RE: Norco BC

["Kathy Mayeda" <Kathy_Mayeda@atce.com>]

Title: RE: Norco BC

Thanks for the clarification – yeah – I should have said HEARTBEAT instead of CRI.
Looks like Wonder Woman was successful in putting on a great ride.  Hope to make it some year!

K.

-----Original Message-----
From:   Lynne Glazer [mailto:lynne@glazer.org]
Sent:   Monday, September 10, 2001 10:34 PM
To:     Kathy Mayeda; ridecamp@endurance.net
Cc:     ridecamp@endurance.net
Subject:        Norco BC

All of the top ten + 3 horses were at least 15/15 one hour after
finishing.  The high heart rate and not the CRI itself was the basis
for not awarding BC.

We had unusually high humidity and temps which certainly contributed.
(Of course this past weekend's weather was the "shoulda been" variety
we had enjoyed the last 3 years of this ride.)

Lynne
still didn't get that trailer unpacked, cool or not!
ride photos up at http://www.lynnesite.com/nrr.html




At 11:10 AM -0700 9/6/01, Kathy Mayeda wrote:
>I am not going to second guess whatever the vets were thinking. But
>to have an elevated CRI
>*AFTER* a hold may have been the concern.  They were doing exit
>CRI's at this lunch stop and pulled some horses at the exit due to
>CRI parameters, even after vetting through fine coming in.  I also
>read somewhere that whether the horse's head was up or down can make
>a difference in a point.
>
>The 60/60 CRI pull happened at a 100 mile ride with many hard miles
>to go - not at the finish line, so that may have been an influencing
>factor.  A lot of people were surprised by this and was a topic of
>conversation.  But one world-class rider backed up the vet by saying
>that a horse with a BPM of 60 after an hour hold would be
>metabolically suspect, even if there was no elevation of pulse
>during the CRI.
>
>Like I said, I'm not going to second guess the vet and I have no
>opinion.  Just stating that it is not too surprising to me at all
>that a 15/16 CRI was not considered for BC, especially when the
>horse was not one of the top 10 to cross the finish line.
>
>K.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: KimFue@aol.com [mailto:KimFue@aol.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 10:15 AM
>To: Kathy Mayeda
>Subject: Re: NORCO BC FROM ONE THAT WAS CONSIDERED
>
>I must disagree with you on this....A CRI is just ONE tool to evaluate a
>horse and it would be highly unusual to disqualify a horse because it came
>back one beat higher. As you yourself said - you RO'd you were not pulled for
>metabolics.  I have seen more than one horse at BC judging come back with a
>HR that is one beat or even two beats higher - they were NOT
>disqualified...only received low marks in recovery.   Also reread Debbie's
>post all other perameters on her horse were excellent.   That was my point
>and I still would be interested to see her scores if they used a BC sheet.   
>I attended this ride and because of the unusual weather conditions it does
>not surprise me that many of the horses were hanging around 60.  Where
>vetting was taking place there was NO shade.  I wish that they had done a
>pulse check and CRI on a horse that did not do the ride so one could have a
>baseline to go on.
>
>-----------------Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net,
>http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer:
>http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp -----------------