"He beat nothing"

[Payson Dave]

Interesting discussion.....

Regarding the study/conclusion that horses that race at two tend to break down less than horses that don't races until three....

just wondering here...
if we take 4 categories of racehorses:
A) Sound 2yo's that race at two
B) Sound 2yo's that don't race at two
C) Un-sound 2yo's that race at two
D) Un-sound 2yo's that don't race at two


First... is there a value in defining "racing career"....is it number of starts or is it age at retirement from racing.

Irregardless...I'm guessing that the first two categories are more likely to result in longer racing careers ....(in general it would seem that starting off sound is better than starting off unsound)

?? In general would Category C & D horses be statistically more likely to breakdown than Category A & B

?? In general are there more Category A horses than Category B horses....

Statistically if starting off sound is better than starting off unsound... and if there are more sound 2yo racers than sound 2yo non-racers....then it seems likely that the category that shows the greatest number of horses with longer racing careers will come from Category A

just wondering is it really the racing at two that promotes the longer careers or is it the way the numbers are sliced and diced???

btw I'm an advocate of 2yo racing...2yo mdns are my bread and butter

hmmmm ... .....