Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kasept
THESE ARE TRAINERS WITH REAL HORSES... Mel Stute is saying that he's had as many horses break down in 2 years as he did in the previous 38. Shirreffs is saying his young horses are getting hurt. What other kind of observation is necessary from their perspective?
Honestly.. your approach to this makes any conversation impossible and virtually worthless. I won't bother with another response. Everyone else was tired of the nonsense from you and now I am as well.
|
Trainer David Hofmans says it's a Godsend for the industry. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Stronach was going to put dirt back in at Anita, but is leaning towards synthetic. Why? No, Stronach doesn't like synthetic. The trainers out here prefer it. A few don't prefer it. People have different training methods. I wouldn't say Stute is typical. He trains horses very hard. Calls it "being fit." Works great for horses when they go to Fairplex. Mullins prefers synthetic. Frankel prefers synthetic. Ron Ellis prefers synthetic. I think if ya had the numbers it's about like that(twice as many trainers out here prefer synthetic to dirt.) I saw an actual breakdown of that type of voting out here(by the trainers.) It was roughly 2 to 1. Hofmans,Mullins,Frankel,and Ellis would be in favor. Stute,and Shirreffs would be against. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Steve,you can craft and couch arguments (against synthetic) all you want,but you can't avoid that fact. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. This would not be the place to back up your argument against synthetic. We mainly had 4-6 horse fields. Now,we have bigger fields. The majority of trainers out here prefer synthetic. Do you really want to look out here to support your anti-synthetic stance?