baxtersmom wrote:

I'll outline some of the issues with this article.

1. the use of loaded language "charge" that racing two-years olds (neutral = hypothesis or theory), emphasis on "animal welfare organizations" and "people outside racing" - suggesting that only outsiders have concerns about this issue is a red flag that this is already a biased article.

2. there are no "definitive answers" or "definitive conclusions" in science.

3. First, the claim that the horses started more - of course they did. THEY RACED AS TWO YEAR OLDS. This is circular reasoning, and totally inappropriate. The appropriate method would be to remove all 2 year old starts from the equation, and proceed from there. But even given that, this is actually a *terrible* measure for the outcome of interest - at best it's a weak proxy, and at worst it's confounded. For example, starting less often is not necessarily a marker for unsoundness - it may also be a marker for an owner/ trainer's unwillingness to run a horse more often - owners concerned about long-term soundness would be likely to a. start a horse later, and b. run them less often. Using age at first start and time between starts as continuous variables would provide a much clearer picture of career trajectory, and the dependent variables should be acute injury and long term chronic injury/ osteoarthritis. Another important consideration would be use of NSAIDS and injectables.

4. Lifetime earnings is, again, a poor proxy for soundness. We already know that racing 2 year olds is encouraged by the industry and as a result, lucrative - otherwise, why do it?

5. OMG, you CANNOT extrapolate physiologic outcomes from the information provided. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT RATES OF PHYSICAL DETERIORATION, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT PHYSICAL DETERIORATION. If you must use a proxy, there have better be an ironclad defense of that proxy with excellent controls in the analysis. For example, in our study, we measure blood flow through uterine arteries in pregnancy. Other people have already done work that shows that this blood flow is strongly related to placental function. Our outcome of interest is fetal growth - so we can use blood flow as a measure of placental function as it relates to placental growth. BUT YOU CAN'T SKIP STEPS BECAUSE IT'S CONVENIENT FOR YOU.

6. And then they jump right to their conclusions, which were the same ones they had when they started. And hope that no one reads this who can call them out on their BS. It is entirely possible - in fact likely - that some level of strenuous work improves bone quality in young horses. That has already been shown. But to conclude that racing - and the level of training involved - at the start of a two-year old year as a result of that information and the heaps of crap in this article is ABJECTLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.


Nicely written.

I got my helmet Tin Foil Hat securely on.  
 
Proudly infected with  Ambacter Equuii.
Visit www.bytchaboutfish.yuku.com it's Super Seekret!!

Valo wrote:
FiSH Posting Rulez: 
Step 1: Insult them, tell them they have no life and use your choice of derogatory name(s).
Step 2: Make sure they understand that *they* are the bad person in this situation. It doesn't matter if you are wrong/crazy/begging. They are truly the bad person.
Step 3: Once again insult their lack of life, state they have nothing better to do than bash good, innocent people like yourself.
Step 4: Tell them you have better, important things to do than argue with them. This will once again remind them they have no life, making them incredibly jealous of you. Remember, they only said mean things to you because *they* ARE jealous of you!
Step 5: Pack up your toys and leave.
Congratulations! You have successfully shown the forum who is "boss."