Ridecamp: RE: [RC] Pre-Ride VC Issues and a few others

Roger:

Your latest posting is very interesting. I have endured and
observed endurance vetting since 1977, that is 25 years and
I would say that what is now called endurance vetting is a
far cry from what it used to be.

First off, endurance vetting was originally intended as just
that. Vetting the horse to determine if it was fit to
continue (or start)for a considerable distance in a sensible
manner. Today, vetting the horse has turned to a CYA process
that determines if the horse is in condition to be raced to
the next vet check.

I think your comments and suggestions are well thought out
but let us take a look at the suggestions one at a time;

1. CRI at all rides at all Vet Checks  NOT AT THE FINISH.

This one is good if the CRI is standardized. I have seen
horses pulled because the CRI varied by two beats. I have
seen horses allowed to continue when the variation was four
beats. Now I do not consider that to be a standard. We must
establish an acceptable range of variation.

2. NO chasing hazing of horses by anyone at the VC to obtain
a trot. Crops for
unruly horses only, NOT to make a horse trot.

Agreed. If the horse will not trot out then it is not fit to
continue.

3. Fix COMPLETION PULSE to 64 for 50 miles and up (NO more
lower 60 pulse for completion).

Disagree here. I believe that ambient conditions should
dictate. I have seen times where 56 was a reasonable pulse
criteria. I would opt for a standard of 60 bpm but feel
there should be some acceptable range considering
conditions. However our AERC Rules do provide: 6.2.1.2   The
equine must reach a reasonable pulse recovery based   on
ambient conditions, within 30 minutes of arrival time   at
all control points during the ride. The maximum pulse
criterion is 68 beats per minute; however, the ride
veterinarian(s) may allow a higher pulse criteria in
documented  extreme  weather  conditions.  Respiration
should  be  evaluated  on its  own merit.  Ambient
tempera-ture and humidity effects need to be recognized and
there   effects on respiration rate considered.

4. Completion time at finish LEFT as is at one hour -
includes pulse recovery
and vet out process. (NOT the 30 minute pulse recovery I
have seen at
a few rides)

Our AERC Rules call for one hour. 6.2.1.1   All Equines must
stand a mandatory post ride evaluation   within one hour of
finishing.  Riders may present their    equines for the
final examination at a time of their choos- ing during the
one-hour period.  An equine that does not   meet the
established criteria within one hour of crossing the finish
line shall be disqualified.  Once a competing equine has
passed the post ride examination, it may not be removed from
completion for veterinary reasons. When the 30 minute
recovery is instituted it is a violation of the rules and
disputable when used for completion criteria.

5. More then ONE VC on 50 milers and above. Some standard on
the number of VC per mileage and conditions- yes within
reason- may not apply to ALL rides.

Well we can go round and round on this one but just let's
say we strongly disagree. We have no need to get
paternalistic in endurance riding.

Now for your last comment "I suggest YOU run for the BOD
this time with all the DAL seats open."

I have run more times than you can count but my politics do
not make me a suitable candidate. My stance is that the AERC
Rules and Regulations are very satisfactory and if
stringently enforced there would be fewer problems. Most of
those who would be my constituents do not agree. So! Never a
candidate again.

Bob


Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID

-----Original Message-----
From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Roger
Rittenhouse
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:29 PM
To: ridecamp
Subject: [RC] Pre-Ride VC Issues and a few others


FROM   Roger Rittenhouse

I noted TWO posts from riders about the pre-ride VC
procedures and
the issue with 'strange or inconsistent way of going; NOT  a
real
issue with lamness.
This problem appears to be  an issue at more and more rides.
It tends to be more prevalent with  'big time' rides with
more then one
vet doing the trot evaluation - the sort of gang up vetting.
It occurs at the OD every year and other bigger rides as a
few riders have
commented.
Part of this situation is caused by  ' the top vet I see
something
and you dont' syndrome.
  IF one top vet 'sees' something ALL the other have to go
along to
not appear as they dont know what they are doing, sort of a
group
hysteria thing, one sees 'something' and all the others  -
say   'yeah
maybe so'. Just to be on the same team and all of one common
mind set.

Its mostly bunk as far as I am concerned. IF the horse is
REALLY LAME
  that is, which means the AERC RULES definition of lameness
are
applied , then there is
no question, but this sort of uneven crap and missed ONE
step that is
ONE head nod   -inconsistent - that is, is baloney. I see
too much of
this.
To be pulled  you have to show a consistent uneven gait in
ALL
directions of the trot out - out back and circles. The old
policy was
 IF the horse took a few bad steps the condition was noted
as 'G1
inconsistent LF - or what ever.

NOT this stuff we are seeing today.
Some of this made up criteria  is getting out of control.
 One up mans-ship vetting. Why ?? to prevent a problem
later?
Well I believe someone quoted a vet at the OD saying Lame
horses generally do NOT die
- but metabolic problems will kill.?? I think I have that
right.

Then we have the other end of the spectrum where tired
horses are
chased - hazed - to make them trot- they may be sound but
are dead
tired  - fatigue? .. this has been one of may major bitches.

Talk about inconsistent vetting. a little bobble at vet in
gets you a
no start- but having to chase - smack- hit - whapping with
crop at every
step - yelling- dragging - what ever to get the
tired, but maybe sound horse, to trot out at the end gets
you
a completion?? go figure.  It is NOT a training issue.

I actually thought the idea with undefined motion gait
issues,was to let you start then REALLY look hard
at the horse at the FIRST VC. This assumes the horses is NOT
indicating an abnormal gait that causes NOTED irregular
motion- head
bob or hip hikes etc  WITH EVERY STEP.
I would of course NOT like to see a G2,(almost every step)
start or
continue.
 But not this minor uneven gait - as in 'we dont really know
but
there is something there' , so your out thing, this is
improper.
Sort of like the pull for 'he dont look right'  no real
issue found
just the vet does not like the way horse is looking.  There
are
standards on what constitutes a not fit to continue horse.
Not self defined -
non-specific criteria.
The ONLY time this really means anything is when YOU the
rider thinks
something is wrong AND the vet supports your 'feeling' THEN
YOU the
ride should re-evaluate and either adjust your ride or
withdrawal.

Far too many times I see or hear of riders getting pulled
for in-vaild
reasons. Of course the vet can 'make something up' then you
get
pulled for a 'real reason' and we are not allowed to object.

Seems horses are not being allowed to start for LESSOR
inconstant
gaits then would be allowed to continue on trail or at the
finish.

Let me toss this one out - Does anyone other then ME think
all this
excessive picky nondescript vetting have anything to do with
the influence of FEI
and a transference of mind sets from the FEI vets?

I have complained about this 'do it your self' vetting rules
interpretation to a few vets - defined what I thought was
improper and
suggested we have rules to follow. IF we do not care for
these rules
and want stricter standards THEN we should make the changes
to
conform with new standards.

Since I was NOT at the OD  - let me ask this one - DID ALL
the horses
get the CRI done at ALL VC-  AND - at the FINISH - was it
used as a
finishing criteria? COULD you have been pulled for a
'failed' CRI at
the finish??   Need to define that one?

I have ranted on this before- I would like to know,   How
many other
rides (riders) have noted this? Is it being done at more
rides. It
sure is NOT consistent at the rides I went to last year.

I have brought these issues(and others) and lack of
consistent vetting and
following the rules, up to the BOD and vets both on the BOD
and the Vet
committee. I have gotten no where expect - ridicule - no
action and told by the vets
that they will do as they please - what ever the vet of the
day wants to do - even
outside the rules and guide lines of AERC.

So after reading this stuff from two rides (riders) I now
take it public.

Should we make the rules of starting and fit to continue as
well as
completion stricter, do we need to codify the policy and
vetting
standards to insure ALL the vets perform the process the
same way at
ALL rides?  Do we want to develop standards as done in
Australia and
other places. Logs books all that which goes long with that?

OR do we just ask - demand-  the rules, policy, and
guidelines we
currently have in place be followed?
I believe our current rules and vet procedures are for the
most part- adequate.

I would like to see a  few changes but overall the rules and
procedures are acceptable for the protection of the horse.

OK now that you asked ?? WHAT would I change ?

1. CRI at all rides at all Vet Checks  NOT AT THE FINISH.
2. NO chasing hazing of horses by anyone at the VC to obtain
a trot. Crops for
unruly horses only, NOT to make a horse trot.
3. Fix COMPLETION PULSE to 64 for 50 miles and up (NO more
lower 60 pulse for completion).
4. Completion time at finish LEFT as is at one hour -
incudes pulse recovery
and vet out process. (NOT the 30 minute pulse recovery I
have seen at
a few rides)
5. More then ONE VC on 50 milers and above. Some standard on
the
number of VC per mileage and conditions- yes within reason-
may not apply to ALL
rides.

Just a few to get the flames up to temp

I dont really expect any changes to anything- though. No one
wants to
go on the hot plate- as many of you will take exception to
most of my
comments.
I suggest YOU run for the BOD this time with all the DAL
seats open.

 OF course we can do it the way Dr Matthew wants to go,
Get rid of the hard ball rules and 'racing'

 Say just how did THAT work out the OD?
Guess the 50 would be more valid then the 100 miler.
I really dont see that going anywhere either.

Roger Rittenhouse AERC #8263








Roger Rittenhouse



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



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