Re: RC: Re: Getting Pulled

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/27/00 10:16:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
firedancefarms@prodigy.net writes:

<< THERE IS NOTHING BUT NEGATIVE TO BE GAINED FROM LISTING NAMES!!!
 1. LYING
 2.  RIDING ON WHEN YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD QUIT
 3.  HURTING THE HORSE IN THE LONGRUN >>

Sorry, but I have to give the opposite viewpoint here.  We have listed pulls 
in PNER for years, and I have yet to see the sort of backbiting happen that 
is mentioned here.  There is a rock out there with everyone's name on it at 
one time or another.  And if the vetting is so bad that riders are allowed to 
ride when they should quit, then SHAME ON THE VETS!!  The VAST majority of 
pulls are "rider option" in the sense that it is the RIDER that makes the 
decision before the vet says "you have to pull"--even when the vet is ready 
to make that call.  There is NO stigma to being pulled if the vets, managers, 
etc. make it clear that the riders who pull have "done the right thing" and 
have taken good care of their horses.  The reason for listing pulls as lame, 
metabolic, etc. is to find out WHY endurance horses fail to finish in hopes 
that we can improve conditioning, strategy, management (both of horses and of 
rides), etc.--not to blacklist riders.  Did we get more metabolic pulls at 
Ride ABC than the norm?  Was it the weather?  Was it because ride management 
failed to have water at crucial places?  Do we need to learn more about 
electrolyting?  Etc.  As for stigmas that go with riders--in my experience, 
there is more of a stigma attached to continually riding a horse to the 
ragged edge than there is with being pulled--circumstances of pulls soon get 
around, and believe me, most of us KNOW when "Sally" rode her horse to the 
wall and had to have ride vets argue with her that her horse was not going on 
vs. "Jane" who had a mild problem and pulled on her own at the mere 
suggestion that the horse was not 100%.  No matter what is listed, "Jane" 
will earn the respect of her fellow riders and of the vets and managers, and 
"Sally" will not.

We've accepted the listing of pulls regionally since forever, and it has not 
been a problem.  Look at this scenario...  "Joe" has an endurance horse for 
sale.  He says it has a 100% completion rate.  Unless one lives in the NW 
where the information is readily available, the buyer does not know that 
"Joe" is lying.  Come to find out the horse has a chronic suspensory problem 
and the buyer just got suckered.  "Jack" has an endurance horse for sale.  
There is no reason to lie about the fact that the horse was pulled at XYZ 
ride, because it has been published.  "Jack" provides the buyer with all the 
facts, the buyer can talk to the ride vet, "Jack's" home vet, etc., and make 
an informed decision about this horse.  Scenario two--I want to go to XYZ 
ride.  The manager tells me that there is lots of water, the weather is 
always great, yada yada yada.  But I look at last year's results and it shows 
that there was a WAY higher incidence of metabolic pulls at that ride than is 
the norm for the region and the season.  What's more, there are some names on 
that pull list that I KNOW can manage their horses pretty well.  I may just 
give XYZ ride a miss!  Same with a high incidence with lameness, unless the 
manager is up front with me about what it is about their footing, etc., that 
causes the problems, so that I can prepare for same.  Sorry, but I find the 
LACK of publication to be far more conducive to dishonesty.  I'm all for the 
publication of FULL ride results, including pulls.  If you always tell the 
truth, you never have to remember to whom you told it.

Heidi