Fwd: RC: Fwd: RC: Re: Tevis (long)

[Endure4fun@aol.com]

I guess that is true.  Who can "look" at a skinny, "boy, I sure could use 
some more groceries", glassy eyed, "hey sun is in my eyes", hang dog 
attitude, "saving my energy for ride" trots out bobbing head, "boy these new 
shoes are tight" type of horse and really feel it is ok to give the go ahead 
to start a 100 mile ride that is hard on the truly fit horse and a rider who 
isn't trying to "pull something".
I think that when "some" people start doing endurance riding they lose what 
is called a "conscience".
keri

---- Begin included message ----

• To: Endure4fun@aol.com, ridecamp@endurance.net
• Subject: Re: RC: Fwd: RC: Re: Tevis (long)
• From: Tivers@aol.com
• Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:55:35 EDT
• Full-name: Tivers

In a message dated 7/26/00 8:50:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Endure4fun@aol.com writes:

<< If this were totally true, then the vets should have pulled numerous 
horses 
 at the preride vetting.  The Vets need to pull horses that aren't fit to 
 start at the start, not "early on in the ride."  I know WSTF would loose a 
 lot of money if this were to happen, but this and all rides shouldn't be 
 about the "money" but about giving riders and horses a great ride to do.  
The 
 vets need to be more "strong" about not letting a horse start then thinking 
 they can pull it at first vet check. >>

Naw. No criteria for that. You can't eyeball a "not fit to start" horse--all 
you'd get would be a bunch of politics, and that's already a problem. 

ti 

---- End included message ----