|
|
 |
|
#7
03-18-2008, 01:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Don't forget that this study isn't about synthetic vs. not, it is about racetracks, and injuries, period. The goal is to help all horses, at all tracks.
Regarding the failure of CA tracks to be included - I understand the problem with not categorizing CA injuries in a manner consistent with Scollay's data collection, but I'm not sure I understand why they were not willing to change last year (pre-synthetic) and join in. I can't see where fear of losing their historical injury data references and continuity in the change from old to synthetic would be the overriding concern, versus being involved and contributory on a national level.
__________________
"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 
|
Threaded Mode