----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Sofen
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:53 AM
To: ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RC] OD (Long)
Howard,
I'll be the one to tell you you're nuts. In the 6 years I've been competing, I've NEVER - not once - been pulled arbitrarily or without cause. In some cases, the vet saw something that I couldn't see (I remember a comment: "...there's a vague tightness in the hindquarters"), or was caused by having to wait in line for 40 minutes on a cold wind-swept ridge. But in all cases, my horse wasn't perfect and I didn't care that I couldn't see it.
------
I'd like to discuss this particular paragraph, except for the first sentence (we all know this to be true, and it's a separate topic entirely). I think that it is rare when a person can say "I've never-not once," as part of a statement of opinion and be objective or, even, factual. When I was 14 years old I could honestly say, "I've never-not once-had sex with a female," but, does that mean that sex didn't exist or wasn't around? No, it just meant that I hadn't experienced it, and eventually, thank God, I did.
A horse does not have to be perfect to be fit to continue. You may feel that way, Mike, and you always have that option of pulling your horse at any time, if that is the case. But, I do believe most of us other riders would like to "see" what the problem is that the vet is telling us about, if for no other reason than to clearly decide on what course of action to take, as far as the horse's health is concerned.
When Jim stated that he didn't see anything wrong with his horse, during the pre ride trot out, where his horse almost got pulled, I do think Jim might have a reason to be concerned, especially if they did pull Sunny. And, I don't think Jim and I are the only two endurance riders who have had this experience. A grade three lameness call should not be something that most folks cannot see; it should be quite evident to others, not just to the vet making the call.
Look, I'm not advocating that they "loosen" the standards, not at all. I'm just asking that they make the standards "standard;" in other words, they follow the rules as written down by AERC, not their own personal interpretation of what "fit to continue" actually means.
Endurance is evolving, which means it's changing, constantly. If your world has stayed the same, as far as endurance vet checks go, for the last 6 years, than things must truly be different out west and I need to get out there. I, for one, have noticed changes, in interpretation, and, quite recently, in the use of CRI's. This recent revelation of a high percentage of endurance horses having ulcers (if it's accurate) is most likely gonna make some changes in how the game is played. Since its all for the good of the horse, I won't argue with the vets about their call; I'm just trying to understand what the criteria is, because I'd like to know exactly what the rules of the sport are before I play.
cya,
Howard (this is an interesting topic and one that affects all of us)
