KHRC: Stop saying 'whip'.. It's 'riding crop' now.

[Kasept]

Went under the radar, but the KHRC Health and Safety Committee meeting Monday was chock ful o' good stuff...

Ron Mitchell's B-H version:
http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/47095.htm

Lots about the injury reporting system, which is interesting. (I discussed it with Dr. Allday on "Horse Health Today" segment of ATR Tuesday and he agrees with Dr. Northrup.)

But the corker is the testing at KEE of new 'kinder, gentler' riding crops... (Don't say whips anymore... That word is being phased out. )

The committee also discussed, and will continue to work on, revising rules to mandate safer and more humane riding crops (formerly known as whips) in Thoroughbred racing. Included in the effort will be the review of shorter crops and with more humane "poppers" (padded portion of the crop). During the upcoming Keeneland fall meet, in two races per day jockeys will be equipped with crops that vary in length from 26 to 30 inches and in weights ranging from 6 ounces to 8 ounces.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Went under the radar, but the KHRC Health and Safety Committee meeting Monday was chock ful o' good stuff...

Ron Mitchell's B-H version:
http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/47095.htm

Lots about the injury reporting system, which is interesting. (I discussed it with Dr. Allday on "Horse Health Today" segment of ATR Tuesday and he agrees with Dr. Northrup.)

But the corker is the testing at KEE of new 'kinder, gentler' riding crops... (Don't say whips anymore... That word is being phased out. )

The committee also discussed, and will continue to work on, revising rules to mandate safer and more humane riding crops (formerly known as whips) in Thoroughbred racing. Included in the effort will be the review of shorter crops and with more humane "poppers" (padded portion of the crop). During the upcoming Keeneland fall meet, in two races per day jockeys will be equipped with crops that vary in length from 26 to 30 inches and in weights ranging from 6 ounces to 8 ounces.

There is no way that I will comply with any injury reporting system that requires names of horses. First off what is the cut off line for an injury? a grabbed quarter? A fracture?

Since the welfare and safety of the horse is entirely my responsibility under the absolute insurer rule the state will not be getting any information from me without a subpoena. The idea that the names will be kept confidential is laughable and the potential for legal action against me using information held by the racing commission would be a major concern. Let's say a horse of mine breaks his leg in a race and the jockey gets seriously injured. With this new data system in place wouldnt the health history of the horse now be fair game for a lawyer to put into play? Despite how many horses overcome injuries however minor I am willing to bet that this scenario will come into play eventually.

The riding crop thing is a beauty though. Personally I wouldnt mind if they went to the softer whips but the whole idea that we wont call them whips anymore is either hilarious or frightening depending on the way you look at it.

[RolloTomasi]

Why exactly do they need the names of the horses?

[docicu3]

The riding crop thing is a beauty though. Personally I wouldnt mind if they went to the softer whips but the whole idea that we wont call them whips anymore is either hilarious or frightening depending on the way you look at it.[/quote]


Another example of Politically Correct terminology being used to embelish the truth as if that made it somehow different if we called it something else.

"Freedom Fries" courtesy of the G W Bush led House of Reps and Robert Ney, I think, was responsible for making French Fries, Freedom Fries in some eating establishments in DC. Maybe they could whip up ......I mean "crop" up some Freedom Toast for breakfast this morning.....

[Pedigree Ann]

Actually, they haven't been whips for a long time, since they don't have lashes at the end like a whip. Riders probably stopped using real whips about the same time as they stopped wearing spurs. (You think whips are bad? When jocks rode upright instead of aerodynamically, spurs that regularly drew blood were an important part of the jock's equipment.) Jockeys have been carrying crops for years and calling them whips; why not be accurate? Especially since 'whipping' has so many negative connotations.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Why exactly do they need the names of the horses?

good question...they don't give any reason and I can't think of one, at least not a good one...injury, age and sex should be more than sufficient for their database

[Cannon Shell]

So they can build a case next time they have a Biancone situation...??

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

earlie fires cried alittle..

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Why exactly do they need the names of the horses?

Because you need some way to track what injuries go to what animal on what track (horses change tracks), and repeated injuries to same horse.

Can't use lip tattoo, can't assign accession numbers to each horse, hence names. The point was to make it very easy for people to submit data.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because you need some way to track what injuries go to what animal on what track (horses change tracks), and repeated injuries to same horse.

I must be confused as to the purpose of this national database. So basically, its just one big giant "vet's list"? I guess when its all said and done they can fire every racing association vet because this Scollay lady's got it whipped...

I still don't see why they need names. So when they see Crippled McFracture's name on the list more than once they'll know to ban him from being entered for a couple of weeks? That should be pretty effective on a large and long-term scale...

I figured the purpose of the database was to track patterns of injuries as they relate to things like age, gender, shoe type, trainer, pedigree, distance, class level, track condition and racing surface, etc., not to target chronically lame, individual horses (which should already hopefully be monitored by the appropriate track vets).

The scary thing is that Dr. Scollay is on record as saying there is no point to comparing data between various racetracks (her example, Mnr vs Sar) because the horse populations are totally different.

Brilliant. So I guess we really don't need a national database if we can't pool all the information. We just need seperate one's for each operating racetrack.

Can't use lip tattoo, can't assign accession numbers to each horse, hence names. The point was to make it very easy for people to submit data.

Why can't you use the lip tattoo? What is a lip tattoo for other than to identify individual horses? Maybe its too hard to flip the lip or something.

Assigning accession numbers seems like a viable option as well. Who cares if the same horse shows up twice? Its not like the database will ever be totally thorough and complete, and certainly you will never be able to account for every variable that contributes to a racehorse being injured on the track. So a little confounding data in such a large database shouldn't skew the overall results to any significant degree.

[Riot]

I must be confused as to the purpose of this national database. So basically, its just one big giant "vet's list"?

Obviously not.

[quote]I still don't see why they need names. QUOTE]

They do need an identifier for each horse. If they used lip tattoos - the vets don't have those numbers for their patients handy - everything is done by registered name. That would have to be new information the vets start collecting just for the study (ain't gonna happen). At the end of the day when the vet fills out the injury forms, they won't get submitted due to being incomplete. It's also rather easy to misread or transpose a number with a lip number (faded in slightly older horse, etc).

Assigning a study accession number wouldn't work very readily, either. First time a horse is submitted, it would be assigned a number, and that number would have to be then known (and used) for the lifetime of the horse by trainers and vets. That won't happen.

The TB industry uses horses' registered name for ID - vet's lists, lasix, entries, etc. It's just more of the same. Compare name to color to age to sex, etc. to make sure you have the right horse. Using the registered name the trainers and vets have ready access to and use all the time.

So submitting information for the study is easy, and doesn't require collecting new or additional information.

I figured the purpose of the database was to track patterns of injuries as they relate to things like age, gender, shoe type, trainer, pedigree, distance, class level, track condition and racing surface, etc., not to target chronically lame, individual horses (which should already hopefully be monitored by the appropriate track vets).

Who said "chronically lame", etc. horses will be "targeted"? Nobody here except you.

Of course all the things you list in detail will be tracked. Have you looked at the reporting form? (look back in Bloodhorse last year, they had a copy attached to the announcement article about the study)

The scary thing is that Dr. Scollay is on record as saying there is no point to comparing data between various racetracks (her example, Mnr vs Sar) because the horse populations are totally different.
Brilliant. So I guess we really don't need a national database if we can't pool all the information. We just need seperate one's for each operating racetrack.

What Dr. Scollay's statement means (and I've read the original) is simply that if it is found, for example, that suspensory strain-mild is the most common injury that occurs at Keeneland, you cannot automatically transfer that "most common injury" type to Turfway, even though both are the same type of surface. She means that injuries found at Saratoga cannot be presumed to be predictive of those that will occur at Belmont or Churchill, although all three are dirt tracks.

The above is one of the big reasons this study is being funded.

Who cares if the same horse shows up twice?

The point of the study is not to make a simple laundry list of injuries. It's important to follow horses through to different tracks, and throughout their careers.

Simple example: fifty horses with a certain type of non-career ending injury at Track A. They disperse at end of meet to Tracks B, C, D. The horses that go to Track B and C, only one-quarter are reinjured, and not career-ending. The horses that went to D are showing up reinjured, and half are career-ending. What's happening at Track D, and how can that be changed? What if Track D is synthetic, and Tracks B and C are dirt?

Its not like the database will ever be totally thorough and complete, and certainly you will never be able to account for every variable that contributes to a racehorse being injured on the track. So a little confounding data in such a large database shouldn't skew the overall results to any significant degree.

LOL - a little confounding data skews - and invalidates - results all the time.

The point of a scientific study is to control the highest number of variables possible, collect the most accurate data possible, not be purposefully sloppy or dismissive on collecting datapoints. One cannot predict beforehand which datapoints will turn out to be of most significance.

Not having identifiers on the horses will eliminate a multitude of ways to examine the data. It will eliminate all "career injury accumulation" information, for example, and all "career ending" injuries as they relate to training, history of previous injury, etc.

I understand the trainers are jumpy about people not in the barn, not the barn's vet, outsiders, having access to privileged information.

However, look at the rationality of that fear - will somebody sneak into Dr. Scollay's office, steal forms or hack into her computer, and find out information about particular horses by name?

Frankly, I see no greater risk of that, than there is now of somebody getting that same information from a barn's veterinarians or the vet assistants.

[RolloTomasi]

It's also rather easy to misread or transpose a number with a lip number (faded in slightly older horse, etc).

Good thing its not easy to botch or fake a name...

The TB industry uses horses' registered name for ID - vet's lists, lasix, entries, etc. It's just more of the same. Compare name to color to age to sex, etc. to make sure you have the right horse. Using the registered name the trainers and vets have ready access to and use all the time.

The lip tattoo is the easiest way to ID a thoroughbred, actually (and its posted alongside the names on those lists you mentioned). They're not checking their teeth when they flip up their lips in the paddock.

Either way, the lip tattoo isn't a viable option because, once again, it eliminates the anonymity that would encourage participation.

One cannot predict beforehand which datapoints will turn out to be of most significance.

I'm sure a horse's name won't turn out to be a strong predictor of injury (unless we're talking about Crippled McFracture again...)

Not having identifiers on the horses will eliminate a multitude of ways to examine the data. It will eliminate all "career injury accumulation" information, for example, and all "career ending" injuries as they relate to training, history of previous injury, etc.

Who cares? You won't have anything if nobody participates. My point is, even without the specific names, a lot things can be learned from just treating injuries as single events. There's no need to track individuals at this fledgling stage.

As I said, the information collected will never be perfect, no matter how "scientific" you wanna get. The data is being submitted by numerous individuals with different knowledge and skill levels, so the submitter is yet another uncontrolled variable.

[Riot]

Who cares? You won't have anything if nobody participates. My point is, even without the specific names, a lot things can be learned from just treating injuries as single events. There's no need to track individuals at this fledgling stage.

The whole point of developing this database is that it is NOT a "fledgling stage" simple study. Already been there, done that. Most published information is exactly as you describe, above. Retrospective snapshots.

This database was funded solely as it is a big, valuable, very real, in-depth, national-breadth, ongoing database that will yield an unbelievably valuable amount of information, for a whole lot of parameters, for a whole lot of scientists, over future years.

The "who cares" and suspicious are certainly free to choose to withhold any data they could contribute.