Getting Pulled

[DreamWeaver <karen@chaton.gardnerville.nv.us>]

Just curious what others think now that Endurance News is publishing the 
names of the riders that do not complete rides?

I could go either way with it.  I don't really care from a personal 
standpoint, since I don't get pulled very often.  (though that could change 
anytime, so I better not say that aloud!) :^)

On the other hand, I was thinking about the motto "To Finish is To Win", 
and is it really fair to publish the "losers".  Endurance riders can be 
very judgmental.  (and I'm not saying that not finishing is losing, 
everybody has bad luck)

My only real problem with it is that I think that if they are going to 
publish why riders do not complete rides that they need to address the 
issue of the whole system not being very accurate.  I have seen horses 
pulled from rides as "RO" (rider option) that later ended up at a vet 
clinic, and I've even heard one vet say that she liked when riders chose to 
pull their own horses (as RO), that way she didn't have to do it and of 
course then everything looks much better than if the records are showing 
more L or M horses pulled, right?  The record keeping needs improvement.

I think that they need to have more options.  Right now we have RO = rider 
option, L = lame, M = metabolic and I guess there is also OT = over 
time.  Are there more?  There should at least be RI = rider injured or HI = 
horse injured.  I just think that RO is far too vague.  I think that RO 
should be used for when the rider wants to pull because something just 
doesn't seem or feel right, but the horse passes the vet check.  I guess we 
could add categories like RW = rider wimped. :^)  And if a horse dies, how 
would that be logged?  RO....yeah, I chose not to continue, no use riding a 
dead horse.....(said jokingly)

Happy Trails,

Karen
in NV
& Rocky, 2,515 miles
& Weaver, 3,255 miles
http://members.xoom.com/ridephotos/