@horseadata@BillFinley3@TrainerCMartin Look at the TDN comments section. Someone literally said cheap tracks are a threat to racing ππ
The owner made it look like the horse was running here lol
@EGamerozo@cocoarini@al1ysnmarie Injuries and deaths are part of horse welfare, but horse welfare overall is broader than that. It includes physical health, musculoskeletal soundness, recovery, stress, long-term well-being, etc.
@cocoarini Appreciate the discussion. US racing, while it has its flaws, is still a really exciting and unique sport, and I hope you keep following and engaging with it. (2/2)
@cocoarini Horse welfare absolutely comes first, 100% agree. The question is whether thereβs actual evidence that changing the schedule would reduce injuries or fatalities in practice, and I honestly believe that comparative evidence and proof is needed to change the schedule. (1/2)
@cocoarini Inference is useful here, but it still needs to be tested with comparative evidence/proof before coming to the conclusion that the Triple Crown schedule itself is the problem or should be changed. (2/2)
@cocoarini Trainer/owner decisions to skip races donβt automatically mean the current schedule is unsafe, as they can reflect fitness, strategy, horse development, individual condition or (unfortunately) preserving future breeding value. (1/2)
@cocoarini However the question is whether thereβs actual evidence or proof that changing the Triple Crown schedule actually reduces injuries or fatalities compared to the current format. Changes like this require comparative data imo, not inference. (2/2)
@cocoarini Source 3:
This shows that intense exercise can increase physiological stress and injury risk, which is general equine physiology, but it still does not involve race schedules or provide evidence that extending a multi-race series of any kind improves welfare outcomes in practice.
@cocoarini Source 2:
This involves training practices and injury correlations in AUS. It shows training load and rest patterns are associated with injury risk, which is true, but it does not evaluate race schedules or show that extending any multi-race series reduces injuries or fatalities.
@cocoarini Source 1:
This is a claim and modelling study about stress and injury, not evidence about a multi-race schedule like the TC. Where is the comparative data showing that extending these races, or any Triple Crown schedule elsewhere, reduces injuries or fatalities in practice?
@cocoarini@al1ysnmarie That's not my claim. I said there's no clear evidence that extending the schedule would reduce injuries or deaths. If it's a horse welfare argument, supporters of the change need to show clear evidence that a longer schedule improves welfare outcomes. What evidence supports that?
@cocoarini@al1ysnmarie The US Triple Crown is meant to test elite performance, durability, recovery, etc. over 3 races in 5 weeks. If there's no significant evidence that a longer schedule improves welfare, then why lower the difficulty of the Triple Crown? (2/2)
@cocoarini@al1ysnmarie Horse welfare is essential and imperative, but there is no clear evidence that extending the schedule would actually reduce injuries or fatalities. (1/2)
@barstoolsports For anyone still curious or interested in horse racing, check out Equibase, it lists all upcoming races and results, and lets you follow specific horses, trainers and jockeys. You can also watch racing live on FanDuel TV (24/7) and Fox Sports 1/Fox Sports 2 on weekends.
@catturd2 For anyone still curious or interested in horse racing, check out Equibase, it lists all upcoming races and results, and lets you follow specific horses, trainers and jockeys. You can also watch racing live on FanDuel TV (24/7) and Fox Sports 1/Fox Sports 2 on weekends.