Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Sure. If you ignore that the breed wasn't developed in the middle east, but developed after the three Arabian sires were imported, and was developed primarily in England from fairly common mares. Pretty simple that Arabian sands were never involved. Let alone dirt.
There's breakdown stats on American tracks. For example, how about the NY tracks in the 1980's? Compare America to Europe, to Australia. Flat to hurdles. Harness. Lots of good info.
Current data has zero bearing on what was available before it existed. As I said, go read the multiple scientific studies on PubMed. You know they are there. They've been mentioned before. And mentioned multiple times when artificial surfaces first were discussed. In fact, those stats contributed to the development of artificial surfaces.
As someone who is knowledgable of the concept of "statistical significance", you know that one final quarter affecting a years data doesn't give you much of that, does it?
|
Dirt is no less natural to horses than grass.
The breakdown stats were a mess until they started tracking and keeping them them recently. The whole point of establishing the databank was that there was nobody accurately doing it before. And comparing different breeds or countries especially with incomplete data is a gigantic waste of time.
You cant use the stats to say that synthetic tracks are safer then discount the same stats saying that they aren't. I know the entire process is seriously flawed and pretty much discount the entire thing. Synthetic surfaces are not better or worse in my experience in training on them. They create a lot of different issues and there are many problems that are unique to synthetics.