Fw: reply to Tom Ivers re: re FEI

["Tracey" <tracey@tbt.co.za>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tracey <tracey@tbt.co.za>
To: Teresa Van Hove <tvanhove@uswest.net>
Date: 30 August 2000 10:24
Subject: Re: reply to Tom Ivers re: re FEI


>
>
>>a message dated 8/28/00 10:38:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Tom Ivers
>>writes:
>
>Teresa wrote:
>
>>Got to disagree a bit here Tom.  Your words seem to imply that anyone who
>hasn't conditioned enough to win, but enters an endurance ride anyway is
>being cruel to their horse.  That is just bull - sure its cruel to enter a
>ride on a horse not fit to go the distance, but  there is nothing wrong
with
>entering a ride on a horse fit to go the distance at a slower pace then the
>winners so long as one sticks to that slower pace.>
>
>At the risk of, perhaps, agreeing with Tom, I'm not sure I agree with you.
>I think that, if you are going to ask your horse to go the distance you are
>asking him to go, you need to ensure that he is fit enough, in fact, to go
>further.  Your intention need not be to win, but to ensure that your horse
>does not suffer on the day, he should be capable, from a fitness, if not
>naturaly athletic ability, perspective, of doing so.
>
>
>I am going out on a limb here, as my experience with endurance is, um, nil,
>but my experience with eventing is that it is not enough that your horse be
>fit enough to "get around" the course - he should be fit enough to get
>around and want more, if you truly want to ensure that your horse will
>arrive safely on the other side.  Whether you intend to win or not, you
need
>to know that your horse is capable of competing at a level one up from that
>at which you are actually competing : this is the only way to avoid injury
>and unnecessary strain on the horse, because it is the only way of knowing
>that your horse can cope with what you are asking of him.
>
>> Pace ridden has a huge effect the amount of stress on a horse, and if I
>want to take my fit to finish horse out and ride only for a completion on a
>given day to support the ride manager and the sport with my entry fee and
to
>enjoy a "day out" with my horse theres not a damn thing wrong with it.>
>
>I'm not sure that pace is the only factor to consider.  Please, anybody,
>correct me if I'm wrong, but this would seem to impact on aerobic stress,
>and on legs, tendons, etc.  But if all you have done is trained your horse
>to go around at the pace at which you intend to get around, and not at a
>faster pace, then I think you're running the risk of injury.  You may elect
>to go slower, but I think he should be capable of going faster.  Again, my
>limited endurance knowledge may be getting me into trouble here, so flame
>away if necessary.
>
>
>>I also don't believe its possible to train for every condition you might
>encounter on a ride.  A rider might live in a high, arid environment and
>find themselves facing high humidity at a ride.  If a horse that lives
>always in a hot, humid environment is at the ride it will have a large
>advantage; as a good horseman one could choose to reduce pace, and take
>extra time cooling and still try to "beat the trail" and have a horse
>ready for the next race.>
>
>Yes, it is difficult to train for every condition, but you can and should
>try to do so.
>
>
>>However if they believe that anything less than a win, every race, is
>beneath them and push the horse for the win in spite of its disadvantage,
>that is putting the win in front of the horse's good.  This is the type of
>scenerio that us  amatuers worry about when big money and glory is on the
>line-though has been pointed out already there are egos out there that will
>place a win for a coffee mug against just the local competition  ahead of
>the horse's good. Going for the win regardless of the risks to the horse,
is
>certainly not a problem confined only to world-class events.>
>
>
>No, it is not.  However, in my limited experience, it is more prevalent
>where there is big money involved.  My perception of this may be based on
>the fact that the big-money events receive more exposure, the top horses
are
>better known (and hence more quickly missed when they "break down"), and
the
>riders better-known.  One caveat : gossip may also have an impact on
>perception, in this regard.
>
>
>> I might add though, that I suspect that paying $40,000 for a winning at
>high levels horse instead of paying under $4000 for a prospect and building
>it yourself is more likely to engender a view that
>the horse has an obligation to win for you instead of a view that you and
>the horse are in a long term partnership with the goal of achieving as much
>lifetime success as possible.>
>
>Yes.  When you are doing this for a sponsor, or as a profession, then the
>horse is expected to "pay its way" quicker - the shape up or ship out
>attitude which is encountered in other equine sports.
>
>
>Another thought : I couldn't sleep last night, and walked the house
>pondering this.  So often, you see horses who, in the hands of a less
>experienced rider would not really perform, go brilliantly because its
>jockey, a natural rider and with loads of experience, could read the horse
>and coax more out of it.  I know this is true in other disciplines, but is
>it also true in endurance?  Maybe this is the other side of the
>"professional coin" - horses who would be discarded as "no good" get the
>second chance with a rider who has the talent and experience to get from
>that horse what an amateur would not.  Particularly an amateur with a day
>job, and hence, less time?  Just a thought.
>
>
>Tracey
>