Nice editorial

[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...