by Dr Alistair Lewis MBBS
Provider No. 369063W

12.02.99

Re: Application for Australian Technology Showcase

REGAL LIGHT SUSPENSION SULKY

I am a doctor of Medicine and have specialised in Sports Medicine, Workers' Compensation and the treatment, management and investigation of lumbar spine and cervical spine injuries. I graduated in 1980 and have been working in these fields from that year. In March 1998 I purchased a BRUMBY light training sulky fitted with the Floating Link Suspension system.

It was delivered to my home via Air Express and I assembled it with my 14 year old son. I must say that, in the normal course of my work I do not assemble things such as this, but I found the instructions and diagrams very easy to understand and follow. Suffice to say, if I can assemble this with the help of my 14 year old, then I believe just about anyone could manage the same.

I was initially impressed by the concept and could immediately see many advantages. Having now owned and used one, I feel I am in a very good position to comment upon it. I am so impressed with the unit I have ordered a second one for reasons that will become apparent.

Let me describe my experiences and observations and then address several issues in the selection criteria as provided to me by R.J. Walsh & Son. I will list by point the benefits as I perceive them. These are in no specific order.

1. The Floating Link Suspension gives a very comfortable ride for the driver and absorbs impact shocks magnificently.

2. The tracking of the sulky is "true". By that I mean it is like a trailer that follows precisely behind a car through the bends, as distinct from cutting the corner, or indeed, sliding or jackknifing. This sulky runs truly behind the horse and, unlike conventional sulkies, does not slip sideways on bends. It is clearly safer.

3. There is less torsional stress exerted on the horse by the shafts of the sulky and, indeed, on the attachment/clips that join the sulky to the horse. This is due to the fact that the torsional stresses and centripetal forces are taken up by the floating link suspension and shock absorbers. This feature greatly minimises the risks of falling and/or injury to the horse and is not present on other sulkies.

4. Despite the greater number of "moving parts" inherent in the new technology, the sulky is built to such exacting standards that these heavy duty parts seem virtually "bombproof", certainly more than adequate for the demands placed on them in practice. My sulky is used on a daily basis with up to 5 horses in training requiring a total of up to four hours use per day. It has been used at that rate since purchase approximately 12 months ago. There have been no problems at all with the failure of any part.

I will now address the medical implications of this technology.

(i) The superior shock and impact absorbing aspects of this sulky are such that drivers with pre-existing injuries to their cervical or lumbar spines are protected. They may therefore continue in the industry for far longer and suffer less morbidity/illness and less wear and tear on both their lumbar and cervical spines.This means less damage to their discs and facet joints (Disc and/or facet joint dysfunction are the most common cause of back-lumbar or neck pain surgery). Lumbar spine and, to a lesser extent, cervical spine injuries are very common in drivers to the point that I expect all drivers to have "bad backs" eventually. The risk of such an outcome is minimised and, if drivers were to always race and train in these sulkies, the degenerative changes inevitable under the old technology would be delayed by years. The introduction of this technology has significant implications not merely for the quality of life of trainers and drivers, but also in terms of the use of medical manpower, services and treatment. Inevitably, the increased use of this technology will reduce days in hospital and the use of medical services generally by its users. It will reduce the politically sensitive "waiting lists" . . .

(ii) Another interesting point is that the horse bears less risk of injury, both around the shoulder and front legs, because of the lack of torsional stress as described previously. However, and perhaps more subtly, when a horse in a race kicks the wheel of an adjacent sulky, or the wheel of such sulky runs over his/her foot, that horse is less likely to be injured because of the reactive way the wheels are controlled by the shock absorbers and suspension. In other words, the wheel moves more freely as it is not fixed vertically in relation to the sulky. This lower risk of injury manifests itself also as less risk of the horse falling and creating a "domino effect" through the ranks of following horses. There have been many recent unfortunate episodes of serious injuries and even death to drivers during racing. Anything that improves safety as much as this technology is really a milestone in sulky development and I believe its benefits cannot be over-estimated.

Once these benefits are fully understood, it seems a clear onus of responsibility may be held to lie on trainers and owners alike to provide such technology for the use of employees and contractors in their employ. All employers are obliged under law to prevent or minimise avoidable injury where possible. I for one will not be held accountable for failing to embrace a technologically advanced development that will clearly tend to minimise risk of injury to horses, drivers, and even the general public. To do so, I believe, would be negligent.

Yours faithfully,

Alistair Lewis