Re: RC: Fw: RC: endurance prospect, etc.

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/6/00 12:38:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, bass@bigsky.net 
writes:

<< > My only point, Tom, was that I have a hard time with this sport of
 > endurance riding sometimes.  Not because I don't want to win, or have the
 > horses to make it possible -- it's because at most rides, the (eventual)
 > winner is willing to push their horse harder than I am.  Believe me,  I
 > went through a stage where winning was important to me.  Even raced for
 > miles on end at the end of a couple of fifties in order to place first
 (or
 > even second).  And I hated the way it made me feel, and I hate the way it
 > makes me feel when I see others do it.  So I made the decision to learn
 > from what I felt were mistakes, and change my mentality.  >>


I don't think I missed your point, but I'll deal with the one expressed 
above. Pushing a horse beyond its capabilities is obviously stupid, dangerous 
and expensive. Asking a well-prepared athlete to deliver his best is another 
matter. That's the whole idea of athletic sport. And if a sport has a "first 
place, second place, third place", then, clearly, the object is to win. If 
the object was to lose, then you'd have a "last place, next to last place, 
next to next to last place". Are you with me so far? 

When you say "the eventual winner is willing to push their horse harder than 
I am", it's a statement without criteria. Define "push". Is it the same as 
"ask", or does it mean that winners automatically are putting their animals 
at risk? If it means the latter, what evidence is there of that? For example, 
in the last ride you were in, where you finished 10th, on purpose, so that 
you wouldn't have to face the guilt of winning, did the winner injure the 
horse by winning? You can't win if you injure your horse, can you? 

Did the rider who finished 15th accuse you of pushing your horse too hard to 
finish in the top ten? Why not? Same logic applies all the way down to last 
place. The last place horse, according to your scenario, has the morally 
superior rider. Even more morally superior is the rider who, having left the 
horse home to graze, comes to the ride soley for the purpose of selling T 
shirts for a profit while glowering at all the rest of you for torturing 
horseflesh. 

By that logic, I was morally superior for riding in the Sheikh's passenger 
seat rather than on a poor sweating beast of burden. Sure feel good about 
myself about that, and I want to tell all the rest of you monsters that even 
putting a halter on a horse is cruel and unusual punishment and you should 
all be ashamed of yourselves. Would you believe there's a gold halo over my 
head as I write this?

Ms Bass, you're confused. Whatever the source of your personal guilt, 
projecting it onto others is not the solution. They tell me Jesus already 
died for your sins. So forget them and, if you choose to participate in a 
sport that has "first place, second place, and third place", why not attempt 
to condition an athlete that is fully capable of being safely asked for a 
winning performance?  This will keep you very busy with not enough time to 
worry about others' motivations. And you won't find yourself tied in a 
logical knot all the time.

Or, if your own inadequacies force you to behave in a way that enables you to 
automatically pass moral judgements on others without any possible knowledge 
of their motivations, then you might do better as the Flying Nun. I know that 
I'm going to start calling myself the Passgenger Priest now that I understand 
the horrors involved in winning endurance races. Lord knows, I have a bushel 
of inadequacies to cover up. Sister Bass, let me introduce Father Ivers of 
the Church of What's Happenin' Now. 

To win is to win.

ti