• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

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 are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

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 1/26/16)
See more
See less

video: a PointTwo failure to deploy

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

  • I use a nickname because I never really thought about it when I started posting "here" (the old USCTA BB) and never saw any reason to change. But I'm sort of glad of it because I'm not entirely sure I want my COTHy ranting and raving to pop right up front and center if someone were to Google me.

    Plus, nicknames put people in a more easygoing mood.
    Click here before you buy.

    Comment


    • Yes I created an alter for this thread. I'm not new to this forum, I know how things go and this is an inflammatory subject. It's a small world and no I didn't feel like revealing myself. If that diminishes my credibility then so be it. My questions are valid regardless of my motivation or identity. Trust me conspiracy theorists....I'm nobody exciting.

      Yes, my questions were directed at Reed. Should Reed like it or not his opinions are much sought after here. I did not intend it to be an attack, I have zero issues personally with Reed. I felt it fair to clear a few things up. Again, if that ruins my credibility and diminishes the validity of my questions for some I can't help that.

      I really can't understand this conversation though. Why does it not exist in relation to "proven" safety equipment? I think a huge disparity exists there. Some safety vests provide little to no protection, some seem substantial and worth wearing, some are certified, some are not. We discuss the differences and people do the amount of research that they are comfortable with and make a decision. We don't demand test data, nobody produces it. It may exist, I don't know. The manufacturers make claims of "reducing injury". Somehow we can live with this and it doesn't inspire the uproar that occurs when someone wants to have the same conversation about an air vest. I know, I know, but air vests may exacerbate injury right? I guess I'm just not convinced of that.

      The point of my assertion Reed was to clear up where you stand on "proven" safety equipment. I think it is a fair question. Many in my local hunt still wear hunt caps. I'm less interested in their take on my wearing of an air vest. Perhaps my logic is faulty as you imply but I place more value on someone's opinion when they practice what they preach. Makes me feel better about their motivation I suppose.

      So let me get this straight. All we really have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Medical reports and doctors opinions are worthless. The testing we have now is of no value. The air vest companies are not making claims beyond "reducing injury" (despite what some have said on here....I'm now glad I asked).

      Right back to it being a personal decision. If I only read this forum and perhaps did not read it thoroughly I might get a different idea.

      I will continue to wear mine. I will still encourage those that I care about to wear one. I hope that those that can contribute toward the improvement of how we collect data and test will actually contribute. By now we all know what the complaints are so it would be nice to see something constructive done....not just talked about.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JER View Post
        The world? Perhaps you and your world didn't notice that hoisttheflag's questions were directed specifically to RAyers and not to the general populace.

        As for me, I do take exception to unwarranted personal attacks by purpose-bred alters on a thread that I started. That's what I was addressing.
        The world wonders....it doesn't mean what you think it means.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hoisttheflag View Post
          The manufacturers make claims of "reducing injury". Somehow we can live with this and it doesn't inspire the uproar that occurs when someone wants to have the same conversation about an air vest. I know, I know, but air vests may exacerbate injury right? I guess I'm just not convinced of that.
          First, remember the HISTORY of companies such as P2. They were found GUILTY of false claims as to what their vest could do in Europe. They made excessive assertions as to the efficacy (e.g. lives saved etc.) of their product when the fact was, they only tested it on a CHILD. At the same time there was no proof as to their life saving capabilities. However, there was PROOF that some of the riders they claimed walked away with no injuries actually had significant back fractures.

          Thus the company had to completely backed off any claims other than "reduces injury" to protect themselves from liability. Other companies who produce standard vest never made such claims.

          As for causing or exacerbating injury, it actually makes sense. They function in a completely different manner, are fail-dangerous (admitted to me directly when I challenged a manufacturer directly) in the sense that people can be locked to their horse (a couple of posters here have had that happen and I know of several around the US) or they can completely fail to even operate. Upon inflation they force the torso into a semi-rigid frame as those who have had them inflate can attest, resulting in different impact mechanics. Thus there is a whole new set of potential injury and dangers involved when wearing an air vest.

          In the end, my concern with air vests is that people should recognize that they are actually incorporating a completely new and different risks to a fall. Even the USEF recognizes this aspect by requiring a standard vest be worn underneath and other sports prevent their use because they lock the person onto an unpredictable animal.

          Comment


          • I just want to step in and say, thank you, Reed, for providing such thorough information and continuing to explain it in such a gentlemanly way, despite the somewhat insulting posts pointed your direction.

            I'd be a lot more convinced these companies, particularly Point Two, were concerned with rider safety if they (1) performed the evidence-based studies needed to address the questions many riders have about these vests and the damage they may do, (2) address the issues with vests that have failed to deploy, etc, and (3) make the vests more affordable for the everyday rider.

            In my experience, most people I know who have gotten them (for eventing and combined driving) no longer use them and have sold them on. For me, it's a nonissue as I have a medical device implanted under my skin that would be compromised by the pressure the vest exerts.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by KellyS View Post
              I just want to step in and say, thank you, Reed, for providing such thorough information and continuing to explain it in such a gentlemanly way, despite the somewhat insulting posts pointed your direction.
              Thank you, however, Hoisttheflag, Ms. Baumgardner and others do ask valid questions and have valid perspectives on the topic. At the same time one can not expect to discuss anything, science or otherwise, where personal statements are not targeted at oneself. Hey, over on the medical forum I am Dr. Gas Bag for trying to point out a person's medical inaccuracies concerning oxalate crystal formation.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RAyers View Post
                Thank you, however, Hoisttheflag, Ms. Baumgardner and others do ask valid questions and have valid perspectives on the topic. At the same time one can not expect to discuss anything, science or otherwise, where personal statements are not targeted at oneself. Hey, over on the medical forum I am Dr. Gas Bag for trying to point out a person's medical inaccuracies concerning oxalate crystal formation.
                Have you not shown them your "sun shining" photo , or were they just not impressed?

                Comment


                • Crap. I hate it when folks are inaccurate when discussing oxalate crystal formation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
                    so why do people not use their real identities?

                    I apologize... this is off-topic.... I should use PM...
                    Because there's nothing quite like flying into another city for a 9 am meeting and being greeted by your client's new hire who shakes your hand and says, "I googled you - is that a picture of you riding your horse I found?"

                    If your name is Jennifer Johnson, you already live your life with a pseudonym - you could be one of thousands of people.

                    I don't mind the client knowing I ride horses, but maybe it's better if he gets to know me in context before he finds out how much time I worry about my horse's diet or the intricacy of footing or what color saddle pad to use.

                    Besides... y'all know more about me as poltroon anyway.
                    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                    Comment


                    • The air vest companies lost a lot of credibility with me when they promoted and accidents where people survived as "being saved by" their vest when close examination of the fall showed that the vest had not inflated before impact. Oliver Townend's Rolex fall was a notable example. No one is crowing about Charles Owen saving his life.

                      To me that shows a lack of honesty and integrity in the company... and it makes me less willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when there are questions.

                      This is a hard problem. We are fortunate to have someone with Reed's experience here - someone who does this kind of research for a living, paid for by deeper pockets than ours. The issue of unintended consequence is significant and it bothers me to see it glossed over.

                      I don't envy the role of a company trying to bring a new safety product like this one to market. No question that the pressures to make sales and the pressure to be sure you get it right are at odds, and that there hasn't been an obvious marketing path to get it right. Maybe something like Kickstarter, for the future, where you can be more honest with everyone about your ongoing R&D and concerns, and where maybe you're an investor in the company getting free product rather than a customer.

                      As for the EMT testimonials for air vests... rarely does an EMT view a fall, and in general, even an EMT who goes to a lot of events isn't going to get enough of a statistical picture. We've had fewer fatal accidents in eventing in general lately after some terrifyingly bad years - but that's not air vests making a difference.

                      And like delta, I've heard some pretty interesting alleged claims from alleged doctors and EMTs... including a young lady swearing that the doctor told her that it was lucky she hadn't been wearing a helmet when she broke her neck, because a helmet would have made her injury worse. Uh huh. That's nice. Go put your helmet on anyway.

                      I would really like to see these products work out and succeed. I don't want to be catastrophically hurt in a fall, and I plan to be riding well into my dotage, when my bones are brittle and less protected by fat and muscle. As I see it, that's not going to happen unless the companies keep investigating and keep innovating. That means they have to work out and fund some better tests and ask themselves more hard questions.
                      If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                      Comment


                      • Well said, poltroon.

                        Comment


                        • Unfortunately, extreme views from experts tend to carry a lot of weight. That is supported by solid empirical research dating back to the 1960s.

                          I think that Hoisttheflag has at least provided a balance to these discussions.

                          As for personal attacks on this forum? I have seen personal attacks and been the subject of personal attacks already here, and as part of the air vest discussion. Those who wear masks are much more likely to engage in aggressive behavior. That also is supported by solid empirical research dating back to the 1960s.

                          Perhaps there is an unwritten rule that one does not insult a member who has been part of the dominant culture for a lengthy time.

                          Ducking
                          -Ann

                          Comment


                          • I would really like to see these products work out and succeed. I don't want to be catastrophically hurt in a fall, and I plan to be riding well into my dotage, when my bones are brittle and less protected by fat and muscle. As I see it, that's not going to happen unless the companies keep investigating and keep innovating. That means they have to work out and fund some better tests and ask themselves more hard questions.


                            If the back-and-forth on this thread is seen as "personal attacks", OMG. This thread is TAME! I guess if Reed has claimed the "Dr Gas Bag" title on the other thread about crystals I'm left with "Dr A**hole".

                            Perhaps there is an unwritten rule that one does not insult a member who has been part of the dominant culture for a lengthy time
                            Disagreement is not a personal attack. Insults are in the eye of the insulted. An being here a long time is certainly NO defense--I get castigated on a very regular basis because I have opinions and express them freely, and often these opinions are directly opposite of strongly-held opinions of other people who also feel passionatley about whatever topic is at hand. Homeopathy, anyone? If I only ever expressed lukewarm sentiments I suppose I'd never get called an a**hole, idiot, closed-minded jerk, etc. etc. Pfft. Having and defending one's opinions when they are crossing the grain will yield you some flak. Opinions go BOTH ways on air vests, so flak flies in both directions. What's wrong with that? Ever seen a topic worth reading on whether or not horses should be fed and cared for regularly? Contentious topics are . . . contentious. Opinions have no feelings.
                            Last edited by deltawave; Feb. 5, 2013, 09:45 AM.
                            Click here before you buy.

                            Comment


                            • Thanks Deltawave. ^^^^^
                              -Ann

                              Comment

                              • Original Poster

                                Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
                                As for personal attacks on this forum?
                                Personal attacks don't bother me so much. But creating an alter to launch a personal attack is just a little too much cowardice for my taste.

                                We're eventers. We confront our fears and test our bravery on a regular basis. So why would an eventer need an alter to remind Reed that he needed a girlfriend to bully him into wearing a helmet?

                                The choice to wear a air jacket seems to fall under the category of belief systems. Like other belief systems, it lacks evidence but surrounds itself with positive images and influential self-talk like KOC and Oliver Townend claiming their air jackets saved their lives.

                                I think we deserve better in terms of serious assessments of their value. Perhaps these discussions wouldn't take on an emotional slant if we had more facts to focus on.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
                                  Unfortunately, extreme views from experts tend to carry a lot of weight. That is supported by solid empirical research dating back to the 1960s.
                                  Sarcasm is fine. But at least I have actual support for my opinion. Please feel free to bring your data/research to the conversation.

                                  Here is a partial list of literature I read pertaining to my understanding:

                                  Chad G. Ball, M.D., M.Sc., Jill E. Ball, B.H.Sc.O.T.,
                                  Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, M.D., F.R.C.S.C., F.A.C.S.,
                                  Robert H. Mulloy, M.D., F.R.C.S.C., Equestrian injuries: incidence, injury patterns, and risk factors for 10 years of major traumatic injuries. The American Journal of Surgery 193 (2007) 636–640.

                                  K. H. Lee, L. J. Steenberg: Equine-related facial fractures. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2008; 37: 999–1002.

                                  K E Thomas, J L Annest, J Gilchrist, D M Bixby-Hammett, Non-fatal horse related injuries treated in emergency departments in the United States, 2001–2003. Br J Sports Med 2006;40:619–626.

                                  Andrzej Nawrocki, Jadwiga Demus, Elżbieta Maklewska, Elżbieta Mielicka, Clothing Protecting Brachial Plexus of Motorcycle Rider during Collision. FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe July / October 2004, Vol. 12, No. 3 (47).

                                  Tim Deans Martin Herbert, Research into the Safety of Cross Country Obstacle. Presentation by:Competitive Measure

                                  John D. Hinds, Gareth Allen, Craig G. Morris, Trauma and motorcyclists; born to be wild, bound to be injured? Injury
                                  Volume 38, Issue 10, October 2007, Pages 1131–1138.

                                  Stephen J Wolf, Vikhyat S Bebarta, Carl J Bonnett, Peter T Pons, Stephen V Cantrill, Blast injuries. Lancet 2009; 374: 405–15.

                                  Arul Ramasamy, Adam M. Hill, Spyros Masouros,
                                  Iain Gibb, Anthony M. J. Bull, and Jon C. Clasper, Blast-related fracture patterns: a forensic biomechanical approach. J. R. Soc. Interface (2011) 8, 689–698.

                                  James A. Blair, MD, Jeanne C. Patzkowski, MD, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, MD, Jessica D. Cross Rivera, MD, Eric S. Grenier, MD, Ronald A. Lehman, MD, Joseph R. Hsu, MD, Skeletal Trauma Research Consortium (STReC), Are spine injuries sustained in battle truly different? The Spine Journal, (2011).

                                  Daniel G. Kang, MD, Ronald A. Lehman, Jr., MD, Eugene J. Carragee, MD, Wartime spine injuries: understanding the improvised explosive device and biophysics of blast trauma.The Spine Journal 12 (2012) 849–857.

                                  Comment


                                  • Anything directly pertaining to injuries due to air vests? This is a lengthy list of publications, although I doubt that facial fractures have a lot to do with air vests... or maybe they do?

                                    I wasn't being sarcastic. There are multiple studies, and I believe a meta-anaylsis, on the effects of extreme opinion on attitude change. I will send you references, if you insist, and send via PM. Suffice it to say that it is a robust effect that has been replicated across diverse settings (both in and outside of the lab).
                                    -Ann

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                                      The air vest companies lost a lot of credibility with me when they promoted and accidents where people survived as "being saved by" their vest when close examination of the fall showed that the vest had not inflated before impact. Oliver Townend's Rolex fall was a notable example. No one is crowing about Charles Owen saving his life.
                                      Wow. Just wow. I didn't know that. I wonder what would happen if I mention it at the barn tonight...

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by eqsiu View Post
                                        Wow. Just wow. I didn't know that. I wonder what would happen if I mention it at the barn tonight...
                                        nothing. I've hear claims from all over on the benefits of one product or another. These little companies (far smaller and less established than Charles Owen) should not be making claims that are unfounded, but that doesn't change the actual product. I'd hate to think that someone would forego using a safety device because they disapproved of advertising.
                                        -Ann

                                        Comment


                                        • But if they are making unfounded claims in place of . . . well, "founded" ones, that makes one wonder where the solid claims (based on something besides hyperbole and emotion) actually ARE?

                                          There was a P2 rep who posted here briefly and passionately in defense of his (her?) product and PROMISED that there were a bunch of safety data from a study that were "imminent". This was, oh, about a year ago I'm guessing. The poster hasn't been seen or heard from since.
                                          Click here before you buy.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X