Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Data collection and analytics in eventing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by aycaramba View Post
    Janet , thank you, I will reach out to them! Hopefully they can make that data available.
    enjoytheride , that's a good point about yellow cards, maybe a clear rubric or criteria could help (I'm not sure if they currently have that, but that's a good idea to look into it). I think it would help to even record warnings that don't result in yellow cards. And you do have a good point about the jump judges - it's easy to forget that it's not always horse people. Maybe we could create greater incentives for riders to jump judge, or create more flexibility for them to jump judge for just one level's worth of divisions (I know time commitment is the biggest reason I don't jump judge more often - if I am riding, it's hard to volunteer even an entire half-day). Or maybe we could collect data in a different way, but jump judges seem like an underutilized resource if we want jump-level data since they are already there at each fence. This kind of brainstorming is exactly the kind of start we need.

    Video recordings are so ubiquitous, why don’t officials watch videos of riders after an event and call out any behavior that wasn’t noted or marked on the day? You can give a yellow card or a warning a week later.

    Comment


      #22
      You all do realize we were hashing this out 15 years ago? IFG even developed a rubric to enable statistical comparison for all incidents.

      Record keeping at events is spotty at best and wholly incomplete at worst. There is no consistent reporting, e.g. uniform nomenclature, that allows effective comparison.

      I’ll support you all if you can get it done this time. But as one who has a couple of clinical research trials going, I can tell you that the data you need to collect will need to be consistent and clear (IFG is the person who can create that).

      Data analytics is only as good as the available data. And that is where this effort will fail without the development of a consistent system and training of TDs to fill out the required forms correctly (welcome to trying to do epidemiology).

      Additionally, you need to have upfront the statistical parameters that will be measured (a parameter is not a measurement) in a matrix that enables testing. Think about exactly what your hypotheses will be and what parameters will need to be quantified in order to compare those parameters.
      Last edited by RAyers; Mar. 4, 2020, 01:50 PM.

      Comment


        #23
        15 years is a long time. Maybe now is the time for people to listen. We are who changes our sport. Maybe those who tried in the past can give us a jump
        Last edited by enjoytheride; Mar. 5, 2020, 01:53 PM.
        http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by IFG View Post
          If you look back on threads from 2008, several of us offered to help. I am a Ph.D. Epidemiologist. I worked to develop a case report form for falls with several others, including RAyers and JER. Nothing ever came of it. Part of the problem is the issue of jurisdiction over events that is divided between the USEA and the USEF and the FEI. If the PWB are more open now, great, but the experience left several of us with a bad taste in our mouths.
          Seems like US and Europe are the same on this, what a shame
          I love horses, eventing and good dining!

          Comment


            #25
            totally in support of the effort! I'd love to see eventing as easily tracked and published as horse racing, and we have the tech to do it. Here are some articles that I remembered that might help your quest, or maybe contact the author of them to see where she got the information.
            These have a data category of horse falls and rider falls broken down by event
            https://eventingnation.com/eventing-...coast-edition/
            https://eventingnation.com/eventing-...coast-edition/

            I suspect the USEA and FEI have far greater data than they let on, it's just gaining access to it that will be the challenge.

            Comment

              Original Poster

              #26
              First off, thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion! I have been reading all the responses and seriously thinking about this all week. I'll respond more directly to people this weekend when I get some more time, but I do want to say that I'm working on a proposal of where I'd like to start with the data. One idea I have, and the one I think would be easiest to start with, is getting some data about every rider-xc jump-show combination and putting it through a machine learning model called a random forest. I think we could use this to give us a variable importance ranking, which would then at least point us in the right direction in figuring out which variables are correlated to falls the most. I'm putting together a list of the variables I'd like to use, how hard they would be to get in the current climate, and what an action item might be if we found it to be highly correlated to falls. This would not be used to advise any single person, but rather to advise the system as a whole on what to focus on. I'll post the write up this weekend and would love to get everyone's thoughts on it!

              Comment


                #27
                You still have to develop the parameters of the learning set. You just don’t take random data. Thus, you still need to have uniform parameters that may not be reported, e.g. type of fence - a vertical or palisade could be the same or different fences depending on who filled out the report. Hence the need for uniform reporting. Otherwise you will need to go through all written reports and develop your own nomenclature.

                Make array of parameters. I bet you would have somewhere up to 25-50 with 10 having significant principle component effect.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by rockyriver7 View Post
                  totally in support of the effort! I'd love to see eventing as easily tracked and published as horse racing, and we have the tech to do it. Here are some articles that I remembered that might help your quest, or maybe contact the author of them to see where she got the information.
                  These have a data category of horse falls and rider falls broken down by event
                  https://eventingnation.com/eventing-...coast-edition/
                  https://eventingnation.com/eventing-...coast-edition/

                  I suspect the USEA and FEI have far greater data than they let on, it's just gaining access to it that will be the challenge.
                  Thanks for those links, they were really interesting!

                  It would be great if the USEA or USEF could use the show results they already have to calculate and publish rates of horse falls, rider falls, refusals, and completion at each venue and level. Perhaps that would encourage some accountability for venues and course designers with abnormally high fall rates.
                  Building and Managing the Small Horse Farm: http://thesmallhorsefarm.blogspot.com

                  Comment


                    #29
                    There is a lot of analysis associated with the ERQI ratings, but it is focused on identifying horses that are likely to fall, rather than fences that are likely to cause falls. You might be able to piggy back on their analysis.
                    Janet

                    chief feeder and mucker for Music, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now). Spy is gone. April 15, 1982 to Jan 10, 2019.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by Janet View Post
                      There is a lot of analysis associated with the ERQI ratings, but it is focused on identifying horses that are likely to fall, rather than fences that are likely to cause falls. You might be able to piggy back on their analysis.
                      How do they actually do that? Do they incorporate the accident data into their algorithms? Do they take, fence, weather, and venue data? Are the rider qualifications considered?

                      Janet, how can the system identify specific horses? Has it ever predicted a horse and rider fall before it ever happened? What sort of validation is done? Has this ever been done at low level, small events, e.g. did it ever predict a fall at BN in Arizona?

                      Analysis without verification is just that. It is economics. It is man made numbers that GUESS as to an outcome.

                      Comment


                        #31
                        Originally posted by RAyers View Post
                        How do they actually do that? Do they incorporate the accident data into their algorithms? Do they take, fence, weather, and venue data? Are the rider qualifications considered?

                        Janet, how can the system identify specific horses? Has it ever predicted a horse and rider fall before it ever happened? What sort of validation is done? Has this ever been done at low level, small events, e.g. did it ever predict a fall at BN in Arizona?

                        Analysis without verification is just that. It is economics. It is man made numbers that GUESS as to an outcome.
                        ERQI isn't perfect, and to my knowledge it doesn't include every single one of the variables you discussed above (although it is proprietary, so there is only so much information we have about the exact calculation). This is what has been disclosed publicly:

                        The ERQI value takes into account the class at which a horse is competing, the rider who is competing on the horse and the level of performance displayed by all of those who competed in the same class. An ERQI can react to whether a competition was statistically harder or easier than the average for that level of competition.
                        Source: https://www.eventingireland.com/Port...feb16%20v2.pdf

                        Early data indicates it is more effective than MERs alone as qualifications, explained here:

                        Eventing Ireland (EI) was the first and only national federation to utilize the ERQI during the 2016 season, targeting all national levels. They saw a 56% reduction at the national two- and three-star levels, with a staggering 66% reduction in horse falls at the national two-star level alone.
                        Source: https://eventingnation.com/equiratin...a-safer-sport/

                        ERQI does not predict that a horse will fall, simply that a horse is at a higher risk of falling than others. That said, since you asked for an example of a horse and rider fall it predicted before it happened, one I know of was Lauren and Veronica at Rio. Equiratings had alluded to that combination several times, as clearly as they could without outright naming them, prior to that fall. Colleen Rutledge and Escot 6 at Kentucky in 2016 was another they had not-so-subtly flagged up prior to their horse fall there. That's just off the top of my head.

                        If you would like to investigate further, additional links are below (depending on how much time you have on your hands):

                        Detailed explanation: https://useventing.com/news-media/ne...ndex-explained
                        FAQs: https://useventing.com/safety-educat...lity-index-faq
                        Podcast: https://usea.podbean.com/e/introduci...quality-index/

                        Comment


                          #32
                          Yeah. Yeah. I’ve seen and read all that. The questions still stand. You use a very high level example. How about prelim at St. John’s in New Mexico. You example is one where I would ask if there is a high level bias which suggest there is algorithm bias.

                          At the same time, how does one account for any officials bias, e.g. a dressage judge who is consistently 10% different than another?

                          EQRI is a good validation of risk management but is not actually a risk management tool.

                          I have yet to see how Ireland actually did their comparisons, was it normalized to participant rate? How do you know of that claim is a real effect of simply an outlier of random chance?

                          This is where the real research must be done if we want data driven rules and standards.

                          Comment


                            #33
                            I’d love to help out. I have a background in data analysis and would love to help where I can- been thinking along these same lines for a while.

                            Comment


                              #34
                              Originally posted by CSU92 View Post
                              Have you looked through the Charles Barnett audit of the FEI data?
                              Here it is in case anyone is having difficulty finding it:
                              https://inside.fei.org/system/files/...2026.07.16.pdf

                              Comment


                                #35
                                https://useventing.com/news-media/ev...ials-explained

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by clivers View Post

                                  Here it is in case anyone is having difficulty finding it:
                                  https://inside.fei.org/system/files/...2026.07.16.pdf
                                  Thanks for this link. It’s interesting - especially the risk analysis on fences. It would be nice to see this report updated every two to three years. I see the FEI has an online reporting tool that is supposed to be extended to Eventing this year.

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    I sat down for several years and collected videos of accidents. Probably 200 or so and did a stride by stride analyses.
                                    Most of the time I look at as much video I could get of every ride and than concentrated on the jump and than how it developed during the ride.
                                    I send those analyses to the FEI, USEF and so on. Hundreds of hours of work. 2008, 2009 and into 2010.
                                    Never heard a word.
                                    I might have killed the plastic big log imitation, when it was used at the WEG, by analyzing the video of the South American rider, which was heralded as such a big success.
                                    The log nearly killed him.

                                    Do not expect any response from the powers.
                                    They are to much used to work on their self interest, which is big money and the good old boy network.
                                    That I have no use for them, does not mean, that I don't know them and don't know how to use them.
                                    Caveman extraordinair

                                    Comment


                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by FlaxenChestnut View Post

                                      Thanks for this link. It’s interesting - especially the risk analysis on fences. It would be nice to see this report updated every two to three years. I see the FEI has an online reporting tool that is supposed to be extended to Eventing this year.
                                      A risk analysis of fence is BS. You have to understand the course design and the terrain and how the jump was or is used.
                                      Besides eventing I did built jumps and worked with course designers, sobering experience.
                                      That I have no use for them, does not mean, that I don't know them and don't know how to use them.
                                      Caveman extraordinair

                                      Comment


                                        #39
                                        Originally posted by Gnep View Post

                                        A risk analysis of fence is BS. You have to understand the course design and the terrain and how the jump was or is used.
                                        Besides eventing I did built jumps and worked with course designers, sobering experience.
                                        A methodology was included in this report. The analysis included those factors (to the extent that they had the information) and made recommendations on how to improve the data collected. The report also recommends yearly analysis, as data collection is improved and updated.

                                        Comment


                                          #40
                                          Originally posted by Gnep View Post
                                          Do not expect any response from the powers.
                                          They are to much used to work on their self interest, which is big money and the good old boy network.
                                          Sad but true

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X