>2. However, one could also argue that running a demanding 1 1/4 without a proper foundation would result in damaging the horse and also causing a regression in the next start.<

That was the point I was making also. It is possible.

I once saw a study that indicated that if you gave a horse 1 sprint prep off a layoff for a route the horse would actually go backwards. If you gave it 2 sprint preps you were much better off.

Personlly, I don't have an opinion on this because I've never studied the details of all the horses that failed. I doubt the sample is big enough anyway and I believe the individual trainer is probably a factor.

However, when presented with a stat that "appears" to suggest that 3 preps is better than 2 along with other evidence I have seen that suggested that horses as a group tended to peak in the 3rd/4th starts off a layoff, I can't imagine that 2 preps is better than 3.

So it seems obvious to me that if I have 2 horses that I think have a 20% chance of winning based on their form and they are both 6-1, I'd rather have the one with 3 preps. Even if the stat is meaningless I am not giving anything up. If the stat is meaningful, I am obviously better off. I believe this is the proper way of thinking about it until the sample is large enough to draw concrete conclusions.



Post Edited (03-02-05 09:22)