CD - anybody see this?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by justindew

We've all heard the argument that goes something like this:

"Horses that race as two-year-olds go on to have longer careers than horses that do NOT race as two-year-olds."

In the case of the horses that race at age two, isn't it possible that the same "good fortune" that made the earlier start possible also responsible for the fact that they have longer careers?

In other words, maybe these horses are just healthier to begin with. Which would mean the statistics are misleading.

Just a thought.

Well, it's not an "argument" I'm referring to, as much as the peer-reviewed research that actually looked at work, starts, age, then drew conclusions.

The work that the AAEP uses to support it's position statement on the racing of young horses?