![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
This study is a joke. To think that someone actually wasted money on this rubbish is scary. So if Pletcher took his horses and changed stables with a guy at River Downs he would be 90% as sucessful because of the care given and his jockeys.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
I read what the study said a little differently - simply that there is no direct correlation between cost of horse and performance. Which isn't earth-shattering news
I agree with the "waste of money" part.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
All they did was compare stud fees to progeny winnings. They found those horses with the highest stud fee didn't necessarily have the progeny with the most earnings. That's not a surprise!
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
The study used 4000 horses starting in 1922. What 4000 out of the hundreds of thousands bred in the UK since 1922 did they use?
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm with Chuck.....the whole thing is laughable. Of course there are many factors ( except riders ) that can help lead to success. They didn't " discover " anything that common sense couldn't have.
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|