Nice editorial

[Riot]

The modern thoroughbred traces from middle eastern descent. There is a whole lot more dirt than grass in the middle east.

On the sire side. Not the dam. There's alot of cobblestones and English fields in there, too

I did not make up the fact that there has been very little to spotty record keeping in regards to breakdown information prior to current efforts.

Strange you say that. There's plenty of record keeping there in the medical literature, from the 1980's to current: harness, grass, Euro, Australia, dirt, jumping.

As I said there is little accurate information to compare it to therefore the findings should be viewed skeptically.

I find that untrue with what I have read.

And I hate to see when a horse breaks down on a dirt surface the predictable few who sarcastically say, "See we need synthetic surfaces, these dirt tracks aren't safe!"

That's why it's best if facts, rather than emotion, contributes most to the conversation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

On the sire side. Not the dam. There's alot of cobblestones and English fields in there, too



Strange you say that. There's plenty of record keeping there in the medical literature, from the 1980's to current: harness, grass, Euro, Australia, dirt, jumping.



I find that untrue with what I have read.



That's why it's best if facts, rather than emotion, contributes most to the conversation.

The thoroughbred descends from middle eastern stallions. There is a lot of dirt in the middle east. It's pretty simple.

What does records from Harness racing, grass racing, European racing, Australia or jumping have to do with the lack of breakdown stats from American dirt tracks?

And since the jockey club's Equine Injury database is only 2 years old and still doesnt have cooperation from all tracks I find it hard to believe that there is a whole lot of accurate data from prior years.

And the initial findings of the databank is there is little to no statistical variance between breakdown rates on different surfaces.

[Riot]

The thoroughbred descends from middle eastern stallions. There is a lot of dirt in the middle east. It's pretty simple.

Sure. If you ignore that the breed wasn't developed in the middle east, but developed after the three Arabian sires were imported, and was developed primarily in England from fairly common mares. Pretty simple that Arabian sands were never involved. Let alone dirt.

What does records from Harness racing, grass racing, European racing, Australia or jumping have to do with the lack of breakdown stats from American dirt tracks?

There's breakdown stats on American tracks. For example, how about the NY tracks in the 1980's? Compare America to Europe, to Australia. Flat to hurdles. Harness. Lots of good info.

And since the jockey club's Equine Injury database is only 2 years old and still doesnt have cooperation from all tracks I find it hard to believe that there is a whole lot of accurate data from prior years.

Current data has zero bearing on what was available before it existed. As I said, go read the multiple scientific studies on PubMed. You know they are there. They've been mentioned before. And mentioned multiple times when artificial surfaces first were discussed. In fact, those stats contributed to the development of artificial surfaces.

And the initial findings of the databank is there is little to no statistical variance between breakdown rates on different surfaces.

As someone who is knowledgable of the concept of "statistical significance", you know that one final quarter affecting a years data doesn't give you much of that, does it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sure. If you ignore that the breed wasn't developed in the middle east, but developed after the three Arabian sires were imported, and was developed primarily in England from fairly common mares. Pretty simple that Arabian sands were never involved. Let alone dirt.



There's breakdown stats on American tracks. For example, how about the NY tracks in the 1980's? Compare America to Europe, to Australia. Flat to hurdles. Harness. Lots of good info.



Current data has zero bearing on what was available before it existed. As I said, go read the multiple scientific studies on PubMed. You know they are there. They've been mentioned before. And mentioned multiple times when artificial surfaces first were discussed. In fact, those stats contributed to the development of artificial surfaces.



As someone who is knowledgable of the concept of "statistical significance", you know that one final quarter affecting a years data doesn't give you much of that, does it?

Dirt is no less natural to horses than grass.

The breakdown stats were a mess until they started tracking and keeping them them recently. The whole point of establishing the databank was that there was nobody accurately doing it before. And comparing different breeds or countries especially with incomplete data is a gigantic waste of time.

You cant use the stats to say that synthetic tracks are safer then discount the same stats saying that they aren't. I know the entire process is seriously flawed and pretty much discount the entire thing. Synthetic surfaces are not better or worse in my experience in training on them. They create a lot of different issues and there are many problems that are unique to synthetics.

[Riot]

The breakdown stats were a mess until they started tracking and keeping them them recently. The whole point of establishing the databank was that there was nobody accurately doing it before. And comparing different breeds or countries especially with incomplete data is a gigantic waste of time.

The stats I'm talking about are peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Sorry to see you call all that research, "a gigantic waste of time", especially as you admit you've not looked at any of it.

You cant use the stats to say that synthetic tracks are safer then discount the same stats saying that they aren't.

I didn't say that - I said that's not been proven statistically significant yet. It may, over time.

I know the entire process is seriously flawed and pretty much discount the entire thing.

Out of hand. Very well. Okay.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The stats I'm talking about are peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Sorry to see you call all that research, "a gigantic waste of time", especially as you admit you've not looked at any of it.



I didn't say that - I said that's not been proven statistically significant yet. It may, over time.



Out of hand. Very well. Okay.

Peer reviewed scientific study sounds really important until you realize that the reporting of breakdowns and/or injuries has not been done on a whole scale, organized manner until 2 years ago. So all those genius scientists must have had magic wands to interpret data that was incomplete at best and misleading at worst.

Comparing trotters and thoroughbred turf horses seems like an apples and oranges argument.

It also may not over time. It is all just speculation as are most of the conclusions that have been reached so far. So saying that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt tracks is not backed by valid numbers.

Useless is useless.

[Indian Charlie]

Cannon.

Quit wasting your time with Riot.

Riot is incapable of conceding even the smallest point when clearly wrong.

[Riot]

Peer reviewed scientific study sounds really important until you realize that the reporting of breakdowns and/or injuries has not been done on a whole scale, organized manner until 2 years ago. So all those genius scientists must have had magic wands to interpret data that was incomplete at best and misleading at worst.

Of course, you've never read any of it, you haven't the first clue what the past 30 years contains from numerous sources across three continents.

But you know it's "incomplete at best and misleading at worse".