Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Some people think that lasix is one of the reasons why horses run less now than they did 30 years ago. I don't know whether this is true or not. I think it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. I know that you do not think it is true.
My question to you is whether you think the opposite is true. Do you believe that the advent of lasix has actually increased the number of starts per horse, per year (when the other factors that have decreased starts are taken out of the equation)? If everything Riot says about lasix is true, lasix should actually increase the number of starts per year, per horse. Yet I think that all the evidence points to the opposite. Sure there may be other reasons why starts per year have gone down. But I still think the best case scenario is that lasix has had no effect on number of starts per horse, per year. If it has no effect, then I think all the supposed positive benefits are overstated. We know that when a horse bleeds in a race, that horse will need extra time off before his next race. If lasix is doing such a great job of preventing bleeding, then you would expect that lasix would lead to more starts per year, per horse. There is no evidence that this has happened. If anything, the evidence points to the opposite.
|
Some people think Obama is one of our best presidents too. Most people are stupid. I have no idea why anyone would think this is a reasonable hypothesis because there is ZERO evidence tying lasix to fewer starts except a trend which was already going strong long befre lasix was being used.
The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1960.
You and many others use "stats" to try to convince yourself that you are right but that ignores that there is no logical reason that lasix would lead to less starts and also ignores every other factor that has an effect. Ask yourself why horses started more in 1960 than they did in 1950. Ask youself why they started less in 1970 than 1960. Lasix has nothing to do with either question obviously.