Except for those morons at Woodbine, who even attempted to support their insane decision to put down another artificial surface with horrific data which was easily debunked by anyone who has even the slightest appreciation for statistics.
They opt to spin the wheel on a new artificial surface when actual data show a pronounced reduction in starters there in recent years on the main track, while the turf data are very near to the same as in 2009.
There is some high-up manager there, at Woodbine, who just has a hankerin for the always-misguided B.S. that artificial surfaces have been since the seldom-mentioned Tartan Surface used in Florida many moons ago.
Even the obvious rocket scientists among us (like 1st Over) should be able to deduce that when you compare one set of track surface data that includes Rillito, Arapahoe, Timonium, Boise and Penn National, to another set of track surface data which were top-heavy with Keeneland, Santa Anita, Del Mar, and Hollywood Park, you would find (surprise!) more break-downs at the cheaper tracks, having almost nothing to do with the surfaces of those tracks, and everything to do with the cheap horses most often running over the cheaper tracks.
What synthetic surface anywhere has a better record for horse fatalities in recent years than does Portland Meadows' dirt/sand surface?