ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 736
Jun 28 10 10:44 AM
Posts: 2398
Jun 28 10 10:51 AM
Yeah. I'm Cool.
Posts: 29092
Jun 28 10 12:08 PM
Valo wrote: FiSH Posting Rulez: Step 1: Insult them, tell them they have no life and use your choice of derogatory name(s). Step 2: Make sure they understand that *they* are the bad person in this situation. It doesn't matter if you are wrong/crazy/begging. They are truly the bad person. Step 3: Once again insult their lack of life, state they have nothing better to do than bash good, innocent people like yourself.Step 4: Tell them you have better, important things to do than argue with them. This will once again remind them they have no life, making them incredibly jealous of you. Remember, they only said mean things to you because *they* ARE jealous of you!Step 5: Pack up your toys and leave.Congratulations! You have successfully shown the forum who is "boss."
Posts: 4001
Jun 28 10 12:15 PM
Posts: 1407
Jun 28 10 12:57 PM
3dayz wrote:Just the scientific side of me looking at the other side of the correlation, but what if it is that the larger more successful farms(who most likely have better stallions/mares and better quality foals) all generally start their horses as long yearlings/2yr olds? And then those with less resources and maybe less quality foals, wait longer?
Posts: 75
Jun 28 10 1:22 PM
Posts: 7097
Jun 28 10 1:43 PM
slvrblltday wrote: 3dayz wrote: Just the scientific side of me looking at the other side of the correlation, but what if it is that the larger more successful farms(who most likely have better stallions/mares and better quality foals) all generally start their horses as long yearlings/2yr olds? And then those with less resources and maybe less quality foals, wait longer?That isn't really the case. If anything a larger farm is more inclined to have a richer owner and therefore be in less a hurry to make back in the investment and therefore can afford to wait. Smaller owners and partnerships, which make up the majority of US starters' ownership, usually have more of a financial incentive to start young as they have more pressure to get a ROI and quickly if possible. If anything, this fact means stats taken from only lower level tracks or only higher level tracks might be biased (as lower level tracks might have more people pushing for 2yo starters and of a lesser quality), but they have taken stats from a huge pool of differing tracks Churchill Downs to Zia Park.I do think you are right though, that are are so many subjective variables that it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions in regard to statistical studies. Which is why I defer to the opinion of DVMs like Larry Bramlagewho have done medical research in the area. Their findings support that racing 2yos is to their benefit as racehorses.
3dayz wrote: Just the scientific side of me looking at the other side of the correlation, but what if it is that the larger more successful farms(who most likely have better stallions/mares and better quality foals) all generally start their horses as long yearlings/2yr olds? And then those with less resources and maybe less quality foals, wait longer?
Jun 28 10 2:33 PM
praised2 wrote:slvrblltday wrote: 3dayz wrote: Just the scientific side of me looking at the other side of the correlation, but what if it is that the larger more successful farms(who most likely have better stallions/mares and better quality foals) all generally start their horses as long yearlings/2yr olds? And then those with less resources and maybe less quality foals, wait longer?That isn't really the case. If anything a larger farm is more inclined to have a richer owner and therefore be in less a hurry to make back in the investment and therefore can afford to wait. Smaller owners and partnerships, which make up the majority of US starters' ownership, usually have more of a financial incentive to start young as they have more pressure to get a ROI and quickly if possible. If anything, this fact means stats taken from only lower level tracks or only higher level tracks might be biased (as lower level tracks might have more people pushing for 2yo starters and of a lesser quality), but they have taken stats from a huge pool of differing tracks Churchill Downs to Zia Park.I do think you are right though, that are are so many subjective variables that it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions in regard to statistical studies. Which is why I defer to the opinion of DVMs like Larry Bramlagewho have done medical research in the area. Their findings support that racing 2yos is to their benefit as racehorses. Did they state the reasons for the horses not being in races at two year olds? was this a controlled study? those could be very subjective variables if it's just taking in acount ones that don't race until three for unknown reasons., such as sickness, weaker builds getting hurt in the fields.. locked in stalls ect ect..It's like when they say there is less mental illness amongst married people, well duh, mentally ill people have a hard time taking care of them selves I'm sure it's hard enough to date when your mentality ill much less have a long term marriage and finding a partner VS a mentally stable person .. I'm not sure being marriaed keeps one from mental illness BC I've felt my marriage was going to drive me crazy a few times...:P
In the age categories, 2-year-olds had the lowest percentage of CEDNFs, 0.21%, with each succeeding year going up slightly in percentage. Horses that began their racing careers at 2 also had a lower CEDNF percentage than horses that began their careers at 3 and upward. One explanation for this might be that exercise of young horses strengthens the musculoskeletal system. Another is that physical conditions that may have prevented a horse from starting at 2, on average at least, never fully disappeared and their reemergence ended a horse’s career.
Posts: 15704
Jun 28 10 2:39 PM
Jun 28 10 2:44 PM
Posts: 23260
Jun 28 10 9:00 PM
goflippr wrote: I seriously want to kiss NG.
Posts: 6200
Jun 29 10 12:25 AM
3dayz wrote: Just the scientific side of me looking at the other side of the correlation, but what if it is that the larger more successful farms(who most likely have better stallions/mares and better quality foals) all generally start their horses as long yearlings/2yr olds? And then those with less resources and maybe less quality foals, wait longer?Not arguing the findings, I don't have enough knowledge in the field to do that. Just pointing out the findings are correlational and hence there may be other factors here. What I would like to see is a group of farms each split their herd into 2. One group they start as long yearlings, the others the wait a bit(groups are split randomly) and then see how the horses turn out.
Trial-by-fieldwork distinguishes us from neighbouring tribes: the namby-pampy sociologists and social psychologists with whom we might be otherwise - God forbid - easily be confused - Kate Fox
Jun 29 10 4:32 AM
Posts: 7839
Jun 29 10 4:38 AM
Posts: 8884
Jun 29 10 4:53 AM
Posts: 8303
Jun 29 10 5:10 AM
Jun 29 10 5:19 AM
sunridge1 wrote:I'm having a real hard time buying this "evidence".
Jun 29 10 5:20 AM
baxtersmom wrote: Is there a link to the actual data from this?
Posts: 4120
Jun 29 10 5:56 AM
Jun 29 10 5:57 AM
slvrblltday wrote:From the Thoroughbred Safety Committee on Soundness Issues:Charge number one: The training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds is predisposing these horses to accelerated rates of injury and prematurely shortened careers. This charge is leveled by some people in and out of the horse industry, especially people outside of racing. It is a very popular theme with animal welfare organizations that are ill informed on the topic of racing and the horse; it is also parroted frequently in the popular press. To examine these data The Jockey Club Information Systems extracted one-year windows at five-year intervals, using the years 1975 through 2000 as data sets. Horses were divided into the categories "raced as two-year-olds" and "raced, but not as two-year-olds." The data shows a definitive answer to this charge. The first category of data examined was average starts per starter lifetime. The data shows that horses that raced as 2-year-olds raced many more times in their lifetime in each of the years examined when compared to horses that did not race until after their 2-year-old season. Some of these starts were made in the 2-year-old year for the horses that raced at 2, but the difference was more marked than the 2-year-old year alone would account for. Average lifetime earnings per starter for horses that raced as 2-year-olds are almost twice the amount earned by horses that did not race as 2-year-olds. Career average earnings per start for horses that raced as 2-year-olds exceeded average earnings per start for horses that did not race as 2-year-olds in every one of the years from 1975 to 2000 examined. Lastly, the percent stakes winners in horses that raced as 2-year-olds is nearly three times higher than in horses that did not race until their 3-year-old year or later. This data is definitive. It shows that horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are much more successful, have much longer careers, and, by extrapolation, show less predisposition to injury than horses that did not begin racing until their 3-year-old year. It is absolute on all the data sets that the training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds has no ill effect on the horses' race-career longevity or quality. In fact, the data would indicate that the ability to make at least one start as a 2-year-old has a very strong positive affect on the longevity and success of a racehorse. This strong positive effect on the quality and quantity of performance would make it impossible to argue that these horses that race as 2-year-olds are compromised. These data strongly support the physiologic premise that it is easier for a horse to adapt to training when training begins at the end of skeletal growth. Initiation of training at the end of growth takes advantage of the established blood supply and cell populations that are then converted from growth to the adaptation to training. It is much more difficult for a horse to adapt to training after the musculoskeletal system is allowed to atrophy at the end of growth because the bone formation support system that is still present in the adolescent horse must be re-created in the skeletally mature horse that initiates training.
Charge number one: The training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds is predisposing these horses to accelerated rates of injury and prematurely shortened careers. This charge is leveled by some people in and out of the horse industry, especially people outside of racing. It is a very popular theme with animal welfare organizations that are ill informed on the topic of racing and the horse; it is also parroted frequently in the popular press. To examine these data The Jockey Club Information Systems extracted one-year windows at five-year intervals, using the years 1975 through 2000 as data sets. Horses were divided into the categories "raced as two-year-olds" and "raced, but not as two-year-olds." The data shows a definitive answer to this charge. The first category of data examined was average starts per starter lifetime. The data shows that horses that raced as 2-year-olds raced many more times in their lifetime in each of the years examined when compared to horses that did not race until after their 2-year-old season. Some of these starts were made in the 2-year-old year for the horses that raced at 2, but the difference was more marked than the 2-year-old year alone would account for. Average lifetime earnings per starter for horses that raced as 2-year-olds are almost twice the amount earned by horses that did not race as 2-year-olds. Career average earnings per start for horses that raced as 2-year-olds exceeded average earnings per start for horses that did not race as 2-year-olds in every one of the years from 1975 to 2000 examined. Lastly, the percent stakes winners in horses that raced as 2-year-olds is nearly three times higher than in horses that did not race until their 3-year-old year or later. This data is definitive. It shows that horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are much more successful, have much longer careers, and, by extrapolation, show less predisposition to injury than horses that did not begin racing until their 3-year-old year. It is absolute on all the data sets that the training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds has no ill effect on the horses' race-career longevity or quality. In fact, the data would indicate that the ability to make at least one start as a 2-year-old has a very strong positive affect on the longevity and success of a racehorse. This strong positive effect on the quality and quantity of performance would make it impossible to argue that these horses that race as 2-year-olds are compromised. These data strongly support the physiologic premise that it is easier for a horse to adapt to training when training begins at the end of skeletal growth. Initiation of training at the end of growth takes advantage of the established blood supply and cell populations that are then converted from growth to the adaptation to training. It is much more difficult for a horse to adapt to training after the musculoskeletal system is allowed to atrophy at the end of growth because the bone formation support system that is still present in the adolescent horse must be re-created in the skeletally mature horse that initiates training.
This charge is leveled by some people in and out of the horse industry, especially people outside of racing. It is a very popular theme with animal welfare organizations that are ill informed on the topic of racing and the horse; it is also parroted frequently in the popular press.
To examine these data The Jockey Club Information Systems extracted one-year windows at five-year intervals, using the years 1975 through 2000 as data sets. Horses were divided into the categories "raced as two-year-olds" and "raced, but not as two-year-olds." The data shows a definitive answer to this charge.
The first category of data examined was average starts per starter lifetime. The data shows that horses that raced as 2-year-olds raced many more times in their lifetime in each of the years examined when compared to horses that did not race until after their 2-year-old season. Some of these starts were made in the 2-year-old year for the horses that raced at 2, but the difference was more marked than the 2-year-old year alone would account for.
Average lifetime earnings per starter for horses that raced as 2-year-olds are almost twice the amount earned by horses that did not race as 2-year-olds. Career average earnings per start for horses that raced as 2-year-olds exceeded average earnings per start for horses that did not race as 2-year-olds in every one of the years from 1975 to 2000 examined. Lastly, the percent stakes winners in horses that raced as 2-year-olds is nearly three times higher than in horses that did not race until their 3-year-old year or later.
This data is definitive. It shows that horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are much more successful, have much longer careers, and, by extrapolation, show less predisposition to injury than horses that did not begin racing until their 3-year-old year. It is absolute on all the data sets that the training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds has no ill effect on the horses' race-career longevity or quality. In fact, the data would indicate that the ability to make at least one start as a 2-year-old has a very strong positive affect on the longevity and success of a racehorse. This strong positive effect on the quality and quantity of performance would make it impossible to argue that these horses that race as 2-year-olds are compromised.
These data strongly support the physiologic premise that it is easier for a horse to adapt to training when training begins at the end of skeletal growth. Initiation of training at the end of growth takes advantage of the established blood supply and cell populations that are then converted from growth to the adaptation to training. It is much more difficult for a horse to adapt to training after the musculoskeletal system is allowed to atrophy at the end of growth because the bone formation support system that is still present in the adolescent horse must be re-created in the skeletally mature horse that initiates training.
Share This