Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro
It is when it's not factual. I don't believe you can make generalized statements like that when in fact race times across the board particularly on dirt Stakes races have been getting slower year after year since drugs were legalized.
In fact, there's no comparison between recent race times and the years before drugs were permitted. As an example, I defy anyone to prove that the times for the KY Derby have been getting faster since Lasix was introduced.
|
Ever consider racetracks might be getting slower, maybe for safety reasons?
Here is one link of several available that explains why you can't just look at raw times:
http://www.espn.com/horse/columns/misc/1923297.html
It is tougher to study now because nearly all horses (until this year in some circuits) run on Lasix for all starts. But it wasn't always this way and it was easy to study the increase in speed for horses adding Lasix. I'm not talking about horses that bled badly and obviously needed it, but during the era when others starting using it just because. What was the just because? It didn't take long for other trainers to figure out those running on Lasix had a competitive advantage. That is how we wound up in the spot we are in where nearly every horse gets it, need it or not.
There are way too many variables in horse racing to compare across eras. You have to compare individual horses running with and without Lasix and see when they run faster.
