Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
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.
|
oh, come now cannon. it's obviously connected. and i'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact we haven't had a t.c. winner since the 70's-i have no doubt that's also the fault of lasix. it's obvious, look at the stats. lasix started in the 70's, and that was when we had our last 3. it's far-reaching at that. look at england; has there been a triple winner in england since nijunsky II?
matter of fact, we started having energy issues in the 70's-i bet there's a tie-in with that as well. it's so obvious, just look at the stats.
besides, if you remove lasix, obviously all issues in racing will completely disappear. new fans will line up at gates nationwide, take out will be reduced, there will be no more cheating at all. horses will all do their very best without pernicious race-day meds that are ruining the sport (somehow), the number of starts will double...nay, triple. all of racings ills fixed in one fell swoop!! then we can lead all the others worldwide who allow training and race day use to the promised land.
lol
or not.