Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Your stats are not really that revealing because they are just three plain numbers that are completely without context or reasoning. Just 3 seemingly random numbers.
Now if you would take the time to examine the conditions of the horses who broke down and incorporated that data into the mix we would have a better idea of what the original numbers mean.
If 10 out of the 12 breakdowns this year were big dropdowns in class (25k to 5k for example) then those would have to be considered suspicous and taken in that context. On the same note the previous years breakdowns should be analyzed also. To use such a small sample size and count breakdowns in obvious negative situations and horses in Stakes or allowance races as the same is misleading.
Now I remember this discussion coming up in August and after reviewing the horses who had not finished one week, 2 were big drops, one was a cheap horse with rapidly deteoritating form, and one was reported to have had a heart attack. What most of you dont understand and the few of you that should refuse to acknowledge is that many horses who breakdown were put into that position by the human connections and were probably doomed eventually regardless of surface. The propaganda put out by the tracks making this stuff seem so much safer than dirt has led to many owners sending sore horses to run over these tracks as though they would heal thier brokedown legs. The fact is that in 90% of the breakdowns, the surface has nothing to do with it.
|
so, where does that leave us? the horses that are well handled--will they be better off, while those that are poorly handled are worse off? or should we completely ignore the 'poly is safer' mantra? if so, then why the move to an artificial surface? is it better over all, or did it have more to do with keeping full fields regardless of weather? how many of these tracks that made the change needed to, and how many are better then they were before? how many are worse?