Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj
You can always find factors to fit other arguments.
Sadly, many trainers and owners try for "one more run" when horses are declining rather than retiring them or giving them time off. Now, don't get me wrong, the same thing happens if purses aren't good sometimes. But I don't see how anyone can deny that increasing purses well above the value of the horses in question doesn't further the incentive to not do right by the horse.
I don't have stats. But give me a slow Monday or Tuesday, not BC week, and I'll give a list of 30 or 40 horses from this year alone that broke down after very suspicious drops. Horses break down for many reasons of course, not always anything neglectful, but I'm 100% positive the rate increases on horses like this. I've been doing this too long to think differently.
One other thing, we usually know what happens to top horses. Many times these cheap claimers just vanish from the scene, never to be raced again. How could we possibly have any reliable stats? My database is full of horses that weren't reported as breakdowns but were never heard from again.
|
Of course suspicious class-drops are a red flag, but they aren't the ONLY form trait that implies unsoundess. And horses take negative drops at all tracks-not just those with disproportionate bottom purses. And, beyond that, we could debate what constitutes a suspicious class drop.
Let's be very precise and stay on point here, I didn't contend that breakdown rates aren't more common in cheap races-just that i've seen no proof of a correlation with minimum purse levels.
And you seem to be saying that beefed-up bottom purses make horses disappear. That's not only a reach, it's impossible to verify. Do you think 3k claimers at beu don't go m.i.a.?
