Why does this feel like a mistake...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You and Chuck are sad. Before they have even looked at what they've assembled through 2009, before they have released one iota about what they've found, the rocket scientists here have already dismissed it as premature, rushed, useless, ill-timed, and a failure.

Yeah. And I'm the crybaby? You whiners are complaining about something not even done yet. Pre-emptive dismissal.

The laughable part is that if they didn't release anything, the whiners would be complaining they are hiding something, it's a waste of time, it's useless, etc.

Yup. No wonder this industry is eating itself apart from the inside out.

I am sad because they are rushing to throw together "something" instead of doing it right. And doing it right would be letting an independent person study and interpret the data, an independent person that can analyze the numbers as a statistical evaluation. Like I said before, a professional statistician. The "data" is just that. It doesnt matter if it is broken legs or sloppy tracks or passed balls and stolen bases. Having a vet interpret the data after 1 year seems like a mistake in that conclusions may be drawn that simply arent valid.

The industry has already made the mistake of trying to interpret breakdown stats on a month by moth or meet by meet basis. There simply isnt enough data and too many variables until you have the proper amount of data. This is basic mathmatics.

The reason that this industry has issues is that everybody has had their head up their asses forever and now instead of properly doing things it rushes to judgement as it is doing here.

No one would complain about the "reports" not being released until they were told they existed. The fact is that one years worth of data (incomplete data at that) really cant be very telling can it?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am sad because they are rushing to throw together "something" instead of doing it right. And doing it right would be letting an independent person study and interpret the data, an independent person that can analyze the numbers as a statistical evaluation. Like I said before, a professional statistician. The "data" is just that. It doesnt matter if it is broken legs or sloppy tracks or passed balls and stolen bases. Having a vet interpret the data after 1 year seems like a mistake in that conclusions may be drawn that simply arent valid.

The industry has already made the mistake of trying to interpret breakdown stats on a month by moth or meet by meet basis. There simply isnt enough data and too many variables until you have the proper amount of data. This is basic mathmatics.

The reason that this industry has issues is that everybody has had their head up their asses forever and now instead of properly doing things it rushes to judgement as it is doing here.

No one would complain about the "reports" not being released until they were told they existed. The fact is that one years worth of data (incomplete data at that) really cant be very telling can it?

Actually it reps the past year not the future

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Actually it reps the past year not the future

Fine. What can you compare it to?

The problem is these organizations in a usually desperate attempt to do "something" will impose some new regulations or standards using one year worth of data without any knowledge if it is bad or good. I have no issue with what they are doing other than it should have been started a long time ago. What i do have a problem is using incomplete or faulty data to change rules like they did with the shoes. The ironic part about that is different tracks STILL have different rules about the toe grabs.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Fine. What can you compare it to?

The problem is these organizations in a usually desperate attempt to do "something" will impose some new regulations or standards using one year worth of data without any knowledge if it is bad or good. I have no issue with what they are doing other than it should have been started a long time ago. What i do have a problem is using incomplete or faulty data to change rules like they did with the shoes. The ironic part about that is different tracks STILL have different rules about the toe grabs.

You can look at the data and evaluate some of it. You CAN NOT draw conclusive opinions. You can perhaps lean towards certain directions which the data suggests make some sense. CLEARLY jumping to conclusions is not prudent

[Riot]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You can look at the data and evaluate some of it. You CAN NOT draw conclusive opinions. You can perhaps lean towards certain directions which the data suggests make some sense. CLEARLY jumping to conclusions is not prudent

Hey, it may show that synthetic tracks haven't changed much compared to non-synthetics regarding injuries.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Riot

Hey, it may show that synthetic tracks haven't changed much compared to non-synthetics regarding injuries.

I know it's hard to believe but Cannon Head is finally right.. 12 months of data is helpful because it is better then zero months of data but I think it makes sense not to jump to conclusions.. The FDA requires Phase 1 2 and 3 trails before a drug is approved. Let's just agree that 12 months is phase 1 and while results may be consisent in phase 2 and 3 there is certainly no guarantee that years 2 3 or 4 reveil the same conclusions that year 1 did..

I suggest looking at year 1 with an open eye and leaning not jumping..

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You can look at the data and evaluate some of it. You CAN NOT draw conclusive opinions. You can perhaps lean towards certain directions which the data suggests make some sense. CLEARLY jumping to conclusions is not prudent

The horse racing business is a world leader in jumping to conclusions....hence the title.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am sad because they are rushing to throw together "something" instead of doing it right.

This is the part I don't understand. Why is it "rushing" to release what they have from the first year? Why do you think it isn't being "done right"?

Obviously if further accumulation of stats changes things, that will be apparent, too. Science isn't a static discipline. You can't overinterpret, but there will rarely be a day you can say, "Okay, we've waited long enough, and in hindsight, this is concrete".

Maybe in physics. That gravity thing seems pretty solid.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Having a vet interpret the data after 1 year seems like a mistake in that conclusions may be drawn that simply arent valid.

I know you have little respect for vets in general, but did ya miss the part where he's got internationally respected epidemiology bonafides?

Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I know you have little respect for vets in general, but did ya miss the part where he's got internationally respected epidemiology bonafides?

Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.

I have great respect for many vets.