We finished our first full pilot season in May, and we wanted to share what we learned, plainly, before the next one begins. This is not a marketing post. The numbers below come from the same internal review we share with our partner every quarter.
The pilot ran across the full competitive season with one Ligue 2 professional club. Twenty-three players were followed through the platform. The staff brought together four sources: daily GPS load, post-session perceived effort, morning wellbeing and the medical history of the previous two seasons.
We deliberately did not reduce that trajectory to an injury probability. The staff needed the observable facts, their evolution and the missing data — not a number that appeared to decide for them.
The recurring indicators were concrete: recent load, perceived effort, form and freshness, reported pain, test results and relevant history. None was interpreted in isolation, and every reading remained linked to its source.
Omen helped the staff decide whom to review first and why. A qualitative summary could bring the factors together, but the staff interpreted the situation, spoke with the player and chose the action.
The clearest daily change was time. Before the pilot, the medical staff spent roughly four hours per day gathering the same information from separate tools. With Omen, that reconciliation dropped to under one hour. Three hours returned to the players.
That time saving also improved the record itself. The staff entered more post-session observations because the platform no longer asked them to repeat the same manual work. More complete context made the weekly review clearer and easier to trace.
The next step is to test whether those workflow gains hold across other squads, staff structures and competitive levels, while measuring data completeness and decision traceability. We will publish what we observe either way.
We take on a limited number of new partners each season. If you would like to talk about it, you know where to find us.