It is OK to jump on the band wagon but one needs to take the good train. Like and unstoppable train, the science of motion leads the equestrian world faster further and stronger toward better quality of the daily life with the horse, greater performances and soundness. Supported by serious science and refined through extensive experience in terms of equine athletic training and rehabilitation, the science of motion shows that what appears impossible is indeed possible, but not by applying the same things. Our words and expressions are used, our thought are promoted but they are also distorted to fit traditional riding and training techniques and therapies. This is an oxymoron. We lead because we update riding and training techniques to actual knowledge of the equine physiologies. The therapy through motion can resolve "impossible" cases because the therapy is done through motion. I repeat THROUGH MOTION. This does not mean stationary therapy executed before moving the horse. The science of motion is the next step. It is the creation of precise, subtle and specifically adapted motion that resolve the root cause of the kinematics abnormality causing lesion. One can inject the hocks or treat a local muscle injury with success, but if the source of the kinematics abnormality inducing abnormal stresses on the joint or the muscles is not identified and corrected, the same lesion or soreness will reappear before long. The science of motion is precisely about identifying and correcting the source of the kinematics abnormality causing injury. This is done through educated motion, which include exploring numerous approaches and selecting the ones that really work.

Paige Labella is a student of the IHTC. Her study is brilliant and clearly shows that she fully understand the science of motion and applies it successfully in her rehabilitation practice.

Paige Labella

Part of my engineering career was spent doing statistical problem solving in the auto industry. I am not the statistical engineering guru but I was trained to use the tools and had many successes with it.

To solve an engineering problem like warranty data shows 2% of vehicles have squeaky brakes, a smart experienced engineer might say it's the brake pad compound.  We all know harder compounds are more likely to squeak so let's switch to the softer compound.  Makes sense, but too often these solutions did not resolve the problem or created a new one and wasted a bunch of money. The real problem of squeaky brakes might have been a rotor casting mold out of spec.  So, the auto maker deployed a team of engineers, myself included, to improve warranty and customer satisfaction using statistical problem solving.  Our mantra was "let the parts do the talking," which is hard because engineers are pretty smart and there is often a competitive side: fastest one to the most complex solution wins.  It was fun keeping each other in line. Step one is to find "good ones" and "bad ones."  Step two is to find the difference between the two.  Not as easy as it sounds and there can be many contributing factors.  This is where the statistical junk comes into play. Say the problem is an engine knock at less than 500 miles in 1% of vehicles. I use that because it seems really complicated with so many moving parts and endless possibilities. Traditional engineering might dictate running all kinds of expensive tests, CMM, magnaflux and on and on, in search of materials, parts or clearances that are out of spec or near a limit. They will most likely find something too! Then a bunch of time and effort will be put into tightening up the biggest variation, which might not matter at all. You wait several months for some fresh warranty data and your numbers have not improved: time and money wasted. With a statistical problem solving approach, you find a bunch of cars with knock and the same number without. Next you need to find the difference(s) between each set. Start simple and cheap. Check the assembly data. Were they fueled up at different pumps? Were they assembled on different shifts or assembly lines? Did the same operator sign off on all the bad ones? Often one or more of the bigger contributing factors can be found in the simple stuff. If you can significantly reduce the occurrence of a defect at no cost you're a hero.  

I'm going to switch to Navicular now.  Good ones are sound, bad ones are lame.  Now start investigating.  Imaging shows that the severity of the lesion doesn't correlate to the severity of the lameness.  So the lesion is not going to be the major contributor. In statistical engineering, you must move on because if you keep focusing on the thing that seems to make the most engineering sense but makes no statistical sense, you are going to fall into the trap of wasting a bunch of time money. Jean Luc Cornille has done this. In his decades of experience, he has found the differences between good ones and bad ones to be the in the limb and back kinematics which he knows how to improve through correcting the kinematics of the vertebral column. Y Violoa! Looks likes sound statistical engineering problem solving to me!             

Many imitate our approach holding the reins with two hands and touching the horse legs or body with a whip. Doing so, they miss the science behind the experience. The technique of holding the reins with two hands and touching the legs with a whip only allow talented but dysfunctional horses to perform movement for which their physique is not athletically prepared. The techniques were acceptable as long as the equine education was limited to the appearances. Most dressage manuals describe the training of passage and piaff, but very few explain how the horses perform them." (Mikael Holmstr�m, 1994)

Advanced research studies explain how the horse perform gaits and athletic achievements and the practical application of advanced research studies is precisely about preparing the horse's physique for the move. The extension to therapy is the practical application of Rooney's principle, "A major cause of lameness is lameness." The gait abnormality is there first and it is the repetition of this gait abnormality that causes pathological changes and therefore injury. In hands techniques that teach the movements without the capacity to precisely develop and coordinate the horse physique for the athletic demand of the performances are not therapeutic at all.

Na�ve thinking believes that moving the limbs and therefore the joints is therapeutic. Cavalettis for instance, are commonly emphasized as a therapy for stifle injury. The thought behind the elementary thinking is that the flexion of the hind limb above the cavalettis gymnastics the stifle joint. More elaborate thinking exposes a different picture. The kinematics adaptation of the hind limb above the cavalettis induces flattening of the pelvic which in turns demands greater rotation of the femur around the hip joint. Such rotation creates at the level of the tibia an inward rotation that places the stifle at risk of upward fixation of the patella. This is explained in great details and muscle by muscle in our on line course. This is the difference between biomechanics and pathomechanics. Most of these na�ve therapies are labeled as biomechanics. They are in fact pathomechanics. Pathomechanics is a new term describing mechanical movements of the limbs or vertebral column causing pathological changes and therefore, arthritis, spurs, tearing of tendons or ligaments, or other injuries. CLICK TO READ ON