"The rush is because horses are breaking down at an alarming rate when we have something available that has been shown to a high degree of statistical significance that it can prevent them."

You seem to be missing the point.

I don't think many people would disagree with you about the short term safety statistics. They seem straight forward enough.

If the only goal was to improve horse safety in the "short term", then poly would seem to be a good solution. What we don't have is LONG TERM statistics on safety (human also) or many of the other considerations I mentioned prior that should go into a huge investment and transition within the industry. Very few "smart" businessmen totally overhaul themselves without careful consideration of "every implication" of what they are doing over the "long haul" and without observation of how things are going in test markets "over time". It's a huge risk.

Suppose reducing breakdowns via poly has huge negative impacts elsewhere that hurt the industry far more than reducing breakdowns help but we don't know it yet?

Suppose we can reduce breakdowns equally via other methods without making such a huge investment and change?

I could easily make a list of 10 questions that haven't been answered yet and several of them have to do with safety.

Perhaps poly will work out fine and spread to every track in a few years, but perhaps there are better alternatives to come. All too often haphazzard and rushed invesments like this turn into disaster. It's often very foolish to rush until you actually know what you are doing. I see no evidence that this industry EVER knows what its doing.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2007 10:02AM by fkach.