ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 4001
Jun 29 10 12:34 PM
Posts: 7839
Jun 29 10 1:20 PM
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.
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.
Posts: 6200
Jun 29 10 2:17 PM
baxtersmom & Callisto 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.
Trial-by-fieldwork distinguishes us from neighbouring tribes: the namby-pampy sociologists and social psychologists with whom we might be otherwise - God forbid - easily be confused - Kate Fox
Posts: 1407
Jun 29 10 3:17 PM
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.
Jun 29 10 3:25 PM
3dayz wrote:It wasn't really your reply to mine that got my back up, it was yours to Ch slamming her for providing a single case study/generalization when in fact you had demonstrated the same reasoning previously.I acknowledge that you did state that the study lacked consideration of other variables, I didn't have a problem with that part of your post. I wasn't really even going to say anything about your generalization about "rich horse owners" because I figured it wasn't worth the discussion/argument. I didn't jump on you for it, but felt I had to say when you jumped on CH for the same thing.I think part of the problem with the way this thread turned out is no one was really sure of your position or what you were trying to say/show and the material was presented in a bit of a confusing way.Slamming all of us in your posts by stating that the comments section of that article had brighter replies than here wasn't exactly conductive to encouraging conversation either.
Posts: 23260
Jun 30 10 11:15 AM
izze90 wrote: Good discussion guys.Interesting articles, In my mind I've always been opposed to racing two-year olds, but I don't know much about the industry so my opinion doesn't hold much weight. I wonder at what age training/racing would become less beneficial and more detrimental? I'd also like to see some studies on the same subject published by someone not so closely tied into the racing industry. Because we all know where the Blood Horse & JC's best intrests lie.So if they are not breakng down from being raced so young, why the hell are they breaking down? Modern medicine? I think the cycle of 'race them until they break down then breed them' is really weakening the breed. Modern medicine has kept many a horse from euthenasia, that 50 years ago would have died & been kept out of the breeding pool. Are we so good at keeping horses alive that were making pansy asses out of them? Anyways, just my two cents.
goflippr wrote: I seriously want to kiss NG.
Jun 30 10 11:19 AM
3dayz wrote: It wasn't really your reply to mine that got my back up, it was yours to Ch slamming her for providing a single case study/generalization when in fact you had demonstrated the same reasoning previously.I acknowledge that you did state that the study lacked consideration of other variables, I didn't have a problem with that part of your post. I wasn't really even going to say anything about your generalization about "rich horse owners" because I figured it wasn't worth the discussion/argument. I didn't jump on you for it, but felt I had to say when you jumped on CH for the same thing.I think part of the problem with the way this thread turned out is no one was really sure of your position or what you were trying to say/show and the material was presented in a bit of a confusing way.Slamming all of us in your posts by stating that the comments section of that article had brighter replies than here wasn't exactly conductive to encouraging conversation either.
Share This