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

[RolloTomasi]

Why exactly do they need the names of the horses?

[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.