 |
RE: [RC] rules and protecting the horse - David LeBlancGot to run, so more later - 30 is a minimum. More is always better. There's also what's possible - at 2% of starts, if you wanted to get 100 samples, you'd need 5000 starts. That's a lot of rides - probably around 50, but not impossible. Ideal would be that we could do this at every ride for a year, but I don't think that's practical. There's always the experiment you'd like to run, and then there's the one you have data for. Anyway, more later. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Morris [mailto:bobmorris@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:48 AM To: David LeBlanc; steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [RC] rules and protecting the horse David, the problem that I see wit such a small statistical sample is that the variables are so diverse that the small sample will provide a skewed result. Just take to example of the horse pulled for the metabolic reason of "colic" This is a symptom not a cause but most riders are satisfied with the diagnosis of colic. So, we can identify perhaps a half dozen causes of colic. Then we have a multitude of other causes of metabolic pulls. All in all I would venture we end up with at least dozen reasons for a metabolic pull. Now, do you take the first thirty metabolic pulls and call this good? Your sample could consist of a maximum of three horses exhibiting the same cause. Not very convincing from a study point. In @003 we had approximately 400 horse pulled for metabolic reasons. From elevated pulse to death. We need to examine the majority of these cases to find the similarities and the variables. Could be the tailoring distance, could be the temperature, could be the rider attitude. And speaking of rider attitude I believe the more successful riders will exhibit the least number of pulls. Could be that rider attitude is contributory. We cannot find out with out a fair amount of data, I would venture at least five times the number of possible causes. I could be an interesting project and one that would produce interesting conclusions. Bob Bob Morris Morris Endurance Enterprises Boise, ID -----Original Message----- From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David LeBlanc Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:30 AM To: 'Bob Morris'; steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [RC] rules and protecting the horse Bob Morris said:You stated <<<I also think that horse death is too rare tobea useful measure. You could study endurance-related horsedeath for 5years before you got a big enough sample to be significant.Metabolicpulls are more common, and measures taken to reducemetabolic pulls,and especially metabolic pulls that require treatment willhelp reducepreventable horse deaths.>>> With metabolic pulls amounting to about 2% of the riders entered in endurance competition, the number is still not every large for analysis.I'm coming at it from the aspect of statistics - about 30 is what is considered enough to come to a valid conclusion, assuming that conditions are otherwise good. I think 2% of the starts comes to a number that from the statistics standpoint is huge.The greater problem is that we seldom, if ever, have knowledge of the extent of that metabolic problem. It could be ranging from the simply did not want to eat or drink to the total collapse of thehorse.The details for classification are missing.That's the second part, and gets back to what Truman was saying a couple of months ago. You can have plenty of samples and no data, or bad data, and you can't draw any conclusions. We're in 100% agreement on this one. We have to have more information, and there has to be some way to get it without seriously inconveniencing the vets and RMs.I have proposed a mandatory 30 day rest for any horse thatexperiencesa metabolic pull. But riders protest that astostrict. "what about my horse that just would not come downtopulse criteria?" "It was OK the next day, why would I needtorest it for 30 days?"Could be - I've seen cases where it was too strict. There needs to be some discretion, I think by the vet. I don't think it is a bad proposal overall, but it needs some discussion. Automatic measures are tough to do right.Well, we have to draw the line some place. The competitive venue, the ride site is not thetimeor place to perform a full work up on the horse.OK, let's look at a couple of scenarios - horse runs away with you for 15 miles, pulses down (barely), CRI is terrible, vet is on the fence, and the rider decides that he's had enough that day. Horse drinks home water back at the trailer and is fine. Second case - rider is running way up front, horse is clearly in trouble, rider insists nothing is wrong, horse is pulled and needs treatment. You've got that, and everything in-between. I think the ride vet is best qualified to sort it out, but giving the ride vet the tool of requiring time off is a good step. Right now, all they can do is pull you from one ride.So, what do we do? We cannot intelligently asses thestatusof the sport with out knowledge of the problems. We cannot get this knowledge with out detail. We cannot get thisdetainunless the riders, the Ride Managers and the Vetsco-operatein supplying it. A breakdown in any one of these entitiesandthe entire set is not valid.Your Suggestions?We need data - in order to get data, we need to find some RMs and vets who will agree to take extra notes in a controlled format. We don't need data from every ride for a year - if the problem is 2% of the starts overall, we only need about 4-5 big rides to get enough to make a decent sample. Then you run into a problem with sample skew - what was the weather that day, terrain, etc. So now you need some more - and you probably don't want results only valid for big rides. I think we could get enough data to find out something interesting and scientifically valid from a couple of dozen rides. Also be good to do 3-4 rides in each region to avoid regional skew. You'd also like to get a control sample - you need some base data from random riders. For example, there may be a correlation between metabolic problems and distance to ride, but you won't know that until you compare a sample that did have problems and a sample that didn't. Next step is to decide what data to collect - I don't know what this should be, though I can guess the obvious ones, like temp. Vets need to define this. We also need to know whether gathering the data will incur any extra expense and budget for it - this also depends on how you do it - if you send a vet to a ride especially to evaluate this, we have to pay for that. If people just fill out forms, that can be done at very little expense. Then we need people to examine the data and try and see what it means. I can do at least some of this - all that grad school ought to be useful for something. I'm sure there's others out there with experimental design and statistics experience - a collaborative effort would be best. It would also be good if we found a professor who was interested and would see it through to publication. Then we try and see what the numbers all mean, which is the fun part. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|