ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 7839
Jun 29 10 6:02 AM
slvrblltday wrote:sunridge1 wrote:I'm having a real hard time buying this "evidence".For the third time...the study does not claim any of their results to be evidence of anything - they have not drawn conclusions. They have done a statistical study and have NOT drawn conclusions from it. The Paulick Report article does a write up of the study to bring it to our attention, that has nothing to do with the study. Why not READ all the available text, including the study itself before making judgments or assumptions? I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe, actually I'd like people to think on it on their own and draw their own informed decisions. It's up to you to decide what these stats mean, and whether you believe and find credible Bramlage's opinion, research and work.
sunridge1 wrote:I'm having a real hard time buying this "evidence".
Posts: 29092
Jun 29 10 6:55 AM
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.
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.
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."
Posts: 1407
Jun 29 10 8:48 AM
baxtersmom wrote:slvrblltday wrote:sunridge1 wrote:I'm having a real hard time buying this "evidence".For the third time...the study does not claim any of their results to be evidence of anything - they have not drawn conclusions. They have done a statistical study and have NOT drawn conclusions from it. The Paulick Report article does a write up of the study to bring it to our attention, that has nothing to do with the study. Why not READ all the available text, including the study itself before making judgments or assumptions? I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe, actually I'd like people to think on it on their own and draw their own informed decisions. It's up to you to decide what these stats mean, and whether you believe and find credible Bramlage's opinion, research and work.Actually, at least in the part you posted, there are a number of definite conclusions being given. When I have time, I will look at the linked data and analysis, but the write up itself is already very poorly done from a research standpoint, and very, very suspect.
Posts: 10938
Jun 29 10 9:02 AM
Posts: 11945
Jun 29 10 9:03 AM
Jun 29 10 9:08 AM
slvrblltday wrote:baxtersmom wrote:slvrblltday wrote:sunridge1 wrote:I'm having a real hard time buying this "evidence".For the third time...the study does not claim any of their results to be evidence of anything - they have not drawn conclusions. They have done a statistical study and have NOT drawn conclusions from it. The Paulick Report article does a write up of the study to bring it to our attention, that has nothing to do with the study. Why not READ all the available text, including the study itself before making judgments or assumptions? I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe, actually I'd like people to think on it on their own and draw their own informed decisions. It's up to you to decide what these stats mean, and whether you believe and find credible Bramlage's opinion, research and work.Actually, at least in the part you posted, there are a number of definite conclusions being given. When I have time, I will look at the linked data and analysis, but the write up itself is already very poorly done from a research standpoint, and very, very suspect.I'm not sure which part I posted that you are talking about - I didn't quote any text from the study. The study is here and includes nothing but the stats. I'm sure my OP was confusing because the subject was the TOBA study but I also quoted and linked to a number of different resources. But when I said "They have done a statistical study and have NOT drawn conclusions from it" I was referring to the study in question, the TOBA study. There is no write up. Any written text is not associated with the TOBA study and I cited its source in the OP.
Posts: 12210
Posts: 4008
Jun 29 10 9:32 AM
Jun 29 10 10:07 AM
baxtersmom wrote:slvrblltday wrote:baxtersmom wrote:slvrblltday wrote:sunridge1 wrote:I'm having a real hard time buying this "evidence".For the third time...the study does not claim any of their results to be evidence of anything - they have not drawn conclusions. They have done a statistical study and have NOT drawn conclusions from it. The Paulick Report article does a write up of the study to bring it to our attention, that has nothing to do with the study. Why not READ all the available text, including the study itself before making judgments or assumptions? I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe, actually I'd like people to think on it on their own and draw their own informed decisions. It's up to you to decide what these stats mean, and whether you believe and find credible Bramlage's opinion, research and work.Actually, at least in the part you posted, there are a number of definite conclusions being given. When I have time, I will look at the linked data and analysis, but the write up itself is already very poorly done from a research standpoint, and very, very suspect.I'm not sure which part I posted that you are talking about - I didn't quote any text from the study. The study is here and includes nothing but the stats. I'm sure my OP was confusing because the subject was the TOBA study but I also quoted and linked to a number of different resources. But when I said "They have done a statistical study and have NOT drawn conclusions from it" I was referring to the study in question, the TOBA study. There is no write up. Any written text is not associated with the TOBA study and I cited its source in the OP.The part I quoted and replied to.
Jun 29 10 10:12 AM
charleyharvey wrote: And as to rich people not being interested in making money because they're already rich and can afford to wait...LOL!!!! My mom used to work for the retired CEO of an oil company. His son collected yachts as a hobby and had his own jet with a pilot that he kept on call. The old man's hobby was racing TBs. They had all the money in the universe and were always desperate for more. They would complain about how desperately they needed a horse to win, how dire their situation was while they were hosting lavish parties or flying in their private jet to one of their many vacation homes in other countries. When one of their daughters got married the old man decided to give her a fountain that he had seen in Italy as a wedding gift. He had it dismantled and flown to Colorado (where her wedding was going to be) on a week's notice. These were literally the richest people I have ever known in my life and they would not have waited even one hour for money that they could get now, so don't try to tell us that generally rich people are happy to wait for a return on their investment by letting a baby horse grow up. Most rich people didn't get rich by being disinterested in money. Actually one of the old man's favorite sayings was, "I didn't get rich by being nice to people and neither will anyone else."
Jun 29 10 10:13 AM
StreetMutt wrote:I'm not saying that the conclusions of the commentators are wrong, but I am saying this type of research is not valid and has no place but for stupid people to say "SEE! I'm right."
Jun 29 10 10:19 AM
Jun 29 10 10:22 AM
Jun 29 10 10:24 AM
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.
Jun 29 10 10:26 AM
charleyharvey wrote:^^ Oh lord, the revenge of the "Woe is Me/Pout and go nuts" train again. Calm down, idiot. What I gave is called an "example" because you generalized and said that most rich people are already rich and are ok with waiting indefinitely to make more money. God, you overly dramatic types are so annoying when you get yourselves into a full-fledged fit of laying on the ground, kicking and screaming. But since you said it! Yes, my one example makes me right, always! About everything! Me! Always right! From this moment on I will never be wrong again! The one example rules the world!!
Jun 29 10 10:28 AM
StreetMutt wrote: No. Generalization. But I do think a person that uses this "research" to BACK UP their practice is pretty darn stupid (I haven't seen anyone do that on this thread -- could have missed it though -- but only saw people agree or disagree or supply more anecdotal evidence).ETA: see Charley's post for an example of what I meant lol *makes goo-goo eyes at Charley*
Jun 29 10 10:34 AM
Posts: 4001
Jun 29 10 11:47 AM
Jun 29 10 12:17 PM
StreetMutt wrote:Ah but I didn't claim for my generalization to be based in science (ETA: also, mine was more of an "if someone does this, I think this about him" vs. "all people who are this are that" so not quite a true generalization, more like a conditional opinion of others) I like you, slvr (had to go up to see how to spell that haha). I like that you posted some intriguing information. But I think you may just be too vested in the supposed conclusions of this "research" and now you're getting upset over people finding what they suspect to be holes in the information presented. All the last few posters have done is critique the piece as "research." This is exactly what we would have done if someone posted a stallion on here (or anything else for that matter) It's good not to take things at face value.
Jun 29 10 12:21 PM
3dayz wrote:Ugh...the only reason she felt free to generalize is because you had already done so in order to "prove" your point that my suggestion was undoubtedly wrong. I made it quite clear in my 1st post that I was not saying "well EVERYONE knows that rich people have better horses and are also more likely to start them early". I suggested there were other variables to take into account, FOR EXAMPLE, something LIKE "rich ppl have better horses/start them early" may be taking place. I stated I had no direct knowledge with the subject matter, HENCE could not provide a valid example of another possible variable. I was simply opening the topic to discussion of other variables that other more knowledgeable people could comment on. You jumped in and said "NOPE rich people wait longer" - a generalization. Hence CH's feeling that generalizations were open for discussion. You can't slam her for her generalization when you did the same thing. And then saying that yours was no worse than hers is just logic running around in circles.
Share This