Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Riot
I think so, ELA, because it will be an ongoing, continuous thing over the years, so enough data will be accumulated to give some definitive answers and show some true trends. I agree with you that "one track, one year" type of thing wouldn't give us good answers.
What I am talking about is Dr. Mary Scollay's track injury reporting system that started in 2007. Most tracks are participating, it will independently quantify the type of injury, outcome, weather, track surface, age/type/condition horse, field size, veterinary care, etc. (lots of variables). One early article on it is here in The Blood-Horse, there are more recent if you search for them:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleind...e.asp?id=39138
I hear you. But I see their side, in that if I have a new product I purchased, and the manufacturer is telling me, based upon their previous experience with other installations, it's best to let things settle down to see what's really there, THEN tweek, I'd suspect I'd go with that recommendation, too. |
I agree with you -- ongoing, larger samplings, etc. Dr. Scollay's project is a good one. As far as a library of inuries -- let's say the equivalent of an equine MIB (sans the medications, treatments, etc.), I don't know if that's going to fly.
As far as the track management's perspective, I am not sure that some of these decisions are being made with that much imput from the manufacturer(s). If it is, I would want to know that these people have been on site, inspecting, seeing, experiencing the actual track conditions, changes, etc.
Excellent points.
Eric