Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Main Forum > The Paddock
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-04-2014, 01:24 PM
pointman's Avatar
pointman pointman is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robfla View Post
I would guess that there are far more breakdowns at lesser tracks BEU/LRL/CRC vs Saratoga/Delmar/Belmont simply due to quality of the horses running - regardless of surface
I have no doubt that there are more dirt tracks with lower quality horses who are more likely to breakdown than there are on synthetic tracks, but that is a very different flaw in the study and the statistics than what I am suggesting.

What I am saying is that there is a flaw in the entire study as it makes an assumption regarding all the data that cannot be proven to be true, that is, it assumes that every breakdown is caused by the surface itself which simply is not true. Scientifically, such a flaw makes the data completely unreliable for the conclusion that those who claim that synthetic surfaces are safer want to draw from the data.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-04-2014, 01:54 PM
DaTruth's Avatar
DaTruth DaTruth is offline
Churchill Downs
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,969
Default

When Drape trots out the breakdown rate for polytrack at Keeneland, he should at least present his readers with the statistics for Keeneland's prior dirt track instead of using the rate for all dirt tracks between 2009 and 2013 for comparison. But then I suppose he wouldn't be able to use the dramatic "six-times-greater" phrase.

If the Jockey Club really believes that synthetic tracks are inherently safer than dirt tracks, then perhaps some of the board members should set an example for everyone else by not racing any of their horses on traditional dirt surfaces.
__________________
Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner? You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really don't want me to go down there!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-04-2014, 01:54 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman View Post
I have no doubt that there are more dirt tracks with lower quality horses who are more likely to breakdown than there are on synthetic tracks, but that is a very different flaw in the study and the statistics than what I am suggesting.

What I am saying is that there is a flaw in the entire study as it makes an assumption regarding all the data that cannot be proven to be true, that is, it assumes that every breakdown is caused by the surface itself which simply is not true. Scientifically, such a flaw makes the data completely unreliable for the conclusion that those who claim that synthetic surfaces are safer want to draw from the data.


Quote:
When Drape trots out the breakdown rate for polytrack at Keeneland, he should at least present his readers with the statistics for Keeneland's prior dirt track instead of using the rate for all dirt tracks between 2009 and 2013 for comparison. But then I suppose he wouldn't be able to use the dramatic "six-times-greater" phrase.

If the Jockey Club really believes that synthetic tracks are inherently safer than dirt tracks, then perhaps some of the board members should set an example for everyone else by not racing any of their horses on traditional dirt surfaces.
and a trophy for you too!
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.