Re: Fw: RC: endurance prospect, etc.

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/6/00 5:43:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, bass@bigsky.net 
writes:

<< Tom, I must have struck a nerve, as you've resorted to personal attacks.>>

Hon, your attacks are personal as well, and offend quite a few. It's the 
moral superiority angle that irritates the most. Sanctimonious 
self-righteousness is my favorite target, and an easy one. Just doing a 
little plinking in practice for serious battle with the next 
pseudo-intellectual bully to stick his head above the trenches.

>  I
 guess I should have known better, having been a "lurker" for quite some
 time. . . >

That's the problem with lurkers--they don't get enough practice in actually 
having to think a concept through.  

>But for your info., I think that the "clear goal" of endurance
 riding is to finish, not to win.>

I'll take that info directly to the bank without passing go. 

>  And yes, I think that generally, the
 winner is putting their horse at more risk.  It's only logical.>

Not at all. In genuine competition, the winner is always fitter and better 
conditioned--and harder all around because of it. However, if you would care 
to cite any study which suggests that winning riders cripple more horses, 
have at it. 

 > Whether
 it's in a race to the finish line (risking lameness), or asking your horse
 to go at an incredible pace for an extended length of time, its putting the
 horse at more "risk".>

No, what puts the horse at risk is falsely assuming that you have prepared a 
horse for an athletic contest when you haven't. And, if you haven't, you lose 
and you get a cripple to boot. 

 > That's what I've seen, that's my opinion.>

That's not what I've seen, so our opinions differ dramatically.

>  And as
 far as "conditioning an athlete that is fully capable of being safely asked
 for a winning performance" goes, that's my point.  I have athletes that are
 capable of a winning performance, but so do others -- and chances are that
 they are willing to ask their horse for more than I am, if and when it
 comes down to the finish line.  I don't think that makes me a bad person,
 Tom.>

Losing on purpose doesn't make you bad. Not real smart, but not bad. What's 
bad is the sanctimonious posturing that follows and excuses the loss. If you 
prefer to lose, that's just fine--but don't then criticize the winners for 
leaving you in the dust--especially on moral grounds. That's dishonest, and 
ugly. If you don't know your horse well enough to know whether he can finish 
strong or not, that's your fault. And if you're unsure, that's a lack a 
horsemanship and still your own fault. Blaming others for these failings is 
ludicrous on the face of it.  

>  I do realize that "to win" is generally the idea of "athletic sport",
 but this sport involves an incredibly selfless animal as the other half the
 partnership, so I think we need to be more careful not to involve our own
 egos as much. >

Then start a petting zoo and stay out of competitive sports. Save the whales. 
Clean up oil slicks. Start a rescue farm. Chain yourself to a selfless 
ego-free tree. Quit chopping the heads of innocent asparagus plants. Become 
an abused horse whisperer. Then you can put down virtually every human being 
on the planet. You can float in moral indignation, wallow in it.  You can 
become the poster child for rectitude--elbowing Bill Clinton out of the 
throne. I mean, Save the Cigars! 

 > But really, I don't know why I'm discussing this with you
 at all -- you're rude, and you really should stick with the aspects of
 endurance riding that you KNOW something about.  So, I'm done. . .>

Aw, c'mon. You've jusrt come out of the closet and had your first taste of 
competitive thought. Race you to the finish--how about it?

ti
 
  >>