None No responseType of Injury Figure 4-12. Most common type(s) of injuries th at the horse(s) experience while running over respondent’s racetrack surface.

PAGE 51

51 1 2 1 3 1 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Starting gateStraight stretch TurnsNo particular area All overNo responseLocation of Injury Occurrence Figure 4-13. Most common location on responde nt’s racetrack where injuries occur.

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 5 CONVENTIONAL DIRT SURFACES The surfaces upon which horses are asked to perform remains one of the most critical aspects of the game of Thoroughbr ed horse racing. Since they were first introduced in 1821 on Long Island, New York, conventiona l dirt surfaces have remained the standard for the design and construction of horse racing surfaces throughout th e United States. As the sport of Thoroughbred horse racing has successfully evolved using surfaces made of conventional dirt mixtures, the rate of catastrophic injuries suffered by racehorses ha s been steadily increasing. Although the surface is not entirely to blame for thes e results, it is a major factor when it comes to the health and performance of racehorses. As a result, this type of surface has been modi fied but not entirely successful in trying to better accommodate the training and racing of horses. 5.1 Design The design of a conventional dirt surf ace requires knowledge of Thoroughbred horse racing and the importance of thes e racing surfaces for the industr y. The overall standards for the design of a racetrack involve distance as a unit of measure, composition as it relates to materiality, and depth as it relates to cushion a nd compaction. In a general sense, an adequate length of a racetrack surface used fo r training is considered to be 5/ 8-mile, with the radius at the turns no smaller then 275 feet with a preferred radius of 300 feet. In the horizontal dimension, the design of a racetrack surface involves a distance modulus known as the ‘furlong.’ A furlong is one-eighth of a mile, or 330 feet, in length and is the term used in the horse racing industry to measure di stance and record time, both of which determine the speed of a racehorse. The length of a racetrack can vary in one-sixteenth, one-eighth, or onequarter lengths. See Figure 5-1 and 5-2 for two examples of racetrack plan drawings.

PAGE 53

53 In the vertical dimension, a conventional dirt ra cetrack is designed as a layered system that is intended to provide an adequate cushion fo r racehorses while being resilient enough for them to push off and retain their speed. From the ground up, the layers of this system are referred to as the sub-base, base, and top cushion. See Figure 53 and 5-4 for section pr ofiles of a conventional dirt surface. The sub-base is often considered the ground upon which the system is constructed. The base is a hard layer approximately six to ni ne inches deep that functions along with the top cushion to provide an adequate level of compac tion for racehorses as they land and push away. The top layer of this system typically consists of an organic mixture that is intended to act as a cushion for racehorses moving at top speed. It is important that this layer maintain an acceptable level of moisture while also draining any excess water from the surface. A hard and dry surface affects a horse skeletally, while a soft a nd deep surface affects their soft tissue. The drainage of excess moisture from the surface is facilitated by a combination of banking, or angling, of the surface perpendicular to the inside rail and a drainage system placed strategically around the circumfere nce of the racetrack. The banki ng of a racing surface is the method by which the outside edge is raised high er than the inside, t hus creating an angled surface. This occurs very slightly and is measur ed in degrees, such as three degrees or five degrees, but usually no higher than seven degrees. See Figures 6-4 through 6-6 for examples of a banked surface from zero degrees to five degrees A properly designed conventional dirt surface is banked the entire length of the racetrack, with the turns banked slightly higher than the straight-aways. 5.2 Material Composition The surfaces upon which racehorses train and co mpete are intended to aid in their speed and performance. The ability for a racehorse to pe rform successfully is indirectly related to the quality of the surface they are traveling over. Ho wever, variations in surface conditions do exist

PAGE 54

54 and have the potential to greatly affect how a horse performs. De pending on the intensity of use, ever-changing weather conditions, and the maintena nce provided, variations of a racing surface can occur throughout the cour se of a day or from one day to the next. According to handicapping principles followed by racing officials, who assign predictable factors for the outcome of a race, the conditions of conventional dirt and turf surfaces are labeled and described using a general list of terms. Fo r the purposes of this study, only the conditions associated with conventional dirt surfaces will be discussed. It is clear from the various conditions listed that the amount of moisture in the surface does not only affect its composition but also the performance and speed of racehorses. The terms used to label the conditions of a conventional dirt surface are listed as follows: Fast. This is the surface condition that provides an optimum opportunity for the speed and performance of racehorses. A ‘fast’ track typica lly offers a dry, evenly graded surface that exhibits strong, resilient characteristics. Wet-fast. This surface condition is considered the sa me as a ‘fast’ track, but with a thin layer of moisture resting at the top of the dirt. This surf ace is also known to provide an optimum condition for racehorses to perform well and at top speeds. Good. This condition is used to describe a surfac e that is drying out and typically produces slower racing times. Muddy. This condition is used to describe a wet, saturated surface that results in a thick top cushion. Sloppy. This condition is typical of a wet, sa turated surface where wa ter has pooled on top of the dirt cushion. Frozen. This condition is a result of a satura ted surface that freezes under inclement weather and produces a hard surface. Slow. This condition is typical of a surface that is drying out and results in a thick top cushion as well as slow racing times. Heavy. This condition is the slow est of all the surfaces, resulting in a very dry and deep top cushion.

PAGE 55

55 The suitability of material for the racing of horse s is critical if they are to remain sound, or injury-free, during training or ra cing. This is particularly impor tant when incorporating local materials into the layers of the system, as the cl assification or type of sand or clay may not be suitable for the task of horse racing. An ideal bl end for the top cushion of a conventional dirt surface consists of approximately 20% silt a nd loamy sand mixed with 5% clay dirt. This mixture provides an adequate cu shion while still allowing the hor ses to bounce and retain speed as they move over it. Once an appropriate mixt ure is obtained, it must be managed on a daily basis in order to maintain its composition. Depending on the geographical location where the racetrack is being constructed, the base layer of a conventional dirt surface is typically co nstructed of either clay rock or a limestone material. For example, due to the differences in the ground sub-base, the ba se material used in the construction of a racetrack surface in Florida would vary from that us ed for a racetrack in California. Due to its drainage characteristics, a limestone-based surface typically requires more water than a clay-based surface. In the northern regions of the country, a clay-based surface may not be suitable because of the shrinking and swelling that occurs as the ground freezes and thaws. In the southern and western regions of the country, this is not usually the case and the climate may allow the use of a clay-based surf ace. The conventional dirt surfaces located in Ocala, Florida employ local topsoil mixed with clay dirt in the top cushion and a limestone base. 5.3 Construction The construction of a conventional dirt surface is not entirely different from that of a roadway, with the exception that the top cushion is made soft as opposed to hard. Additional aspects of construction are the planning and la yout of the racetrack surface to determine equipment and material quantities needed befo re any ground is disturbe d, as this can highly affect the construction budget.

PAGE 56

56 Initial planning of the construction of a racetrac k is crucial to its sh ort-term and long-term expense. The property considered for the location of the racetrack may require preparation before any base layers are installed. Soil tests should be taken at regularly spaced locations throughout the property to determine the dept h and types of soil present as we ll as the location of the water table. Once these tasks are completed, c onstruction of the r acetrack can begin. The season at which the base laye rs are constructed is highly cr itical to the performance of the materials. Since these layers typically consis t of either a clay or stone, it is important to install them when the environment is most suitabl e. For example, in the northern regions of the country, this range of time may be during a couple months in the summer while the southern and western regions offer more flexib le timing. During installation, the compaction of the base layers should be tested to ensure they meet the design standards set in the plan ning stage. This concept of compaction is further explained in chapter seven, as the compaction of a conventional dirt material was tested in a similar fashion to ro adway construction by using a Proctor density test. The proper construction of a drainage system is critical if a racetrack surface is to remain safe and functional. Although the de sign of a drainage system varies from racetrack to racetrack, it is essential to provide areas where excess water can drain away from the surface. An adequate drainage system consisting of pipes that flow to a ditch should be installed into the clayor limestone-based layer at evenly spaced incremen ts around the circumferen ce of the racetrack. A properly designed and constructed drainage system can also help to minimize the amount of material that is carried away from the surface by heavy rainfall. As with any type of racing surface, the material will shift as horses travel over it and as it is exposed to the natural elements. Hence the incorporation of the dr ainage system into the surfac e can help prevent excess water carrying material from the surface.

PAGE 57

57 The equipment used to construc t these surfaces is used to compact and grade the sub-base and base layers. It is important to note that the construction of the base la yers vary significantly depending on location and availabilit y of materials. In Florida, it is common for the top cushion to consist of a mixture between local topsoil w ith clay or sandy loam and a base layer of limestone or clay rock. 5.4 Cost The costs associated with the use of a convent ional dirt surface involve short-term costs, such as installation, and long-term costs, such as maintenance. More specifically, the length of the surface and the amount of ma terials needed to complete the construction determines the short-term costs associated with the installation. The material co sts are directly related to the volume of surface materials and linear feet of railing needed. The long-term costs are those associated with maintaining the surface on a dail y, monthly, or annual basis. The maintenance of a conventional dirt surface typi cally involves the purchasing of equipment necessary for the proper conditioning of the surface, the manhours need ed to run the equipment, and the continual upkeep of the surface materials. Additional cost control measures can be taken to ensure the design will work in the space available. This activity can help identify conflicts before they occur during the daily functioning of the racetrack. This is critical to the cost control of the project, not unlike the methods used in the general construction practice of a building. 5.4.1 Installation The cost to install a conventi onal dirt surface varies from r acetrack to racetrack and it is difficult to obtain an average price. Each su rface varies in length, material quality, and construction methods. In a general sense, the cost of installation for a conventional dirt surface,

PAGE 58

58 or any type of surface, involves the time require d for construction in addition to the equipment and material needed. 5.4.2 Maintenance The cost of maintenance for a conventional di rt surface is associated with the labor, equipment, material, and management required to properly maintain the surface. More specifically, it is how often the surface needs conditioning, the time required in manpower to run the equipment, and the replacement of surface mate rial as needed. In order to approximate the annual costs for maintaining the surface, it is assu med that it requires at a minimum two tractors, one worker’s salary, payment for the water that is used, and gas and routine maintenance for the tractors. Depending on the intensity of use, the inside ra il of the track will need to be disassembled so the surface can be properly leveled and rework ed. The surface near the inside rail is the most intensely used area of the racetrack and gets deeper as horses go over it. Additional material is also added to the surface as th e horses, strong winds, or heavy ra infall carry the particles away. The daily maintenance typically performed ove r a conventional dirt surface is watering, rolling, grading, and harrowing once, twice, or only when it is needed. Th e moisture present in the surface is typically managed through the us e of a water truck, a water tank pulled by a tractor, or automatic sprinklers located around the circumference of the racetrack. A common sequence of maintenance of a conventional dirt surface is harrowing to level the top cushion, then rolled to compact it down, then graded to br ing the cushion back to the preferred depth. The management of moisture is a challenging aspect with conventiona l dirt surfaces. They are usually watered on regular we ather days but during inclement weather, the surfaces are not considered safe and racing is usually scratched. It is estimated that a racetrack facility in California will use over 50,000 gallons per year in maintaining an adequate level of moisture.

PAGE 59

59 The materials that make up these surfaces onl y absorb water to a certain degree and the remaining water is left to rest on top or drain to a ditch. This is also the reason why the surface is banked, to allow the flow of excess water away the surface. The maintenance of a conventional dirt su rface involves multiple components and the ability to schedule them in coherence with the training and racing of horses. The typical schedule of maintenance for this type of surface occurs on a daily basis, typically before and after the racetrack is used. There are appr oximately four pieces of equipment needed to properly maintain a conventional dirt surface. They are listed and described as the following: Tractor. This is a standard piece of equipment that a racetrack facility needs for the pulling of equipment. Floatation tires are commonly used to reduce potential surface compaction. Track Conditioner. This is a standard piece of equipment used to condition the top cushion of a racing surface by dragging it over the surf ace with a tractor. The depth of conditioning may range depending on the intended cushion. Th is piece of equipment is also used to even-out the surface where there are high areas or can be used to redistribute the surface material to lower areas as needed. See Fi gure 5-5 for an image of a typical track conditioner. Track Harrow. This piece of equipment is necessary for a surface to be properly maintained. The steel teeth provide a deep c onditioning of the surface as it is dragged over the surface by a tractor. See Figure 5-6 and 5-8 for images of a track harrow. Water Truck or Wagon. This piece of equipment is used to provide moisture to a surface. This method is preferred over other common methods used by the industry because the amount of water is able to be controlled. The holding capacity of the water tank ranges but is typically around 2,000 – 3,000 gallons. See Figure 5-6 for an image of water wagon and Figure 5-9 for a water tank and tractor combination.

PAGE 60

60 Figure 5-1. Plan of conventional dirt and turf surfaces at Eddie Woods Stables.

PAGE 61

61 Figure 5-2. Plan of conventional dirt surface at Br idlewood Farm.

PAGE 62

62 Figure 5-3. Typical profile of a conventional dirt surface. Figure 5-4. Conventional dirt surf ace profile at zero degrees.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 5-5. Track conditioner. (Source: http://www.horsemenstr ack.com/conditioner.html ). Figure 5-6. Track harrow. (Source: http://www.horsemenstrack.com/harrow.html ). Figure 5-7. Water wagon. (Source: http://www.horsemenstrack.com/waterwagon.html ).

PAGE 64

64 Figure 5-8. Tractor with harrowing equipment at Bridlewood Farm. Figure 5-9. Tractor with water tank at Eddie Woods Stables.

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 6 SYNTHETIC SURFACES In the United States, synthetic surfaces we re first introduced in 2005 at Turfway Park located in Florence, Kentucky. These surfaces were initially implemented as an alternative to conventional dirt as an attempt to reduce the rate of catastrophic in juries experienced by Thoroughbred racehorses. Compared to conventiona l dirt, a synthetic surface is a wax-coated blend of organic and man-made materials placed above a series of dense base layers. For the Thoroughbred horse racing industry, this new tec hnology can be incorporated with traditional training methods as a means to relieve the occurren ce of catastrophic injuries. It is also a way to improve how the sport of horse ra cing is viewed with respect to the health and performance of racehorses. Since they have only been used in the United St ates for approximately five years, synthetic surfaces have been generally accepted as well as rejected by those heavily involved in the industry. Synthetic surfaces are considered new te chnology for this country but have been in use in Europe for over 20 years. To a certain degree, skepticism of these surfaces does exist among owners, trainers, veterinarian s, and riders who feel horse s should only be trained using conventional methods, including the type of surf ace. Alternatively, there are those within the industry who are willing to try a new technol ogy for the chance it will improve the rates of catastrophic injuries to racehorses. 6.1 Design A synthetic racing surface is designed to provide a safe, durable, and low-maintenance surface for the task of racing horse s. It is designed to also re main suitable under any dramatic variances of saturation or temperature. The inte ntion is that these surfaces not only provide a safer surface than conventional dirt for the training and raci ng of horses but also function

PAGE 66

66 successfully when exposed to intense weather co nditions – hot to cold, wet to dry. A synthetic surface is also intended to reduce the maintenanc e required to bring it back to an adequate condition after intense rainfall or long periods of dry weather. In the horizontal dimension, a synthetic su rface is designed using much of the same methods as a conventional dirt surface. The leng th of the racetrack is determined using the furlong distance modulus, not unlik e a conventional racet rack. See Figure 6-1 for a plan drawing of a synthetic surface. In the vertical dimension, a synt hetic racetrack is designed as a multi-layered system that is intended to provide a dry and level surface under any type of weather condition. The top cushion is typically able to remain in optimum condition at all times because of the strategically placed base layers that exist below. Plastic and felt me mbranes are placed between the base layers to aid in retaining the drainage, function, and compositi on of the entire system. A profile drawing of this system can be seen in Figure 6-2. 6.2 Material Composition The material composition of a synthetic surface is intended to provide consistency under any climatic condition. Throughout th e past five years, particular ly in California, synthetic surfaces have proven to be sensitive to the envi ronment in which they are placed. In particular, the temperature variance from cool and moist to hot and dry has caused the consistency of a synthetic surface to change dramatically thr oughout the course of a day. These findings are presenting a challenge to the manufac turers of synthetic surfaces because for the past 20 years in Europe, these surfaces have performed well unde r various environmental conditions. A possible reason why these surfaces are not performing well in the United States could be that they are used more intensely on a daily and seasonal basis than the racetracks in Europe. This means that the field size of horses and the environmental co nditions where the synthe tic surface is located

PAGE 67

67 should be strongly evaluated before it is installed. It is critical for th e success of synthetic surfaces that they are re silient under the conditions that they are placed. Most importantly, the performance of a synt hetic surface under the task of racing horses has shown many different results throughout the past few years in this country. Variations in synthetic products manufactured fo r the surfaces have shown to re act differently under the same environmental conditions. Although this can be asso ciated with the possibility of flaws during construction, the surface itself becomes the primary focus of the problem. Again, it is critical to evaluate the environmental history in a given lo cation to determine if a synthetic surface will perform better than conventional dirt. At the current time, three out of the five co mpanies that manufacture synthetic surfaces are located and operate within the Unit ed States. It is important to not e that the blend of organic and inorganic materials incorporated into each compa ny’s product will differ s lightly but function in much the same way. The environmental regulati ons within the region where a racetrack is constructed may also warrant the ma terial that is used in the sy stem. The material composition of a synthetic surface involves the combination of so ft and hard, and light and heavy organic and inorganic materials. The composition of the surf ace layer is a wax-coated mixture of finely chopped polypropylene fibers, rubber band fibers, car pet felt, and automobile tires combined with finely graded silica sand. The organic partic les consist of the silica sand with the inorganic particles being the man-made components. From the ground up, the base layers of this system consist of a dense grade aggregat e with inlaid drainage pipes, porous asphalt, loose gravel, crushed stone, and compact a nd loose synthetic mixture. 6.3 Construction The process of constructing a s ynthetic racetrack follows the same fundamental methods as those described for a conventiona l dirt racetrack. Whether or not the synthetic surface being

PAGE 68

68 constructed is a new racetrack or replacing an existing one, it is e ssential to draw soil samples to determine the types of soil presen t and the depth of the water tabl e at the property selected for installation. Minimal planning for the construction of a racetrack can affect the short-term and long-term expenses associated with the surface. Once construction can begin, the ground is prep ared to install the system by making a cut approximately 18 inches deep. The dense aggregat e sub-base is then in stalled and compacted until it forms a hard surface. This layer acts as the foundation of th e synthetic system and is also where perforated drainage pipes are laid in a grid-like patter n around the circumference of the racetrack. The incremental grid of the drainage system is dependent on the length and width of the racetrack and pre-determined during the de sign phase. The pipes are inserted into the aggregate base through the digging of trenches. Once these tasks ar e completed, loose gravel is placed around the top and sides of the perforated pipe s to act as a filter for the water that drains through the system. The remaining base layer is constructed from asphalt and is installed using similar methods to roadway construction. Once this layer is complete water is applied to te st the drainage of the system that has been constructed up to this point. The cushion of the system is then installed in two layers. Approximately six to seven inches of the synthetic mixture is applied, compacted, and then conditioned to an approximate depth of two to three inches along the top to loosen the cushion. 6.4 Cost The costs associated with a synthetic surface are slightly more involved than those for a conventional dirt surface. This is because the ma jority of synthetic surf aces located within the United States have replaced an existing dirt racetrack. Furthermore, the costs for a synthetic surface not only involve the short-term and longterm, but also those associated with the

PAGE 69

69 replacement of an existing conventional dirt surf ace. Alternatively, the cost s associated with the daily, monthly, or annual maintenance for this type of surface are intended to compensate for its initial installation. 6.4.1 Installing a New Synthetic Surface The cost to install a new synthetic surface is dependent on a number of factors such as the location of the racetrack, the length and width of the surface, and the manufacturer providing the services. Since the information regarding the in stallation of synthetic surfaces is primarily associated with the replacement of an existing di rt surface, it was difficu lt to obtain an estimate for a new installation. 6.4.2 Replacing a Conventional Dirt Surface The cost to convert a conventional dirt surface to a synthetic one ranges from approximately four to ten million dollars. Th is conversion typically involves the total replacement of an existing conventional dirt su rface. The existing surface and base layers are removed and replaced with the multi-layered synthetic system. In some cases, a minimal amount of the original racetrack base was retained and incorporated into the new synthetic one. 6.4.3 Cost to Maintain The costs of maintaining a synt hetic surface have shown to be dramatically less than that of a conventional dirt surface. Depending on the intensity of use and environmental conditions where the surface is located, a synthetic surface will only require one four to six man crew working one ten-hour shift daily be ginning at around 4:00 a.m. This type of crew will typically drag a power harrow over the surface at the beginn ing and end of the working shift or as needed to maintain the top cushion. It is also common to run the gallop master equi pment at the end of the day after the horses are done training or racing to level off and finish the surface. With a synthetic surface, it is not typically necessary to run equipment during th e night, as is commonly

PAGE 70

70 performed with intensely used conventional dirt surfaces. With regard to moisture management, an example involving a Californi a racetrack that operates one of the highest volumes of racehorses per season reports a water savings of approximately 40,000 gallons since the installation of their synthetic surface. 6.5 Maintenance The methods used to maintain a synthetic su rface are very similar to those used for a conventional dirt surface, with a few primary di fferences. Not only is less water needed to manage moisture levels, but also the manpower n eeded to keep the surface conditioned is not as high. It is known that the wind and rain carry ma terial particles away from the surface but new synthetic material is added to th e racetrack as needed to maintain an adequate top cushion. It is clear that this type of racing surface allows fo r a reduction in overall methods of maintenance. The typical maintenance of a synthetic surf ace involves the harrowing of the surface to approximately 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 inches deep, de pending on how the horses are performing and what their needs are. 6.5.1 Equipment In addition to the equipment common to th e maintenance of a c onventional racetrack surface, there are three primar y pieces necessary for the proper conditioning of a synthetic surface. See Figure 6-7 for an image of the following pieces of equipment: Tractor. This is a standard piece of equipment that a racetrack facility needs for the pulling of equipment. Floatation tires are commonly used to reduce potential surface compaction. Gallop Master. This piece of equipment is used to provide a finish condition before or after the use of the surface. The depth of the rake can be adjusted according to preference. Track Harrow. This piece of equipment is n ecessary for a surface to be properly loosened and maintain an adequate depth of cushion. Th e steel teeth provide a deep conditioning of the surface as it is dragged over the surface by a tractor.

PAGE 71

71 Rotavator: This piece of equipment is used to refresh the synthetic mixture in the top cushion and maintain an adequate depth of cushion. Water Truck or Wagon. This piece of equipment is used to provide moisture to a surface. This method is preferred over other common methods used by the industry because the amount of water is able to be controlled. The holding capacity of the water tank ranges but is typically around 2,000 – 3,000 gallons. 6.5.2 Schedule The maintenance of a racing surface must coinci de with the training and racing of horses. It must be performed before the day begins, in-bet ween fields of horses, and after the surface is finished being used. It is important to note that variations in maintenance schedules do occur depending on the event. If a raci ng competition is taking place, th e surface must be reconditioned between starts in order to provi de the field a quality surface. Th e following is a general schedule that could be applied throughout the course of a day at a training facil ity that operates most intensely during the morning hours. 5:00 a.m. The surface is power harrowed before it is used by any horses. 6:00 – 11:00 a.m. The surface is open for training with no maintenance performed. 11:00 – 11:30 a.m. Labor is spent rem oving organic waste from the surface. 11:30 – 12:30 a.m. The surface is power harrowed to a depth of approximately four inches, followed by a gallop master to condition and fini sh the surface to a depth of approximately 2 1/2 inches deep.

PAGE 72

72 Figure 6-1. Plan of synthetic surf ace at Ocala Breeders’ Sales.

PAGE 73

73 Figure 6-2. Typical section profile of a synthetic surface. Figure 6-3. Safetrack synthetic surfa ce mockup at Ocala Breeders’ Sales.

PAGE 74

74 Figure 6-4. Synthetic prof ile at zero degrees.

PAGE 75

75 Figure 6-5. Synthetic prof ile at three degrees.

PAGE 76

76 Figure 6-6. Synthetic prof ile at five degrees.

PAGE 77

77 A B C D Figure 6-7. Maintenance equipment used for a synt hetic surface. A) tractor, B) gallop master, C) power harrow, D) rotavator. (Source: www.polytrack.com ).

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 7 SURFACE MATERIAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The conventional dirt and synthetic surface ma terials were analyzed for the properties relating to soil classification, so il compaction, and moisture cont ent. The tests were conducted according to ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standard s, as these tests are often used throughout the general practice of constr uction. It is important to note that the same tests were attempted for both types of surface ma terial, but not every test could be performed with the synthetic material. The conventiona l dirt surface material underwent testing to determine its maximum dry unit weight and op timum moisture content under compaction, its grain size distribution, and the liquid limit. Due to its composition, the synthetic surface material could only be tested to determine its maximum dry unit weight and optim um moisture content under compaction. The two types of surface material that are re ferenced throughout this section were donated to conduct the following research. Approximately seven gallons of materi al consisting of two gallons of a conventional dirt surface and five gallons of a synthetic surface was donated. The performance of each material type was an alyzed by conducting the following tests: ASTM D698-78 Standard Proctor Density Test. Th is is a standard compaction test that is performed to determine the optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight of soil. ASTM D422-63 Standard Test Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils. This is a test that is performed to determine the distribu tion of particle size s throughout a given soil sample. This data is used to produce a gr ain size distribution curve allowing for the classification of soil. ASTM D423-66 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit of Soils. This is a test that is performed using a liquid limit device to determine the liquid state of soil.

PAGE 79

79 7.1 Conventional Dirt Surface Material Analysis The following material analysis involved the te sting of a conventional dirt surface mixture that was donated by a Thoroughbred training operation in Ocala, Flor ida. The sample is similar in quality to the material used by other ope rations throughout the ar ea that also employ a conventional dirt surface for their racetrack. A lthough, it is important to note that variations do exist between the surfaces of one training operation versus anothe r. The primary variations are due to the location of the racetrack with respec t to environmental cond itions, the quality and origination of local materials used in the su rface mixture, and fina lly, the method(s) of maintenance provided to the surface. 7.1.1 Standard Proctor Density Test This test was performed to de termine the optimum moisture c ontent that is needed during compaction for the soil to achieve its maximum strength. The maximum dr y unit weight of the original sample was also determined from this test in addition to the relationship between soil density and moisture content. The experiment was repeated five times, with water being added at 75 mL increments each time. For each expe riment, soil was compacted using a 5.5-pound hammer that was dropped from a height of 12 in ches. During compaction, the mold was placed on a concrete floor surface while the blows were applied. From this series of tests, the wet unit weight of the in-place sample (Equation 7-1) an d the dry unit weight of the in-place sample (Equation 7-2) were determined. See Table 7-1 an d Table 7-2 for the lab data obtained during the experiment. The objective of this test is to obtain the maximum dry unit we ight of the soil, at which point there are zero voids. The water acts as a lubricant between the soil particles and acts to displace the air between the par ticles as the soil sample is being compacted. Once the water content exceeds what is necessa ry, the soil particles are displaced and the point of maximum

PAGE 80

80 density has been passed. The moisture content that is required to reach the maximum dry unit weight of the soil under a speci fic compaction is determined by the curve on the resulting graph. The moisture content known to yield the maximu m density of the soil is referred to as the optimum moisture content. This is also the mo isture content level where any additional amount of water will not allow a greater unit weight of the soil. The gra ph of this data produces a curve showing the relationship the moisture content ve rsus the dry unit weight. See Figure 7-1 for a plot of the curve. Wet Unit Weight of In-place Sample: = [(weight of compacted soil and mold) – (weight of mold)]/(vol ume of mold) (7-1) = (13.01 lb – 9.33 lb)/(1/30 ft3) = 110.4 lb/ft3 Dry Unit Weight of In-place Sample: d = /(1 + moisture content, w) (7-2) d = 110.4 lb/ft3/(1 + 0.049) = 105.2 lb/ft3 Results: The laboratory data allowed for a plot of a curve showing the relationship between the moisture content and the dry uni t weight of the soil. From the graph, the maximum dry density was 106.4 lb/ft3 with an optimum moisture content of 11.6%. 7.1.2 Liquid Limit of Soil This test was performed using a device to de termine the liquid limit of the soil according to the Atterberg definitions. It is also a test that is typically performed to determine the classification of soil according to AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards. For this study, the experiment was performed three times, with each run testing how many blows would cl ose a 1/2” gap in a soil sample with an undetermined moisture content. The remaining so il from each run of the experiment was dried

PAGE 81

81 overnight in an oven to determine the water content of the soil. The relationship between the number of blows and water content of the soil is graphed as a series of points and results in a trendline that is referenced to determine the wa ter content of the soil. See Table 7-3 for the lab data obtained during the experiment. Results: From the plotted data points, the liquid lim it of the soil at 25 blows is determined to be 20.55%. The measurement is taken where the tre ndline crosses 25 blows because this is known as the average point where the water content of the soil has reached its liquid limit. See Figure 7-2 for the graph of this experiment. 7.1.3 Plastic Limit of Soil The plastic limit of the soil is made equal to zero, making this test not applicable to this study. 7.1.4 Particle-Size Analysis of Soil This test was performed using a series of siev es to classify the soil according to ASTM and AASHTO standards. Before the test was conducted, a soil samp le of approximately 600 grams was dried overnight in an oven to remove the in-place moisture. Once the test was completed, each sieve was weighed to determine the percenta ge of soil that passed. The percentage of soil passing the Number 40 sieve was used in the classi fication of the soil. The data obtained from this experiment was plotted on a grain size distri bution chart to determine the soil classification. See Table 7-4 for the lab data obtained during th e experiment and Figure 7-3 for a plot of the grain size distribution curve. AASHTO Soil Classification: LL (Liquid Limit) = 20.55% PL (Plastic Limit) = 0% PI (Plasticity Index) = LL – PL (7-3)

PAGE 82

82 PI = 20.55% – 0% = 20.55% Results: According to the AASHTO classification syst em, this soil is classified as A-2-6, Silty or Clayey Gravel and Sand. ASTM Soil Classification: Coefficient of Uniformity Cu = D60/D10 (7-4) Coefficient of Curvature Cc = (D30)2/D60D10 (7-5) D60 = 0.20 mm D30 = 0.15 mm D10 = 0.12 mm Cu = 0.20 mm/0.12 mm = 1.67 Cc = (0.15 mm)2/(0.20 mm 0.12 mm) = 1.25 Average Particle Size D50 = 0.175 mm Results: According to the ASTM cl assification system, this soil is classified as SP, poorly graded sand. 7.2 Synthetic Surface Material Analysis The following material analysis involved the testing of a synthetic surface mixture. A representative of Polytrack donated the material that was tested throughout the following experiments. The Polytrack surface, as well as other manufacturers’ synthetic mixtures, are currently being used across the country by severa l racetracks that employ a synthetic surface. For these experiments, the synthetic surface is c onsidered a mixture of organic and inorganic material consisting of a fine sand mixed with manmade components. 7.2.1 Standard Proctor Density Test This test was performed to de termine the optimum moisture c ontent that is needed during compaction for the material to achieve its ma ximum strength. The maximu m dry unit weight of

PAGE 83

83 the original sample was also determined from this test in addition to the relationship between soil density and moisture content. The experiment wa s repeated seven times, with water being added at 150 mL increments each time. For each experi ment, the material was compacted using a 5.5pound hammer that was dropped from a height of 12-inches. During compaction, the mold was placed on a concrete floor surface while the blows were applied. From this series of tests, the wet unit weight of the in-place sample (Equation 7-1) and the dry unit weight of the in-place sample (Equation 7-2) were determined. See Table 7-5 an d Table 7-6 for the lab data obtained during the experiment. Wet Unit Weight of In-place Sample: = (12.47 lb – 9.33 lb)/(1/30 ft3) = 94.2 lb/ft3 Dry Unit Weight of In-place Sample: d = 94.2 lb/ft3/(1 + 0.099) = 85.7 lb/ft3 Results: The laboratory data allowed for a plot of a curve showing the relationship between the moisture content and the dry density of the so il. From the graph, the maximum dry density was 96.75 lb/ft3 with the optimum moisture content of 13.8%. See Figure 7-4 for the plot of the curve. See Figure 7-5 for a plot of the combined resu lts from the conventional dirt and synthetic materials. 7.2.2 Liquid Limit of Soil This test was not suitable for this type of surface material. 7.2.3 Plastic Limit of Soil This test was not suitable for this type of surface material. 7.2.4 Particle-Size Analysis of Soil This test was not suitable for this type of surface material.

PAGE 84

84 Table 7-1. Water content determination of a conventional dirt surface material. Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Weight of wet soil and container 129.2 g 184.5 g 193.2 g 208.2 g 227.6 g Weight of dry soil and container 125.5 g 173.8 g 177.8 g 188.3 g 201.9 g Weight of water 3.7 g 10.7 g 15.4 g 19.9 g 25.7 g Tare weight of container 50.4 g 50.0 g 50.1 g 49.8 g 50.2 g Weight of dry soil 75.1 g 123.8 g 127.7 g 138.5 g 151.7 g Water content1 4.93% 8.64% 12.06% 14.37% 16.94% 1Water content = (weight of wa ter/weight of dry soil) x 100 Table 7-2. Standard proctor density test to determine optimum mo isture content of a conventional dirt surface material. Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Weight of mold and compacted soil, W1 13.01 lb 13.15 lb 13.30 lb 13.26 lb 13.23 lb Weight of mold, W2 9.33 lb 9.33 lb 9.33 lb 9.33 lb 9.33 lb Weight of compacted soil, W3 1 3.68 lb 3.82 lb 3.97 lb 3.93 lb 3.90 lb Wet density of soil, D1 2 110.40 lb/ft3114.60 lb/ft3119.10 lb/ft3117.90 lb/ft3 117.00 lb/ft3Water content (from above), w 0.049 0.086 0.121 0.144 0.169 Dry density of soil, D2 3 105.22 lb/ft3105.48 lb/ft3106.28 lb/ft3103.09 lb/ft3 100.05 lb/ft3 1W3 = (W1 W2) 2D1 = W3 x 30 lb/ft2 3D2 = D1/(1 + w)

PAGE 85

85 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%Moisture Content, %106.4 lb/ft3 11.6% Figure 7-1. Proctor curve for conventional dirt surface material.

PAGE 86

86 Table 7-3. Atterberg limit test of a conventional dirt surface material. Test number 1 2 3 Number of blows 31 18 33 Container number 4C2 5C1 5C2 Weight of wet soil and container, W1 231.5 g 216.1 g 227.4 g Tare weight of container, W2 50.0 g 50.3 g 50.4 g Weight of wet soil, W31 181.5 g 165.8 g 177.0 g Weight of dry soil and container, W4 201.5 g 187.2 g 197.6 g Weight of dry soil, W52 151.5 g 136.9 g 147.2 g Weight of water, W63 30.0 g 28.9 g 29.8 g Water content, w4 19.80% 21.11% 20.24% 1W3 = (W1 W2) 2W5 = (W4 W2) 3W6 = (W3 W5) 4w = (W6/ W5) x 100

PAGE 87

87 y = -0.0734x + 22.389 19.6 19.8 20 20.2 20.4 20.6 20.8 21 21.2 152025303540Number of Blows 20.55% Figure 7-2. Water content determination at 25 blows for a conventional dirt surface material.

PAGE 88

88 Table 7-4. Sieve analysis of a conventional dirt surface material. Sieve number Weight of sieve and soil, W1 Weight of sieve, W2 Weight of soil retained, W31 Percentage retained, P12 Cumulative percent retained, P23 Percent passing, P34 4 593.0 g 592.0 g 1.0 g 0.10% 0.10% 99.90% 10 495.0 g 494.0 g 1.0 g 0.10% 0.21% 99.79% 20 572.0 g 571.0 g 1.0 g 0.10% 0.31% 99.69% 40 357.0 g 349.0 g 8.0 g 0.83% 1.15% 98.85% 60 688.0 g 480.0 g 208.0 g 21.67% 22.81% 77.19% 140 1009.0 g 298.0 g 711.0 g 74.06% 96.88% 3.13% 200 310.0 g 290.0 g 20.0 g 2.08% 98.96% 1.04% Pan 528.0 g 518.0 g 10.0 g 1.04% 100.00% 0.00% Totals 4552.0 g 3592.0 g 960.0 g 100.00% 320.42% 1W3 = (W1 W2) 2P1 = (W3/initial weight of soil) x 100 3P2 = P2 + previous P 4P3 = 100 P2

PAGE 89

89 Figure 7-3. Grain size dist ribution curve for a conventional dirt surface material.

PAGE 90

90 Table 7-5. Water content determinati on of a synthetic surface material. Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6 Test 7 Weight of wet soil and container 135.7 g 143.1 g 129.3 g 124.2 g 136.2 g 145.8 g 139.7 g Weight of dry soil and container 135.4 g 139.3 g 123.1 g 116.9 g 125.2 g 130.7 g 122.7 g Weight of water 0.3 g 3.8 g 6.2 g 7.3 g 11.0 g 15.1 g 17.0 g Tare weight of container 50.4 g 49.9 g 50.1 g 49.8 g 50.2 g 49.9 g 50.3 g Weight of dry soil 85.0 g 89.4 g 73.0 g 67.1 g 75.0 g 80.8 g 72.4 g Water content1 0.35% 4.25% 8.49% 10.88% 14.67% 18.69% 23.48% 1Water content = (weight of wa ter/weight of dry soil) x 100 Table 7-6. Standard proctor density test to dete rmine optimum moisture content of a synthetic surface material. Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6 Test 7 Weight of mold and compacted soil, W1 12.47 lb 12.61 lb 12.71 lb 12.88 lb 13.02 lb 13.04 lb 13.03 lb Weight of mold, W2 9.33 lb 9.33 lb 9.33 lb 9.33 lb 9.33 lb 9.33 lb 9.33 lb Weight of compacted soil, W3 1 3.14 lb 3.28 lb 3.38 lb 3.55 lb 3.69 lb 3.71 lb 3.70 lb Wet density of soil, D1 2 94.20 lb/ft3 98.40 lb/ft3 101.40 lb/ft3 106.50 lb/ft3 110.70 lb/ft3 111.30 lb/ft3 111.00 lb/ft3 Water content (from above), w 0.004 0.043 0.085 0.109 0.147 0.187 0.235 Dry density of soil, D2 3 85.71 lb/ft3 89.88 lb/ft3 92.86 lb/ft3 97.92 lb/ft3 102.10 lb/ft3 102.69 lb/ft3 102.39 lb/ft3 1W3 = (W1 W2) 2D1 = W3 x 30 lb/ft2 3D2 = D1/(1 + w)

PAGE 91

91 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%Moisture Content, %96.75 lb/ft 3 13.8% Figure 7-4. Proctor curve for synthetic surface material.

PAGE 92

92 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 0%4%8%12%16%20%24%Moisture Content, % Conventional Dirt Synthetic 106.4 lb/ft3 11.6% 13.8% 96.75 lb/ft3 Figure 7-5. Combined proctor curve of conventional dirt a nd synthetic surface materials.

PAGE 93

93 CHAPTER 8 STATISTICAL THOROUGHBRE D HORSE RACING RESULTS The information in the following data was obt ained from a synthetic manufacturer to determine the statistical results of the catastroph ic injury rates of racehorses. The data was obtained before and after the installation of a Poly track synthetic surface. The data represents the number of race days per season for the racetrack listed, the average number of starters per race, the number catastrophic breakdowns in the mornings and after noons, and the number of horses worked over the surface during the meet. Table 8-1 re presents data before the installation of the synthetic surface. Tables 8-2 and 8-3 represen t the results one and two years following the installation of the synthe tic surface, respectively. The various racetrack facilities referenced in the data are located across the United States and Canada: Arlington Park racetrack is located in Arlington Heights, Illi nois. Del Mar racetrack is located in Del Mar, California. Keenela nd racetrack is located in Lexington, Kentucky. Turfway Park racetrack is located in Floren ce, Kentucky. Woodbine racetrack is located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PAGE 94

94 Table 8-1. Pre-Polytrack statistical results Racetrack Race days Average number of starters per race Catastrophic breakdowns on main track (pm) Catastrophic breakdowns during training (am) Number of workouts on main track during meet Arlington Park 95 7.14 22 7 11,142 Del Mar 43 8.57 8 6 6,500 Keeneland 17 9.14 2 0 1,304 Turfway Park 74 9.041 18 N/A 1,645 Woodbine 43 7.97 2 N/A 3,196 Source: www.polytrack.com 1Average between the Winter, Spring, Fall, and Holiday meets. Table 8-2. Post-Polytrack statistical results (first year after installation) Racetrack Race days Average number of starters per race Catastrophic breakdowns on main track (pm) Catastrophic breakdowns during training (am) Number of workouts on main track during meet Arlington Park 94 8.19 13 7 14,268 Del Mar 43 8.82 2 4 7,422 Keeneland 32 9.001 3 0 1,930 Turfway Park 116 9.172 7 2 5,372 Woodbine 43 8.78 3 N/A 6,557 Source: www.polytrack.com 1Average between the Fall and Spring meets. 2Average between the Winter, Spring, Fall, and Holiday meets. Table 8-2. Post-Polytrack statistical results (second year after installation) Racetrack Race days Average number of starters per race Catastrophic breakdowns on main track (pm) Catastrophic breakdowns during training (am) Number of workouts on main track during meet Arlington Park 96 7.14 22 7 14,812 Del Mar 43 8.75 5 3 7,496 Keeneland 32 9.831 4 0 3,406 Turfway Park 109 9.152 11 4 4,396 Woodbine 44 8.67 2 N/A 4,669 Source: www.polytrack.com 1Average between the Fall and Spring meets. 2Average between the Winter, Spring, Fall, and Holiday meets.

PAGE 95

95 CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Conclusions The following is a set of conclusions that ha ve been drawn accordi ng to the information and data collected throughout the execution of this study. The conclusions will discuss the survey results of the Thoroughbred facilities locate d in Ocala, Florida in addition to the findings from the interviews with California racetrack supe rintendents. Also discu ssed are the differences in constructing and retrofitting the two different su rfaces and the results of the material analysis. These conclusions were made in an effort to be tter understand where the i ndustry stands in terms of implementing synthetic surfaces into the training and racing of horses. 9.1.1 Survey Results It can be concluded from the results of the O cala survey that the majority of facilities are still training horses over a conventio nal dirt surface. It is also determined that the facilities surveyed prefer a natura l surface to an artificial one. Perhaps the hesitation to convert is due to the physical and statistical costs associated with synthetic su rfaces. This situation may change as time passes and more information becomes availa ble about the use and effects of synthetic surfaces on the training of horses. Although the majority of facilities surveyed pref er conventional dirt to synthetic, it was found that maintenance is performed once, twice, and sometimes three times per day. It was also found that moisture is managed by artificial met hods. From this study, it is known that the costs to maintain a conventional dirt surface are much hi gher than those for a synthetic surface. On an annual basis, maintenance costs do accumulate and a facility will spend a significant amount of money to adequately maintain their surface. Ther efore, it can be conclude d that these facilities

PAGE 96

96 operate the bulk of each day through manpower to run equipment and condition material that is only used approximately four to five hours per day for training horses. From the survey, it can be understood that th e amount of injuries experienced by horses trained over conventional dirt surfaces remain fa irly low, with the most common type being bucked shins. The average age of a racehorse in training is two years ol d and it is known that injuries do occur in young horses performing at high speeds. With these findings, it can be concluded that the type of surface that a young horse is being trained over may not have a considerable effect on the occurrence or type of injuries they experience. Following an order mandated by the Californi a Horse Racing Board, the four major Thoroughbred racetrack facilities in the state of California were forced to install a synthetic surface by 2008. After one year, the racetrack superintendents have offered feedback about the successes, failures, and anticipated life cycle of the surface at their resp ective facility. As a whole, the satisfactory aspects of the surfaces in volve less maintenance with regard to man-hours and the amount of water required to maintain mois ture. The unexpected issu es with the synthetic surfaces involve their sensitivity and failure to perform in the environment in which they are placed, resulting in replacing one manufacturer’s product with anot her. The anticipated life cycle of the synthetic surfaces in Ca lifornia is unknown at the current time. However, the top cushion of an intensely used surface is known to need a reapplication, or refurbishing, of the wax coating approximately every six months. It can be conc luded that California is a testing ground for synthetic surfaces in this country and the findi ngs of how these surfaces are performing under the present conditions will be useful in the future. 9.1.2 Installation and Retrofit The construction of a synthetic su rface is costly in terms of its physical assembly as well as its effects on the Thoroughbred horse racing indust ry. The majority of synthetic surfaces that

PAGE 97

97 exist in the United States have replaced an ex isting conventional dirt surface. Not only does this involve the demolition of an existing racetrack bu t also the complete installation of a more sophisticated system. This consideration also come s at a cost to the horses themselves, as they are the ones ultimately testing the surface through their athletic ability. Furthermore, the installation or retrofit of a s ynthetic surface may be more a ppropriate for some racetrack locations than others, particularly with regard to the environment and intensity of use. From these findings, it can be conclude d that the installation or retrof it of a conventional dirt surface with a synthetic surface should be carefu lly considered before it is executed. 9.1.3 Material Analysis The laboratory results from the analysis perfor med with the conventional dirt and synthetic materials confirmed that they react very di fferently under the same conditions. Under the standard proctor test for compaction, the conve ntional dirt mixture reached its maximum dry density sooner and under a lower moisture content than the synthetic mate rial. Alternatively, the synthetic mixture required two additional proctor tests to reach its maximum dry density under a higher moisture content than the conventional di rt mixture. It can be concluded from this comparison that the synthetic mixture manages mois ture better than the conventional dirt. It is important to note that the synthe tic mixture is a unique material that could not be appropriately tested under the other standard soil tests that were performe d with the conventional dirt. 9.2 Recommendations As this study was primarily focused on eval uating two different racetrack surfaces, it has only scratched the surface for the how they may be further studied and improved to better serve the Thoroughbred horse racing industry. The intr oduction of synthetic surfaces to the industry has created new challenges that were not pres ent prior to their use. Before they were implemented, the industry was consistently faced with the loss of racing days to inclement

PAGE 98

98 weather, the increased occurr ence of catastrophic breakdowns, and the strenuous time and labor required to maintain an acceptable surface. In res ponse to these issues, synthetic surfaces have somewhat provided relief for the industry but have also introduced a new se t of issues relating to materiality, construction, and performance for the task of racing horses. It is recommended that this study be further evaluated through the discip lines of veterinary science, engineering, and building construction to better understand how th e two surfaces affect a horse’s body through their design and physical assembly. In relation to veterinary science, it is recomm ended that both types of surfaces be further evaluated for their effects on the body of a racehor se. It is known that both types of surfaces can cause injury, even catastrophic breakdown, of a racehorse. It has been discovered that a conventional dirt surface is more likely to affect the skeletal structure of a racehorse, whereas a synthetic surface is known to affect the soft a nd deep tissue of a racehorse. It is recommended that the injuries associated w ith these areas of a horse’s body be evaluated for their nature so they may be linked to how they occur over a given type of surface. If this study was taken into the engineering field, it is r ecommended that the two surface materials be further evaluated for the propertie s relating to cushion a nd compaction under the forces produced by a racehorse. It is also recommended that thes e forces be evaluated for how they transcend through muscles and joints of a racehorse. These findings could be used to determine how each type of surface may be less strenuous on the body of a racehorse while still allowing them to perform at top speed. For building construction, this study could be further evaluated through cost estimating and sustainability. It is known that th e initial cost of replacing a conventional dirt surface with a synthetic one is offset by its low-maintenance qu alities. It is recommended that the estimated

PAGE 99

99 cost of installation for a synthetic surface be st udied and compared to conventional dirt through time-analyzed data as it relates to maintenan ce. This could potentially lead to additional improvements in materiality and the overall design of the system, inherently affecting the health and performance of racehorses. With regard to sustainability, it is recommended that the life cycle assessment of both surfaces be performed to determine th eir effect on the environment. Although a conventional dirt surface is less comp lex in material composition, a synthetic surface consists of various components that could easily be used as an additional stage in the life cycle of a product.

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX A LIST OF TERMINOLO GY AND ABBREVIATIONS Bowed tendon. An injury to the superficial digita l flexor tendon in the front leg of a horse that when damaged, results in a thickeni ng of the tendon, making it appear bowed when viewed from the side. Bucked shin. An injury that commonly o ccurs in younger horses th at are performing at high speeds. It occurs when the tissue att aching the muscle to the cannon bone in the front leg is torn from the bone. Catastrophic. In Thoroughbred horse racing, this is the term used for a traumatic, fatal injury. CHRB. California Horse Racing Board. Classic. Used to refer to traditionally signi ficant races, such as the Breeders’ Cup. In America, the classic distance is 1-1/4 m iles and in Europe it is 1-1/2 miles. Claim Race. A race in which the horses are elig ible to be entered and can be claimed for a set price. Cup. A race for Thoroughbreds three-years-old and up. Derby. A stakes race for three-year-olds. Elastic fibers. These are the fibers found in a synthetic surface that consist of chopped elastic bands. Handicap. A race for which each horse is assigne d a different weight to carry with the concept that the horses run a fair and equal race. Handle. An amount of money that is wa gered in a pari-mutuel bet on a race. Juvenile. A two-year-old horse. NTRA. National Thoroughbr ed Racing Association. Operation. A training facility. Pari-mutuel. A form of betting where mone y is put into wagering pools, where betters play against one another. Splint. An injury that occurs in the front leg of a horse when the ligament attaching the splint and cannon bones together is torn. It is often th e result of concussion trauma that is common to the sport of Thoroughbred horse racing.

PAGE 101

101 Sprint. A race that is less than one mile in length. Stakes race. A race for which the owner must pa y to race their horse, unless the race is by invitation and does not require a fee. Suspensory. An injury that typically occurs when a horse is moving at a high speed and begins to fatigue. It affects the suspensory ligament, which is cr itical to the support system of the lower region of a horse’s front leg. This type of injury may occur at any point along the ligament, which can dramatical ly affect the racing career of the horse. Thoroughbred. The most common breed of racehorse. TOBA. Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

PAGE 102

102 APPENDIX B LIST OF THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACES IN THE UNITED STATES Table B-1. List of Thoroughbred ho rse races in the United States. Name Racetrack Location Year Inaug. F C Length Purse Surface American Oaks Hollywood Park Inglewood, CA 2002 X 1 1/4 mile $750,000 Turf Arlington Million Arlington Park Arlington Heights, IL 1981 X X 1 1/4 mile $1,000,000 Turf Belmont Stakes* Belmont Park Elmont, NY 1867 X X 1 1/2 mile $1,000,000 Dirt Blue grass Stakes Keeneland Race Course Lexington, KY 1911 X X 1 1/8 mile $750,000 Polytrack Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Fillies Turf 2008 X 1 mile $1,000,000 Turf Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Sprint 2007 X 7/8 mile $1,000,000 Dirt** Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Fillies 1984 X 1 1/16 mile $2,000,000 Dirt** Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Turf 1999 X 1 1/4 mile $2,000,000 Turf Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic 2007 X 1 1/8 mile $2,000,000 Dirt** Breeders’ Cup Marathon 2008 X X 1 1/2 mile $500,000 Dirt** Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Turf 2007 X 1 mile $1,000,000 Turf Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile 2007 X X 1 mile $1,000,000 Dirt**

PAGE 103

103 Table B-1. Continued. Breeders’ Cup Turf Sprint 2008 X X 13/16 mile $1,000,000 Turf Breeders’ Cup Juvenile 1984 X 1 1/16 mile $2,000,000 Dirt** Breeders’ Cup Sprint 1984 X X 3/4 mile $2,000,000 Dirt** Breeders’ Cup Mile 1984 X X 1 mile $2,000,000 Turf Breeders’ Cup Turf 1984 X X 1 1/2 mile $3,000,000 Turf Breeders’ Cup Classic 1984 X X 1 1/4 mile $5,000,000 Dirt** Donn Handicap Gulfstream Park Hallandale Beach, FL 1981 X X 1 1/8 mile $500,000 Dirt Florida Derby Gulfstream Park Hallandale Beach, FL 1952 X X 1 1/8 mile $1,000,000 Dirt Hollywood Gold Cup Hollywood Park Inglewood, CA 1938 X X 1 1/4 mile $750,000 Dirt Jim Dandy Stakes Saratoga Race Course Saratoga Springs, NY 1964 X X 1 1/8 mile $500,000 Dirt Jockey Club Gold Cup Belmont Park Elmont, NY 1919 X X 1 1/4 mile $1,000,000 Dirt Kentucky Derby* Churchill Downs Louisville, KY 1875 X X 1 1/4 mile $2,000,000 Dirt Kentucky Oaks Churchill Downs Louisville, KY 1875 X 1 1/8 mile $500,000 Dirt Louisiana Derby Fair Grounds Race Course New Orleans, LA 1898 X X 1 1/16 mile $600,000 Dirt Manhattan Handicap Belmont Park Elmont, NY 1896 X X 1 1/4 mile $400,000 Turf Pacific Classic Stakes Del Mar Racetrack Del Mar, CA 1991 X X 1 1/4 mile $1,000,000 Polytrack Pimlico Special Pimlico Race Course Baltimore, MD 1937 X X 1 3/16 mile $250,000 Dirt

PAGE 104

104 Table B-1. Continued. Preakness Stakes* Pimlico Race Course Baltimore, MD 1873 X X 1 3/16 mile $1,000,000 Dirt Santa Anita Handicap Santa Anita Park Arcadia, CA 1935 X X 1 1/4 mile $1,000,000 Cushion Track Santa Anita Derby Santa Anita Park Arcadia, CA 1935 X X 1 1/8 mile $750,000 Cushion Track Travers Stakes Saratoga Race Course Saratoga Springs, NY 1864 X X 1 1/4 mile $1,000,000 Dirt Whitney Handicap Saratoga Race Course Saratoga Springs, NY 1928 X X 1 1/8 mile $750,000 Dirt Wood Memorial Stakes Aqueduct Racetrack Queens, NY 1925 X X 1 1/8 mile $750,000 Dirt Woodward Stakes Saratoga Race Course Saratoga Springs, NY 1954 X X 1 1/8 mile $500,000 Dirt *Part of Triple Crown series **Depending on host track, this race may be over a synthetic surface

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX C COLLECTION OF SURVEY DATA The following is a survey that was sent in th e form of a questionnaire to approximately 265 Thoroughbred racing operations located in Ocala, Florida. See Appendix E for the list of training and racing operations where the surveys were mailed. The operations targeted for the survey included those that participate in the equine racing discipline only and were randomly chosen regardless of the size of the trai ning facility, the number of hors es in training, or how intensely the racetrack was being used. 1. What is the primary surface material of your racetrack? Dirt/Soil Turf You have both a dirt and turf track Synthetic 2. Of the materials listed ab ove, would you prefer the natural or synthetic product? 3. If your racetrack consists of a natural product, are you familiar with where it originated from? Yes No If yes, please briefly explain the t ype (eg. sand base, clay base, or both): 4. If your racetrack consists of a synthetic product, are you familiar w ith the manufacturer and the process of how the product was made? Yes No If yes, please briefly explain: 5. What is the typical maintenan ce schedule for your racetrack? Daily Once daily Twice daily Weekly Once weekly Twice weekly Three times weekly Monthly Once monthly Twice monthly Three times monthly

PAGE 106

106 Other What type of maintenance is performed? 6. How is an acceptable level of moisture managed for your racetrack? How is it measured or determined? 7. What is the measured length of your racetrack? 8. Is your racetrack mostly a flat surface, banked surface, or a combination of both? 9. How often is your racetrack used on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis? Daily Weekly Monthly 10. What is your racetrack primarily used for? Training Competition Both 11. What is the average age of the hor se(s) that are run on your racetrack? 12. What are the most common type(s) of injuries that the horse(s) e xperience while running on your racetrack? 13. Where is the location on your racetrack wh ere the injuries most commonly occur? 14. If there is anything you would like to change about the design of your racetrack, what would it be? 15. Any other comments:

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX D LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA RACETRACKS The following is a series of questions that we re posed to the racetr acks in California that currently employ a synthetic surface. The racetrac k superintendents were asked these questions and answered them to the best of their knowledge: 1. How much did the synthetic surface cost to install? 2. How was the racetrack surface constructed before the synthetic surface was installed? 3. Were any of the sub-base layers of the origin al surface retained in the construction of the synthetic surface? If so, which layers? 4. What was the average annual cost of maintena nce for the conventional dirt surface at your facility? 5. What is the average annual cost of maintena nce for the synthetic su rface at your facility? 6. How many horses are worked over the synthetic su rface at your facility on a daily basis? 7. What is the expected life cycle of th e synthetic surface at your facility?

PAGE 108

108 APPENDIX E LIST OF HORSE RACING FARMS LOCATED IN OCALA, FLORIDA Table E-1. List of horse racing fa rms located in Ocala, Florida. Farm name Size (acres) Dirt track Length (miles) Turf track Length (miles) Synthetic track Length (miles) Abbie Road Farm 15 X 1/2 Abracadabra Farms 212 X 3/4 X 5/8 Adena Springs South 4,500 X 1 AGB Stables 77 X 3/4 Diane Allen, agent 10 X 3/4 American Equistock, Inc. 40 X 5/8 Andros Farms 125 X 3/8 X 3/4 Another Episode Farm 78 X 5/8 Anthony Perri Farm 23 X 1/2 Antigo Ranch 65 X 1/2 Arindel 470 X Balmoral Bloodstock, Inc. X 5/8 Bar-Lyn Farm 15 X 3/8 Best A Luck Farm 45 X 5/8 Biamonte Training Center 40 X 5/8 Big “C” Farm 240 X 1/2 Bit of Class Training Stable 15 X 1/2 Bittersweet Acres 27 X 1/2 Black Diamond 16 X 3/8 Bolaro Farm 160 X 5/8 Lynne and Chris Boutte Training Stable 35 X 5/8 X 1/2 Briar Lane Farm 35 X 1/2 Bridlewood Farm 960 X 7/8 X 1 Buckley Farm 41 X 1/2 Camelot Acres 100 X 5/8 Can 2 Farm 20 X 1/2 Cardinal Hill Farm 170 X 5/8 Cashel Stud, Inc. 500 X 5/8 Cedar Lock Farm South 65 X 1/2 Charis Farm 17 X 1/2 Cimarron Farm 130 X 1/2

PAGE 109

109 Table E-1. Continued Classic Mile Training Complex 700 X 1 X 7/8 Clearview Farm 44 X 7 Clouston Training Center 71 X 5/8 Corner’s Crossing 10 X 3/4 Corner Stone Farm 21 X 5/8 Covington Oaks Farm 62 X 3/4 Coyote Crossing Farm 85 X 5/8 Crown Center Farm 110 X 5/8 Crupi’s New Castle Farm, Inc. 138 X 3/4 Cupola Farm 120 X 5/8 D & B Farm 40 X 5/8 D & G Thoroughbreds, Inc. 70 X 5/8 D & J Buckley Farm 49 X 1/2 Dare to Dream Farm, LLC 96 X 7/8 Daybreak Farm 95 X 5/8 Del Sol Farm 70 X 3/8 Derby Daze Farm 80 X 1/2 Dodson Farm 30 X 1/2 Double Diamond Farm 420 X 5/8 X 5/8 Eclipse Farm 385 X 3/4 Eclipse Training Center, Inc. 240 X 3/4 Emerald Pastures Farm 180 X 5/8 Endeavor Bloodstock 23 X 5/8 Fast Lane Farm 16 X 3/8 First Turn Farm 10 X 1/4 Flamingo Farm 75 X 1/2 Fleet Crest Farm 60 X 5/8 Flying Finish Farm 20 X 3/4 Flying H Thoroughbreds, LLC 123 X 5/8 Four Horsemen’s Ranch 170 X 1/2 Four Roses Thoroughbreds 200 X 7/8 X 5/8

PAGE 110

110 Table E-1. Continued Fox Brown Farm 60 X 1/2 Fox Point Farm X 5/8 Get Away Farm 100 X 1/2 Glen Hill Farm 400 X 5/8 Glen Ridge Farm 115 X 1/2 Gold Crest Farm 46 X 1/2 Goldmark, LLC 2,500 X 3/4 Good Chance Farm 230 X 5/8 GP Horses, Inc. 20 X 3/10 Grand Oaks 10 X 5/8 Gray Moss Farms 49 X 1/2 Great Luck Farm 20 X 3/4 Gulf Coast Farms, LLC 413 X 7/8 Hampton House 120 X 1/2 Haras Santa Maria de Araras, S.A. 190 X 1/2 Harlequin Ranches 75 X 1/2 Harris Training 80 X 5/8 Hartley/de Renzo Thoroughbreds, LLC & Walmac South 105 X 5/8 X 3/4 Herring Farms 371 X 5/8 Hickory Meadow Farm 100 X 5/8 Highland Tree Farm 40 X 1/2 Horsin Around Farm X 5/8 Hyatt Farm 147 X 5/8 Indian Prairie Ranch 197 X 1/2 Iron Anvil Farm 16 X 1/2 J. Toole’s Thoroughbred Training Center 15 X 3/4 JC Thoroughbreds 40 X 5/8 J.K. Thoroughbred Farms, Inc. 66 X 1/2 Nelson Jones Farms & Training Center, Inc. 734 X 1 X 7/8 Journeyman Bloodstock Services, Inc. X 3/4 Kensington Farms, Inc. 50 X 5/8

PAGE 111

111 Table E-1. Continued The Kindergarten 200 X 5/8 Kings Equine Farm 65 X 3/4 Kinsman Farm 750 X 3/4 Kripple Kreek Farm 10 X 5/8 Lake Magdalene Farm 192 X 5/8 Lambholm South 1,800 X 1 Live Oak Stud 4,500 X 3/4 Lou-Roe Farm 111 X 5/8 Lushland Farm 42 X 5/8 Magic Equinox Racing Stables 85 X 3/8 Magnolia Farm 50 X 5/8 Manuden Farm 60 X 3/4 Martin Stables South 385 X 5/8 X 1/2 Mayo West Farm 108 X 1/2 McKathan Farms & Training Center 80 X 1/2 McKibben Thoroughbred X 5/8 Meadow View Farm 40 X 1/2 Menefee Training Center X 1 Millview Farm 10 X 3/8 Moment of Glory Training Center 40 X 5/8 Morton Meadows 65 X 5/8 New England South 15 X 3/8 New Episode Training Center, Inc. X 5/8 New Haven Farm 112 X 3/4 Niall Brennan Training Stables 80 X 5/8 Ocala Breeders’ Sales Ocala Stud Farms 500 X 7/8 Ocala Thoroughbred Farms, Inc. 105 X 1/2 Ocala West Training Facility 65 X 5/8 Olympic Hill Training Center 380 X 5/8 Omega Farm 57 X 1 One Pair Farm 100 X 5/8

PAGE 112

112 Table E-1. Continued Oxford Farm South Inc. 110 X 7/8 Paradise Park 80 X 5/8 Parietta Farms 65 X 5/8 Parrish Farms 50 X 3/4 Partnership Farm 40 X 5/8 Payson Park Thoroughbred Training Center, Inc. 750 X 1 X 1 Payton Training Center 100 X 5/8 Pinecrest Stables, Inc. 429 X 5/8 Plumley Farms 700+ X 5/8 X 5/8 The Pony Express 32 X 5/8 Porter Racing Stable, LLC 150 X 1/2 Prairie View Farm 15 X 1/4 Prater Thoroughbreds, Inc. 60 X 1 X 7/8 Quarter Circle 4 Ranch 36 X 1/2 The Racing Edge, Inc. 140 X 5/8 Rancho del Castillo 10 X 1/2 Rapid Run Farm 20 X 3/4 Red Oak Farm 252 X 5/8 Rising Hill Farm 400 X 5/8 Rockside Farm 30 X 5/8 Rocky Valley Ranch & Training Center 77 X 5/8 Rolling Meadows Farm 27 X 5/8 Rosegrove Farm 100 X 1/2 Rustling Oaks Farm 10 X 1/4 Sab Training (Hawkinsridge Farm) X 5/8 X 3/4 Sabine Stable 165 X 5/8 Samerin Oaks 98 X 3/4 Sam-Son Farm 160 X 1-1/8 X 1-1/2

PAGE 113

113 Table E-1. Continued The Sanctuary – Equine Sports Therapy & Rehabilitation Center 30 X 5/8 Santana Farm 80 X 1/2 Robert N. Scanlon Training Center 100 X 3/4 Sea Fray Farm 15 X 3/4 Second Start Farm 40 X 3/8 Serve N Notice Farm 8 X 1/2 Shadybrook Farm, Inc. & Training Center (Oak Ridge) 50 X 5/8, 1 X 7/8 Shady Paddocks Farm 23 X 5/8 Shanbally Acres 60 X 5/8 Sky Ranch 150 X 1/2 Solar Meadows 110 X 1/2 Solera Farm 227 X 5/8 Solitary Oak Farm 80 X 5/8 Something Else Farm 30 X 1/2 Sorrento Oaks Farm 90 X 1/2 Southern Chase Farm, Inc. 430 X 1/2 Southpaw Stables 17 X 3/8 Stand Pretty Acres 20 X 1/2 Starting Gate Training Center, Inc. 101 X 3/4 M. J. Stavola Farms, Inc. 1,500 X 5/8 Steadfast Farm 34 X 3/8 Stephens Thoroughbreds 90 X 3/4 Straightaway Farm 160 X 1 Stutts Stable 12 X 1/2 The Summit Farm 140 X 3/4 X 1 Sunnyside Polo Club & Training Center 160 X 3/4 Sunrise Stable South Training Center 160 X 5/8 Swan Hollow Farm 90 X 3/4 Sylvania South 90 X 3/4

PAGE 114

114 Table E-1. Continued Tara Stables, Inc. 56 X 5/8 Team Block Thoroughbred 75 X 5/8 X 7/8 Thoroblood Ranch 40 X 3/4 Thunderhoof Thoroughbreds 165 X 1/2 Thunder Ranch Training Center 138 X 3/4 Tiffany Farm 17 X 5/8 Top Turf Farms, Inc. 160 X 5/8 Town and Country Farms 1,100 X 1/2 Trackside Farm 140 X 5/8 Tradewinds Farm 42 X 1/2 Treasure Farm 16 X 3/4 Triple M Farm 180 X 1/2 Tuk-A-Wile Farm 10 X 3/8 Twin Pines Farm 180 X 5/8 Vale Stud Farm 10 X 5/8 Vegso Racing Stable 130 X 5/8 Verbarctic Farm 65 X 1/2 Robert Vickers Training Center 10 X 5/8 Viewpointe Farm 24 X 3/4 Vinery Stud, Ltd 220 X 7/8 X 3/4 Wavertree Stables, Inc. 90 X 1 X 7/8 Weathervane Riding Centre 20 X 7/8 Wesfield Farm 104 X 5/8 Why Me Farm 30 X 1/2 Wild Falcon Ranch 100 X 1/2 Wildflower Farm 45 X 1/2 Willow Creek Ranch 90 X 1/2 Winding Oaks Farm 1,000 X 5/8, 1 X 7/8 Wingate Farm and Training Center 40 X 5/8 Winner’s Edge, Inc. 10 X 3/4 Woodfield Farm 53 X 5/8 Eddie Woods Stables 240 X 1 X 7/8 Gayle Woods Training 20 X 1 X 7/8 Woodside Ranch 270 X 5/8

PAGE 115

115 LIST OF REFERENCES "2008 Farm Directory." Florida Thoroughbred Farm Managers, Inc. Florida Thoroughbred Farm Managers, Inc.. 6 Dec 2008 . "About The Jockey Club." The Jockey Club. 2009. The Jockey Club. 15 Mar 2009 . "About the Breeders' Cup World Championships ." Breeders' Cup. Breeders' Cup. 22 Apr 2009 . "About TOBA." Thoroughbred Owners and Bree ders Association. 2009. Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association. 15 Mar 2009 . Andersen, Steve. "Santa Anita chooses Cu shion Track." ESPN.com 24 May 2007 3 Jan 2009 . Curran, Jr., Bob. "Welfare and Safety Summit On-Tr ack Injury Statistics Revised." The Jockey Club. 10 Apr 2008. 16 Feb 2009 . "Cushion Track." Equestrian Surfaces: Information Pack. 2007. Duckworth, Amanda H. "Right Direc tion." The Blood-Horse 49 (2007): 6987-6988. Elliston, Robert N. "Racing into the Synthetic Era: The Turfway Park Experience." The Jockey Club Annual Round Table Conference. 20 Aug 2006. The Jockey Club. 10 Dec 2008 . Fleischhaker, Tamara. "The Horse Capital of the World." Ocala Marion County Chamber of Commerce. 15 Jan 2009. 15 Feb 2009 . "Graded Stakes." An Explanation of the American Graded Stakes Process. Owners and Breeders Association. 22 Apr 2009 . Hammonds, Evan. "A Step Ahead." theHorse.com 16 Sep 2006 10 Dec 2008 . Haskin, Steve. "Tracking Trainers ." The Blood-Horse 49 (2007): 6994-6996. "Industry Programs." NTRA Annual Report of the Membership | 2007-2008. 2008: 14. LaMarra, Tom, and Jack Shinar. "Work and Thought." The Blood-Horse 49 (2007): 7000-7002. Liebman, Dan. "What's Going On Here." The Blood-Horse 49 (2007): 6973.

PAGE 116

116 McFarland, Cynthia. "It's more than Di rt." Horse Capital Digest 2007 30 Dec 2008 . McFarland, Cynthia. "On the Mark." The Florida Horse Sep 2007 30 Dec 2008 . "New Era of Racing at Golden Gate Fields Be gins Wednesday as Horses Compete on Tapeta." Horse Race Insider 5 Nov 2007 2 Jan 2009 . Nicholson, Nick. "Racing into th e Synthetic Era: Why Keeneland Turned to Polytrack." The Jockey Club Annual Round Table Conferen ce. 20 Aug 2006. The Jockey Club. 10 Dec 2008 . Norwood, Robyn. "New Track Might Put a Bounce in Their Steps." Los Angeles Times 14 Sep 2006 10 Dec 2008 . Popham, Mark. "Battle-tested." The Blood-Horse 49 (2007): 7003-7004. "Schedules." NTRA.U Quick Fact. Nationa l Thoroughbred Racing Association. 22 Apr 2009 . Shapiro, Richard B., John C. Harris, John Andrei ni, and Jesse H. Choper. "Equine Postmortem Program." California Horse Raci ng Board Annual Report. (2008). Shulman, Lenny. "On the Right Track?" The Blood-Horse 49 (2007): 6976-6982. Stover, Susan M. "The Epidemiology of Thoroughbr ed Racehorse Injuries." Clinical Techniques in Equine Practice 2(2003): 312-322. "Synthetic racetrack surfaces for hor se racing." Wikipedia. 2008. 30 Dec 2008 . "The History of the Thoroughbred in America." Museum Exhibits. 2004. National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame. 12 Mar 2009 . "The Thoroughbred." The Jockey Club. The Jockey Club. 13 Mar 2009 .

PAGE 117

117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Harmony S. Blackwell earned her Master of Sc ience in Building Construction degree from the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Constructi on at the University of Florida in Gainesville. While pursuing this degree, she concurrently earn ed her Master of Architecture degree with a concentration in Sustainable Architecture from the UF School of Architecture (SoA). During her time in professional school, Harmony worked as a graduate teaching assistant for the SoA, teaching architectural design studios and structures courses in additi on to serving as a guest critic on undergraduate design reviews. Prior to grad uate school, she interned for one year with Alfonso Architects in Tampa, Florida on a design -build project in collaboration with the Beck Group. This allowed her to gain experience from the schematic design phase through construction administration. Before interning with Alfonso Architects, Harmony earned her Bachelor of Design in Architecture degree from the UF SoA. Throughout the duration of this degree, she interned every academic break with Gora McGahey Associates in Architecture located in Fort Myers, Florida. Her experience with this firm ranged from be ing a runner to producing construction documents and attending site meetings for various commercial projects. Within the fields of architecture and build ing construction, Harmony’s research interests include sustainable design and c onstruction as it relates to eq uine facilities and the rural landscape. Beyond these areas, her interests in clude photography, specifically architectural, panoramic, human and animal portraiture, as well as equine training and competition.