Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Bruce Weary wrote:
> Hi Truman--
> I can't really think of anything I do in endurance riding that is 
> based directly on quantitative data. Not saddle selection, electrolyte 
> use, feed type or amount, ride speed, shoeing technique, equitation, 
> vet check strategy, tailing, amount of 
> walking/trotting/cantering..............not a thing. It's pretty much 
> all based on empirical experience. In the world of medicine, or in 
> this case, veterinary science, it's common to make decisions and set 
> policy on inductive and deductive reasoning based on empirical 
> evidence. Rarely do we get to make sweeping decisions based on 
> quantitative data. And when we do, things can still go very badly. 
> Case in point, Vioxx. In fact, it's often empirical observations that 
> direct where research should be heading.
Vioxx is a good case in point. The scientific method did work - it 
worked very well. Depending out who you believe the evidence was there 
to raise significant questions about Vioxx from the original clinical 
trials but they were ignored. When the data from the use of Vioxx by the 
general population was analyzed the data pointed to the problem. 
However, it appears that economic concerns overwhelmed scientific 
concerns and Vioxx was approved. Vioxx is not the only example of this 
issue and this has caused a reorg in the FDA.

The problem I see with the way the AERC makes such rules is very simple. 
The AERC has at it's disposal a wonderful lab - endurance rides. There 
are 20,000 starts a year. That is a significant data set. The AERC has 
the ability to collect sufficient data to determine the hypothesis that 
should be tested and sufficient data sets to design experiments - by 
simply collecting the appropriate data at rides - to test these 
hypothesis. Hell, we don't even report the distance between vet checks - 
although there is a field in the database for such data. Wouldn't it be 
nice to correlate trail segment length with pull rates or treat rates 
after those segment?

"Empirical evidence" is good for developing a theory to test - in is not 
good for making policy. The graveyards of science are filled with dead 
theories based on theories that we know today are absurd but were based 
on someone's empirical evidence. Instead of using "empirical evidence" 
to set policy - use it to design hypothesis that can be tested by 
collecting data at AERC rides. It is not that empirical evidence is bad 
or good or indifferent - it is only the first step in a chain that 
should be followed to make policy.


The other problem with empirical evidence is - "everybody has their 
own." Why is it the SE runs rides just find and have been doing it for 
years with a 64 pulse - but other regions can't seem to run rides other 
than 60? There are great vets in the SE who seem to think 64 is just 
fine and there are good vets other places who think 60 is better - so 
whose empirical evidence do you believe? I say neither. We have time to 
collect sufficient data at our rides to address the question before 
policy is made.

Truman

--

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a 
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also 
into you.” Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=