TUCSON, Ariz. – The relative merits and challenges of different racing surfaces came up for discussion on Tuesday afternoon at the Global Symposium on Racing, in a discussion that is likely to foreshadow a future debate in the racing industry as the sport seeks to make significant reductions in catastrophic injuries. The Symposium organizers split the racing-surface discussion into two panels, with the first focused on dirt and turf racing surfaces – the two traditional surfaces in use at U.S. racetracks – and the other giving the trainer Michael Dickinson a platform to outline the purported advantages of his various formulations of synthetic tracks, known as Tapeta and Tapeta 10, which was developed by his wife. But the two panels then intersected as Dickinson, always somewhat unpredictable, called up a trainer to the stage, challenged a well-respected racing-surface specialist on the definition of a biomechanical term, and was challenged himself by the panel’s moderator on his characterization of a decision by Keeneland to replace its artificial surface with a dirt surface. That back-and-forth underlines the controversy surrounding racing surfaces, which are typically the first to be blamed by racing insiders any time there are spates of catastrophic injuries. And, because data from synthetic tracks show that horses suffer far fewer catastrophic injuries than horses racing on dirt, the debate over synthetic tracks is expected to ramp up as animal-welfare and animal-rights organizations seize on that statistic for arguing that dirt tracks be retired immediately. The first panel included Dr. Mick Peterson, the racing-surface specialist, and his presentation focused on the various ways in which his laboratory at the University of Kentucky has attempted to develop scientific tools to properly evaluate the factors affecting the safety and consistency of racing surfaces. Peterson’s work is supported by a large number of organizations in racing. Peterson was the first panelist to bring up the statistics for synthetic tracks, characterizing that data as not only consistently lower than fatality data on dirt surfaces, but also calling the data more consistent on a year-to-year basis than data from dirt tracks. The reason, he said, was weather, noting that artificial surfaces are far more resistant to moisture than dirt surfaces. But Peterson also said that the goal of his laboratory is to collect more and more data from more and more sources in order to make dirt and turf surfaces as safe as synthetics while maintaining the “biomechanics of turf and dirt,” which are the surfaces that horses have been bred to run over in the U.S. “We need more information, we need more data on what impacts the horse,” he said. “And we are going to have to be able to answer transparently to a broader audience of stakeholders that we are doing everything possible to protect the horse. If that is going to take changes, if that is going to take more effort and labor, than that is what it is going to take.” While a number of racetracks switched to synthetics in the early 2000s, including the California tracks and Keeneland, many tracks reverted back to dirt under complaints from subsets of a variety of racing constituencies, including bettors, breeders, and trainers. The tracks are still in use at a number of North American tracks, however, including Woodbine, Arlington Park, Turfway Park, Presque Isle Downs, and Golden Gate Fields. Glen Kozak, the superintendent for the New York Racing Association tracks, said that he has become extremely grateful for the rise in data-gathering and measurement on U.S. tracks, since he is now able to back up his opinions with scientific data when taking advice from horsemen, whose own opinions on the shortcomings or consistency of a track can vary widely. “Communication [with trainers] is critical, but having the science behind it” is even more important, Kozak said. In response to questions from the moderator, the racing radio-show host Steve Byk, the panelists began a discussion over the impact of banking on racetrack turns. While Peterson said that more data needed to be collected, he did say that “turning itself is an exposure variable for a horse,” meaning that injury rates could be impacted by the degree of banking and the way that horses are trained. All the panelists agreed that the subject could be a major topic of research in the future. As for Dickinson, he spent his presentation making a case for synthetic tracks, in the way that only Dickinson can, transitioning awkwardly between his arguments while simultaneously making a strong case for the surfaces, if only by using the raw data that supports the claim that they are safer. Citing statistics showing that North American tracks are holding more and more turf races consistently year-over-year, Dickinson said that “the revolution against dirt has already started, but some of you have not recognized it yet. . . . It’s past its sell-by date.” During his presentation, Dickinson noted that Mark Casse, a trainer who supports synthetic tracks, was in the audience, and he called him up to a microphone to state his views. Casse used the word “baloney” to characterize common contentions that horses suffer more soft-tissue injuries on synthetics, and he said that of eight horses he trained that suffered bowed tendons this year, six occurred on dirt tracks. Dickinson closed his presentation by saying he did not believe that U.S. tracks would make the decision to replace their dirt tracks with synthetic by themselves. “It’s going to be the politicians who are going to force the change.” CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story identified Michael Dickinson as a "former" trainer. Dickinson continues to train horses.