Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “ If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”
This is not true.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10
The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.
Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20
This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used. There was a larger drop off between1960-1990 (pre widely used lasix) than 1990-2011 timeframe which Hancock uses. Using these numbers as evidence that lasix is the chief cause for horses running less often is a joke or as Riot would say, a lie.
At some point I wish someone would point out this little chart to them which is especially ironic considering that the information is free to all at the Jockey Club website. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is typical of this industry to use made up theoretical numbers because thats what people believe is their recollection as opposed to actual data which is big reason why things never get fixed. |
Seems to be more of a descent from the 80s on. Is that due to a greater emphasis on breed to sell and record auction prices vs. the traditional homebred operations? It was my understanding that the decade of the 1980s was where a yearling sales bubble developed. Surely there's a shortening of careers as a result when getting their babies in the ring is an objective of increasing importance.