Quote:
|
The main thing is the breed is very fragile, because of speed breeding etc. Whatever the reason, it isn't gunna change quickly(and maybe not at all.) What you're basically saying is if you have a bleeding arm, then fix what caused it (instead of 1st putting a tourniquet on the arm.) The only way I can see them being able to race on dirt out here is to race 9 or 10 months a year(instead of 12.)
|
Statistics show us that the decline in starts by US thoroughbreds dates back to the early 1960s and continues, fairly steadily, to today.
You would blame this on year-round racing. (Never mind that major winter-racing had been in existence since the 1930s, a time when there was significant racing into November in Maryland - and yes, stables shipped from circuit to circuit with regularity.) You would blame this on dirt racing. (Never mind that dirt racing has been standard in the US since the first half of the 1800s and until the 1950s, few US tracks had turf courses.) You would blame this on breeding for precocious and speedy horses. (Never mind that trends toward precocity and speed are nearly 200 years old; from the 1880s through the early 1970s, many of the richest races of the year in the US were for 2YOs and until the latter years, most were at sprint distances.) You would blame this on unsound bloodstock. (Never mind that there have always been unsound individuals, some of which proved to be prominent pedigree influences.)
Since none of these factors were emerging or increasing at the time the problem began, I cannot even reasonably correlate them, let alone argue a cause-and-effect relationship. How do you? Since there are numerous things which actually have changed in the last 50 years, why not consider whether some of them might possibly have something to do with the situation?