Nope. The onus shouldn't be on the side of the people that think something is fine to prove that it's fine, it should be on the group that thinks it's broken to prove that it's broken. Nobody should have to fight to prove that the status quo shouldn't change, but if you want to change the status quo, I'd assume you have better research in your arsenal than "I think...".Catalina wrote:So make a list of those horses and keep checking on them through 12/31/2015.dustino140 wrote:If you were to get rid of horses that run back frequently, you'd be putting a lot of smaller tracks out of business. Look at the PPs for a Mountaineer, Finger Lakes, Belterra, Mahoning Valley, any of the fair circuits, etc. and you'll see horses every single day that are running back on short rest. And until anybody can prove that such action is a contributor to breakdown, which I do not believe, saying things like "because they can handle it until they breakdown" is sensationalist talk that has absolutely no basis and could be applied to any subgroup of racehorses. I'd argue that running those horses with that frequency, and training through racing (not fast 4-5f workouts) may actually be beneficial to their health, instead of a detriment to it.Catalina wrote: Because they can handle it until they break down? I think at some point you run into a deficit in bone remodeling. Plus, of course, NYRA doesn't want to include the inner track as a significant contributor to the problem.
For the sake of this conversation, though, I went through the entries at Mahoning Valley today and 20 horses are entered to run off a layoff of 14 days or less. 20 horses in 1 card. Another dozen or so are running back off a 16 day layoff. And that's the norm. So let's please not sit back behind our keyboard, only follow the highest levels of racing, and pretend that horses aren't capable of running every 2 weeks, especially if there isn't evidence (which I'm waiting for you to present) that indicates that running a horse back in 14 days (instead of 15+) puts them at a higher risk for injury.
I'm all for policing the trainers and making the game safer by creating meaningful policies, but throwing together arbitrary rules that hurt the owners and trainers for the sake of good public opinion (which is a sinking ship anyway) isn't the way of going about it. If you really want to police this, as I've said all along, the best way to do so, IMO, is to punish trainers (punitive or suspensions) for their breakdowns. Start hitting them in the wallet when their horse snaps a leg at the quarter pole because they're trying to squeeze another start out of a sore horse and then things may change.