LAUREL PARK SURFACE TESTING PROVIDES ENCOURAGING EVIDENCE OF CONSISTENCY

Recent testing of Laurel Park’s main track provides an encouraging finding for horsemen: measurements of three key surface characteristics were more closely grouped than those in either the “average variation” or “high variation” examples supplied by Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory.

That consistency is an important part of evaluating a racing surface. Beyond how a track looks or feels in one location, testing helps determine whether its response changes as a horse travels around the oval or moves between lanes.

The laboratory’s report, dated September 4, 2026, presents Laurel measurements taken August 24. It includes 54 readings for each of three characteristics, collected at points around the track in testing lanes seven and 15 feet from the rail.

The results give horsemen objective evidence of relatively consistent conditions across the locations tested.

Testing that simulates a horse at a gallop

The testing uses the Orono Biomechanical Surface Tester, or OBST. According to the laboratory, the machine duplicates the speed, directions and loads of a Thoroughbred’s leading foreleg at a gallop. It has been used on more than 60 racing and training surfaces in the United States and Canada.

The report focuses on three measurements:

• Cushioning: The peak vertical force recorded during the machine’s impact with the surface.
• Slide: The peak forward-and-backward force recorded during impact. Although called “slide,” this measurement is a force, not the distance a hoof slips.
• Impact firmness: The peak vertical deceleration recorded when the testing device strikes the surface, describing how abruptly it slows on contact.

Together, these measurements help describe how the surface responds to loading similar to that produced by a galloping horse.

What the comparisons show

The clearest encouraging result is the relatively small spread in Laurel’s measurements thereby demonstrating consistency at a certain path at all points around the racetrack.

The table below shows the reported standard deviation—a measure of how widely readings vary around their average. Smaller numbers mean the readings are more closely grouped. Comparisons should be made across each row because the measurements use different units.

Laurel Park’s cushioning and slide readings were more tightly grouped than those in the average-variation example. Its impact-firmness readings were slightly more tightly grouped. All three measures showed substantially less variation than the high-variation example.

These are comparisons with two examples selected by the laboratory, rather than a ranking of Laurel against every track it tests. Even so, they provide useful context: Laurel’s results show a narrower spread of measured responses, particularly compared with the high-variation surface.

What horsemen should take from the report

The findings support confidence in the consistency measured on August 24, while also identifying details that deserve continued attention.

The laboratory found statistically significant differences between the seven-foot and 15-foot testing lanes in all three measures. That means the lanes did not respond identically, even though the overall spread of Laurel’s readings was relatively small. The report does not establish whether those differences have practical safety implications.

Likewise, a lower average force reading is not automatically a better or safer result. The strongest message from these comparisons concerns consistency.

Surface testing also captures conditions at a particular time. Weather, moisture and use can change those conditions, which is why periodic biomechanical testing and daily surface monitoring serve complementary purposes. Research on racing-surface measurement supports that approach.

According to John Banno, the testing results are submitted to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, although the comparative examples are not included in that submission.

For Laurel horsemen, the report offers a concrete reason for reassurance: across three important measurements, the tested surface showed less variation than either comparison example. Continued monitoring, maintenance and attention to horsemen’s observations remain essential to sustaining that confidence.

‍