Breakdowns on Big days

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Really? Four breakdowns in the last five big days at Churchill, two of them fatal, and it's not more on big days?

i don't know that it's more, or less. there are more small days than big days, so i guess there would be more on small days...just because of the #'s involved. you'd also think that big horses would be taken care of better than the other horses, so they'd have less breakdowns. but they'd also get more coverage.
i just think, based on the fact that about 80% of the horses being raced are claimers, that they would also have more of the injuries-but less of the press.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know that it's more, or less. there are more small days than big days, so i guess there would be more on small days...just because of the #'s involved. you'd also think that big horses would be taken care of better than the other horses, so they'd have less breakdowns. but they'd also get more coverage.
i just think, based on the fact that about 80% of the horses being raced are claimers, that they would also have more of the injuries-but less of the press.

What? I'm talking frequency, not # of breakdowns. Of course there are more breakdowns on ****ing small days.

[eajinabi]

Does souping up the track make it better? To me it offers a bias like in 2006 BC where the rail was like a conveyer belt.

Ever wonder why horses hardly break down on turf on big days? Because the track superintendent cant do anything to soup it up.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What? I'm talking frequency, not # of breakdowns. Of course there are more breakdowns on ****ing small days.

oh...well damn joey, forgive me for not reading between the lines and understanding that when you said 'more' that you meant frequency and not number of.