Nice editorial

[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".

[Antitrust32]

^^ can't believe Cannon dared to question Jesus!! oops I meant Riot!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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".

When they came up with the idea to start the Jockey Club Equine Injury data base they were pretty clear when discussing the need for such a project. We were told that the data that had been collected over the years was woefully insufficient and completely unorganized.

I suppose they were lying.

Because the "scientific community" has done such a great job with track surfaces...