curious

"horses who did experience epistaxis stayed in training for 699 days. That was shorter than horses who experienced lower grades of EIPH. The low-level EIPH-positive group stayed in training an average of 842 days from import to Hong Kong until retirement"

I take it you still haven't completed your remedial reading classes Thommo. The study also concluded that horses diagnosed with higher grades of EIPH are more likely to register higher grades of EIPH in the future. Not surprisingly, horses who experience epistaxis are more likely to be retired for EIPH-related conditions than other EIPH-positive horses.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2021/06/17/senz-solidifies-commitment-to-racing/

To add to my comment about the WP story though I note that the 74 deaths referred to include deaths from illnesses in addition to breakdowns.

I didn't know we were discussing that review. I thought I commented on the erroneous use and conclusions of the WP article and the data they used. Unfortunately (for you Thommo) the now 8 year old review you are referring to reported: "No prohibited substances were detected" in the 7 cases and concluded: "There is no evidence whatsoever CHRB rules or regulations have been violated or any illicit activity played a part in the 7 sudden deaths" Good attempt to change the subject again though.

I don't think the breed has been weakened overall. I think it is better but there are some downsides. Recent reviews suggest that more speed and earlier maturity are a predictor of increased longevity. I'd like to see the drop in lifetime starts data and how that links to breeding and selection practices please Thommo. E.g., A faster workout time at a two-year-old in-training sale was associated with better short- and long-term racing outcomes [78,79], and starting a race as a two-year-old was a statistically significant predictor of many racing outcomes: more lifetime starts, more wins, more places, higher percentage of placings, more earnings, and a greater number of years raced [78].

Is there a drop?

We are not talking about undetected PEDs here. That's a job for the police to figure out how to detect them. We are talking about detected therapeutic drugs at non-therapeutic levels. Stop changing the subject.

I agree with that but trainers have to deal with and manage the material they have on hand. As a punter, I certainly don't want to be on a horse that had a significant but undetected bleed during a hitout mid-week or one that couldn't be given anti-inflammatories to assist recoveries.

Exactly. Lasix has been used to mitigate EIPH damage for decades. Any raceday residual in non-therapeutic or performance enhancing amounts is a nonsense and should not be penalised.

I don't think deduction is a strength of yours Thommo. Possibly because you don't have much to deduct from.

Just to be clear, the NZ figure above is fatal injuries incurred during a race where the horse was euthanised or died on the raceday. The comparable raceday fatal injury for the US is in the 1.3-1.5 range for horses dying within 72 hours of the race where the injury was sustained. When you get through your remedial reading classes Thommo, read the WP article again. You may realise that the 8.3 deaths reported for Baffert is the number of horses that died while in his care in Ca. per 1000 starters during that time, not the number that sustained fatal injuries or death during a race. I doubt the comparable figure is known for NZ and I certainly haven't seen it reported. It could well be higher as that would include horses butchered, shot or euthanised upon retirement from racing. All I was trying to point out is that the WP chart reports data that is totally meaningless and from which no conclusion can be drawn with respect to the difference between the trainers listed. It is typical media distorted sensationalism for the gullible like you Thommo.

.73 deaths per 1000 starts

Maybe. I make the significance of the difference in death rates between Baffert and Ponde to be a P-value = .99. Between Baffert and O'Neill it's .598 FYI, in case you didn't pass high school maths which seems likely, a p-value <.05 is considered moderately significant. <.01 solidly so. This is nowhere within cooee of that. Just meaningless nonsense. The only drug conviction of any count was close to 50 years ago.

And the Washington Post needs to get their statistician to recheck the levels of significance of the variance in their deaths per starter list which I note are conveniently omitted from the article.

Agree but whether that is a good idea or not, while to be encouraged everything being equal, is a matter of professional judgement.

Long established in my view.

Yes, parents and guardians have rights but that does not include making decisions for children that they are capable of making for themselves. Would you insist as a parent on say your 14yo daughter having an abortion if she chose not to? You are living in some other era.

"Under the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights 1996, the Health and Disability Commissioner1states “a child may consent themselves [to health treatment] if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and maturity to understand fully what is proposed”. van Rooyen, A., Water, T., Rasmussen, S., & Diesfeld, K. (2015). What makes a child a'competent'child. The New Zealand medical journal, 128(1426), 88-95.

Well the HDC doesn't agree with you nor a 15 year old opinion.

Again it's the law and you can consent to have an abortion/termination at any age. If you are able to understand the nature and consequences of a termination, health professionals must maintain your privacy and not tell your parents.

You may disagree but that's the law and has been since the early 80s. There are no doubt dodgy doctors as there are dodgy lawyers, dodgy plumbers and dodgy horse trainers etc. There are also childrens' rights and the Gillick test which requires a high level of understanding and decision making competence.

Of course. The Gillick principle surely applies as with all health matters. But I don't really see how anyone, child or adult, can be considered to be giving or have given informed consent for this when at the best, they are not given accurate information, especially since to a large extent no-one has that.

At this stage it would seem to make sense to wait until the AWT is up and running as an alternative surface before renovating the main turf course, especially given the reduction in alternative venues to accommodate that.

Yet they raced on the inside all day at Wangers on Saturday I think. And it came back from an H10 at nom time to a S8 on the day.