RE: Something not quite right (was: RO)

["Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

Kat You are 100% correct that something is not quite right.

There are two ways to look at this, from the outside looking
in (Kat) and from the inside looking out (some of the rest
of us)

On looking out at the problem we must consider the constant
reminder that we all hear. Please do not load more paper
work on the Ride Management. Lets us examine this request.
We have had in place a requirement for the posting of
certain ride statistics under rule 2.1.8, since the BoD
passed the rule in 1987. How well is this rule followed?
Well in the year 2000 ride season we had about 700
sanctioned events which were made up of 1213 distances (LD,
50, 100, etc) and AERC only received 82 POST RIDE
STATISTICAL REPORTS which is a very poor commentary on our
record keeping data collection.  Note that the DATA Study
group only has 4 EQUINE FATALITY reports-and they are since
1999, and it took forever and numerous requests to even get
those four.

We do not do very well following our own rules! In 13 years
we can only produce less than minimal results. Do the riders
care? Considering the postings on line I believe they do but
then the riders are the AERC and the AERC is not doing the
proper job. Vicious circle is it not?

Prior to the year 2000 ride season no viable records exist
since we are told what few were submitted got wet and had to
be destroyed! Damn poor management I would say.

Now from your view point, looking in, this could be a
wonderful opportunity to get things started out correctly.
We can always use constructive concepts. How about
volunteering some effort to get what we need. To start, a
short, clean outline of what you think is needed and then an
objective plan on how to implement. We are all volunteers so
you would not be lonely.

Bob Morris


-----Original Message-----
From: guest@endurance.net [mailto:guest@endurance.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:11 PM
To: ridecamp@endurance.net
Subject: RC: Something not quite right (was: RO)


K S SWIGART   katswig@earthlink.net
While I can agree that it is meaningful to distinguish
between
whether the horse/rider team did not complete because there
 was something wrong with the horse or ecause there was
something wwrong with the rider; I cannot agree that it is
not
also meaningful to distinguish between a horse being
disqualified
(and therefor not allowed to go on...no matter who made the
decision)
and a horse being withdrawn by it's rider despite the fact
that it
would be allowed to go on.

Additionally, it is naive to think that "something not quite
right"
can easily be correctly allocated between Metabolic or Lame.
If a rider
is very in tune with a horse's normal "way of going" and
decides to
withdraw the horse from competition because "something" is
not
quite "normal."  The cause of this abnormality may be a)
transient
(but the rider doesn't want to find out he was wrong the
hard way),
b) incipient lameness or c) incipient metabolic problems.
And the only
way to know for sure why "something" wasn't quite right
would be to
go on and see which system might then exhibit problems
and/or fail.

This is, of course, different from a horse that is withdrawn
from
competition by a rider because it is, say, Grade-I lame and
that while
the vet isn't going to pull the horse, the rider elects not
to continue
anyway.  THAT horse was pulled because it was lame.

However, _I_ pulled a horse from a ride, "because she wasn't
having
any fun."  Since this particular horse enjoys everything she
does, it
was an indication that there was SOMETHING wrong with the
horse (not to mention the fact that I am not going to make a
horse
do something that it isn't having fun at even if there isn't
anything
physically wrong with it).

In retrospect (after another 300+ miles of competition over
the next
few months and an ultrasound of her lower leg that was
exhibiting some
persistent "thickening" which showed a three inch tear on
her suspensory
ligament--despite the fact that she never took a lame step),
the
"something" that was wrong was probably incipient
lameness...but there
was certainly no way of knowing that at the time.

All I knew was that she wasn't having any fun.  It could
just as easily
have been some incipient metabolic problem...but because we
didn't go
on...we will never know.

That is, after all, the whole idea.  To stop BEFORE it
becomes obvious.

So, yes, if the AERC wants the pull codes to have some
relevant
statistical
meaning, it cannot lump all lamenesses together, it cannot
lump all
metabolic
problems together, and it has to have a code for wounds
and/or surface
factors, and it has to have a code for "something not quite
right, but we
didn't have enough data to know exactly what."

If the AERC is only concerned about horses (and not riders),
it CAN lump
all "rider problems" together; although an arguement COULD
be made
that knowing why riders elect not to continue might be as
meaningful
as why horses don't continue.  While this may be meaningful
to endurance
riders, it may not be of concern to the AERC (or at least
not of
sufficient
concern to expend resources finding out).

The way the pull codes stand right now...even if they were
being applied
uniformly (which, currently, they are not), they are
virtually
meaningless.
It would be a mistake to rely on them for providing valuable
information
regarding what causes endurance horses to not finish
endurance rides.

However, it is also true, that until the AERC started
reporting the pull
codes to the general membership in the ride results, the
fact that there
are serious flaws with the way the data is collected (which
it had been
for years) did not come to light.  So...maybe this reporting
of pull codes
is the first step down the road to the gathering of useful
information.

But if this is the case, it becomes important not to
consolidate the old
data (using a clearly flawed system) with any new data
collected using
different criteria for describing why horses do not finish.
Especially
if some of the same codes are used in any new system.

kat
Orange County, Calif.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net,
http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer:
http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=