Re: a rebuttal to Edie Booth's report to ridecamp, from Bill Proctor

["Linda B. Merims" <lbm@ici.net>]

As somebody who once managed a large international listserver
and who had to investigate the issues of a list owner's liability
for libel and slander on their list, Steph hasn't much choice
but to let Bill Proctor say pretty much anything he wants on
this topic.  After all, it's only fair, given how much was said
about Bill Proctor.

If you want it to die out, the best thing is to just keep
silent about it.  Completely.

My own opinion is that the entire business *proves* nothing
whatsoever, for or against, the efficacy of Tom Ivers' product
or the general theory of carbo loading to improve the performance
of endurance horses.  That is only going to come with a series
of organized trials using an independently formulated carbohydrate
loading substance that is sponsored by some veterinary college,
and carried out by either a seasoned researcher, or a Equine
Physiology PhD candidate looking for a thesis topic.  Somebody
like Susan.

Anecdotal evidence is not science.  Ivers' theory is *plausible*.
Lots of theories are plausible.  That's what a theory is.
Only multiple controlled trials with multiple horses in multiple
conditions over time will prove whether plausible is also true.

Linda B. Merims
lbm@ici.net
Massachusetts, USA