baxtersmom wrote:
baxtersmom wrote:
slvrblltday wrote:
I don't see any words you've quoted but mine or other posters'.

Look, I didn't put this up to say 'hear ye, hear ye, the answers have all been found' - if you look at the comments the study gets shredded with a whole lot more concrete points than are being given here, and valid ones, and ones with which I agree.

"The "study" you've linked to here is not really a study." - okay, every media outlet I've read refers to it as a study, so I chose to refer to it that way as well. That's all.

I quoted the whole section from the Thoroughbred Safety Committee on Soundness Issues, and highlighted the portions that were egregiously incorrect. I believe that was a transcript of the talk given by Bramlage about the "study" you are discussing?

Your references are not clear. What you've linked to as a "study" is just a pdf of data, out of context. My point is that you haven't actually linked to anything that someone with research training (ie me) can analyze.

Perhaps you missed this. And the part where I actually explain why the TSCSI analysis is scientifically flawed.

I did miss this. Bramlage's Talkin' Horses interview was years before that study, which just got released the other day, and has nothing to do with it. My apologies for the OP being confusing.

"What you've linked to as a "study" is just a pdf of data, out of context. My point is that you haven't actually linked to anything that someone with research training (ie me) can analyze." - I'm just the messenger, essentially, of those links. I didn't conduct the "study," I didn't neglect to do a write up, etc. I still thought it was an interesting article and "study" nonetheless. I'm not a (scientific) researcher.