First the Stands, next the Mobiles! Bring it on fellas.

[A BIT DUSTY]

hI jamie

I read with great interest your little differance of opinion with Old Danno.

Now Iv'e always been of the opinion that if you get them up and running as 2yr olds than you shouldn't expect to be still sending them around as older horses ,so I was a little surprised when you jumped on Old Danno when he suggested the same. Well my 53yr old eyes sure popped when I read your statements about the so callled survey or statistics on standerdbreds saying we were both wrong and I was sure looking forward to reading this report .Well I waited a couple of day's and when you didn't produce it I thought I'll have a go at a little survey of my own.


So I went back to 2003 to look at 2yr olds that would now be 10yr olds,and what better race to look at than the Bathurst Gold Crown and Tiara heats.

I wanted to see what age these babies raced too, after being set for this series, the results are as follows

There were 78 2yr olds drawn to race in 8 races. The age they last raced .


2yr 3yr 4yr 5yr 6yr 7yr 8yr 9yr 10yr

12 18 14 10 3 10 4 3 4

15% 23% 18% 12% 4% 12% 5% 4% 5%


Now if my maths are right and I'm sure they are, that is a staggering 68% that DID NOT RACE PAST 5YR OLD. and only 14% that raced after turning 7yr.

After looking at these figures I was already thinking you had been on the turps or smoking funny ciggarets when you made the claim about it being the complete opposite to what Danno and myself had always believed, But I thought well why not have a look at the present day horses to compare the ones that raced at 2yr and the others that delayed there careers till they turned at least 3yr.

So I grabbed this weeks Trotguide and went through every horse drawn to race at Menangle on Miracle Mile night that was 6yrs and older, excluding the Yankee horses as I couldn't find their U.S.A form and seperated those that raced at 2yr to those that waited till they turned 3yr or older, the results are as follows.


6yr 7yr 8yr 9yr 10yr 11yr
1 only
2yr - 3yr/ovr 2yr - 3yr/ovr 2yr -3yr/ovr 2yr-3yr/ovr 2yr-3yr/ovr 3yr/over

10 13 5 14 4 4 1 7 0 2 1


Now Jamie you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see there is a pattern here.

Even at 6yr there is a higher % of horses who did not race at 2yr than those that did,but take a gander at 7yr when horses should be at their peak. I'll concede that it is even at 8yr but from then on it is 10 to 1 in favour of those that started racing later in life.


I don't know who wrote or commisioned your mystery statistics but as Old Danno suspects it was probably someone with a vested interest i.e Breeding Industry or someone similar.

There is an old saying you can't have your cake and eat it too, and the same aplies to these horses if you go for them early don't winge if their not going around later on.

So Jamie just inclosing I'll give you a little tip, DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ask someone with a little more knowledge than yourself SOMEONE LIKE OLD DANNO.

[A BIT DUSTY]

The numbers for the Menangle meeting have bunched so I'll see if I can set them out better those raced at 2yr are on the left and the horses that did not start till 3yr and older are on the right

6yr 7yr 8yr 9yr 10yr 11yr
2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr

10 13 5 14 4 4 1 7 0 2 0 1

[A BIT DUSTY]

Buggered if I know what I'm doing with these bloody numbers I'll have a go at writing the bloody things


THE BATHURST FIGURES ARE AS FOLLOWS

OF THE 78 12 LAST RACED AT 2YR 15%

18 LAST RACED AT 3YR 23%

14 LAST RACED AT 4YR 18%

10 LAST RACED AT 5YR 12%

3 LAST RACED AT 6YR 4%

10 LAST RACED AT 7YR 12%

4 LAST RACED AT 8YR 5%

3 LAST RACED AT 9YR 4%

4 LAST RACED AT 10YR 5%



THE FIGURES FOR THE MIRACLE MILE NIGHT ARE AS FOLLOWS


OFF ALL 6YR OLDS 10 RACED AT 2YRS 13 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER


OFF ALL 7YR OLDS 5 RACED AT 2YRS 14 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

OFF ALL 8YR OLDS 4 RACED AT 2YRS 4 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

OF ALL 9YR OLDS 1 RACED AT 2YRS 7 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

OF ALL 10 OLDS 0 RACED AT 2YRS 2 DID NOT START TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER


AND THE ONLY 11YR KARLOO MICK DID NOT START RACING TILL HE TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

[aussiebreno]

Buggered if I know what I'm doing with these bloody numbers I'll have a go at writing the bloody things


THE BATHURST FIGURES ARE AS FOLLOWS

OF THE 78 12 LAST RACED AT 2YR 15%

18 LAST RACED AT 3YR 23%

14 LAST RACED AT 4YR 18%

10 LAST RACED AT 5YR 12%

3 LAST RACED AT 6YR 4%

10 LAST RACED AT 7YR 12%

4 LAST RACED AT 8YR 5%

3 LAST RACED AT 9YR 4%

4 LAST RACED AT 10YR 5%



THE FIGURES FOR THE MIRACLE MILE NIGHT ARE AS FOLLOWS


OFF ALL 6YR OLDS 10 RACED AT 2YRS 13 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER So here of 23 horses 10 races at 6. Thats about 45%. Bathurst 2yos to reach 6 were 24%.


OFF ALL 7YR OLDS 5 RACED AT 2YRS 14 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER 18% of 2yo Bathurst reached 7. Here that figure is about 25%.

OFF ALL 8YR OLDS 4 RACED AT 2YRS 4 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER 50% strikerate here but about 9% at Bathurst.

OF ALL 9YR OLDS 1 RACED AT 2YRS 7 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER 12.5% here and about 10% at Bathurst. So pretty close on this one.

OF ALL 10 OLDS 0 RACED AT 2YRS 2 DID NOT START TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER 0% compared to 10% Bathurst.


AND THE ONLY 11YR KARLOO MICK DID NOT START RACING TILL HE TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

And you had the hide to suggest VVVs study was impartial?
Your stats from such a small, small cross-section of horses are skewed from one set of horses to the next.
Of course the best open age horses are going to race longer. Now go to a bread and butter meeting and do the same research - and do it for 100 meetings not 1. Remember most of the Bathurst horses only end up being bread and butter horses anyway.

[aussiebreno]

Not to mention a 6yo who started at 2 has had 5 racing years while a 6yo who didn't has only had 4 racing years so you;d probably be better off comparing 6yos who started at two to 7yos who didnt start at two.

[triplev123]

Denny, seriously...before you go sounding off, take a look at your own parameters.
You've used a very small sample of 78 horses that competed at one Carnival. How could you honestly place any credence whatsoever in the numbers extrapolated from that...as opposed to a State & National wastage study that was carried out across numerous foal crops?

[2minuteman]

Statistically, a batch of 30 will give a valid result.

[Greg Hando]

Did you stop to think some of the 2yo,s that raced weren't good enough to maybe even win a co so most probably would have been disposed of in some way, shape or form probably after their 4yo year perhaps

[aussiebreno]

Statistically, a batch of 30 will give a valid result.

How come two batches of 60 - 100 give a very different result then. And its all relative. A batch of 30 from 60total is different to a batch of 100 from a 100,000 total.

[2minuteman]

Hi Brendan,
I do not want this to be a "what if" exercise and only make this brief comment.If we are measuring batches of Widgets " two batches of 60 - 100 give a very different result". No they will not.

Check http://www.daa.com.au/analytical-ideas/sample-size/

Back to the original argument of 2 year olds lasting etc. We all know the old saying about statistics but they are only valid if all data is constant.