Re: RC: BC award -- was Re: Norco Ride

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated Tue, 4 Sep 2001  1:01:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sue Brown <sbrown@wamedes.com> writes:

> This brings up something I hadn't really thought about before.  I had assumed
> that the BC award was for the horse in the best condition at the end of that
> ride when compared to the other 9 top-tenners at that ride...the one with the
> highest vet score of the 10.  

More or less, yes.  With time and weight carried also factored in.

> Is there a minimum vet score that they must get in order to get a BC?  Is the
> BC award not relative to the other horses in that run or is it a comparison to
> the ideal where you must reach a certain level in order to be eligible?

No, there is no set "minimum" or any such, but I think most vets have a point at which they will give a horse a completion but not consider them for best condition.  (I personally often use a more strict recovery pulse for BC than for completion, for instance, and also, horses may be given completion soon after crossing the finish and then show more stiffness, or even be off by the time the hour has elapsed for BC judging.)  So in effect, Dr. Beasom was saying that all the horses in the Top Ten were sufficiently ragged at an hour that he didn't feel any of them deserved to be judged.  (And BTW, at least one that crossed the line in the Top Ten didn't receive completion, either--and there may have been others.)

I agree with the posters who have stated that they applaud Dr. B for calling it like he saw it.

Heidi