[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

I have no doubt that there are more dirt tracks with lower quality horses who are more likely to breakdown than there are on synthetic tracks, but that is a very different flaw in the study and the statistics than what I am suggesting.

What I am saying is that there is a flaw in the entire study as it makes an assumption regarding all the data that cannot be proven to be true, that is, it assumes that every breakdown is caused by the surface itself which simply is not true. Scientifically, such a flaw makes the data completely unreliable for the conclusion that those who claim that synthetic surfaces are safer want to draw from the data.

When Drape trots out the breakdown rate for polytrack at Keeneland, he should at least present his readers with the statistics for Keeneland's prior dirt track instead of using the rate for all dirt tracks between 2009 and 2013 for comparison. But then I suppose he wouldn't be able to use the dramatic "six-times-greater" phrase.

If the Jockey Club really believes that synthetic tracks are inherently safer than dirt tracks, then perhaps some of the board members should set an example for everyone else by not racing any of their horses on traditional dirt surfaces.

and a trophy for you too!