<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: [RC] [Guest] Is it about the horses? (Was: He/Him)
Ridecamp@Endurance.Net

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:35:27 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: [RC] World champ.
  • - Cindi Hein
  • Prev by Date: [RC] RE: [RC] Seeing horses in trailer ?was: trailer preferences
  • - AprJhn

    [RC] [Guest] Is it about the horses? (Was: He/Him) - John A. Teeter


    K S SWIGART katswig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    
    John Bass said:
    
    >Howard states:
      <I'm sure capitalism is alive and well all over the world and Americans
    are not the only ones who sell to him.
      My point is, if he continues to buy up all the best, whom will he be
    racing against in the future? >
    
    > Would it make a difference if the he/him were from England or is it the
    idea that he/ him is from the UAE?
    > Do I sense some bigotry?
    
    Actaully, I suspect that had it been Prince Harry (of England) that
    had done the same thing, that Howard's response might have been
    similar.  My guess is that it has as much to do with envy as with
    bigotry. And a feeling that there is something "not quite right"
    about giving a medal to somebody perceived to have done little
    of the preparation himself (although I, personally, don't know
    very much about how much preparation these competitors did themselves).
    
    If endurance riding is just about being a passenger on a good horse,
    then it isn't a human endeavour at all and we ought not be giving
    out medals to anybody.
    
    If endurance riding more about preparing the horse as it is
    about riding the horse, then we ought to be giving the medals to
    the person who prepared the horse not the person who rode it.
    
    If, instead we realize the endurance riding is about selecting a
    good horse (even to the extent of breeding it), raising it,
    preparing it for competition, then actually getting on it and
    riding it in the event, then who got the medal is irrelevant
    what we ought to recognize is everybody who had a part in it.
    
    Up until recently, most of these aspects of endurance riding
    have all been done by the rider (except maybe the breeding part),
    because up until recently, people have competed on horses that
    they have raised, trained, conditioned and prepared themselves.
    
    To me, it is relevant that much of the endurance accomplishment
    can be acheived by somebody other than the rider of the day
    by either buying or borrowing a horse that other people have
    prepared for the effort.  It is because so many of us realize
    that (like any athletic endeavour) most of the winning comes in
    the preparation leading up not just the effort of the competition
    itself, that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with
    the outcome when there is the impression that the "winner" of
    the day has had somebody else do all the preparation leading
    up to it.
    
    In strictly human events such as pole vaulting and the 100 yard
    dash, there isn't any (at least not very much) belief that
    somebody other than the competitor him/herself can do the
    preparation.
    
    In any horse event this is simply not the case.  It is possible
    to buy or borrow a "made" horse and thereby win by having done
    only a small part of the preparation.
    
    If we have a problem with this, since there is, realistically
    speaking, no way to make rules against it without disquaifying
    just about everybody, then, indeed, we ought not be giving out
    medals at all (which, BTW, is one of the reasons I think one
    ought not be able to win an Olympic Medal for endurance riding
    and I hope that the IOC agrees with me, since it would, in many
    ways cheapen every Olympic Medal to give them out to people who
    didn't do the preparation themselves).
    
    However, in this instance, I know very little about how much of the
    preparation that any of the competitors other than the US team
    did for themselves (Steve Rojek appears to be one who actually
    DID put in ALL the preparation).
    
    But what I suggest is that people recognize the efforts of all
    the people who participated in the accomplishments of the winners
    and it would be wildly inaccurate to not recognize that one of
    those people is the person who was actually ON the horse, ON the
    day in question.  The victory goes to all the people involved,
    including the rider.  And there is nothing to keep all the
    people involved from reveling in their victory, who gets to take
    home the hunk of metal then becomes irrelevant.
    
    As for the horse?  I can honestly say that I have yet to meet
    any horse that even knew the relevance of its accomplishments
    nor cared about what recognition it may receive from people it
    doesn't know and has never met. And that hunk of metal is
    irrelevant to the horse too.
    
    The fact that the piece of metal itself is irrelevant does not
    in any way take away from the accomplishments of any of the
    people involved, and were the actual medals to fall into the
    Mediterranean Sea on the the way home and be lost forever, the
    accomplishments of all the people involved and the horse itself
    would remain the same; they would not be lost with it.
    
    kat
    Orange County, Calif.
    
    
    
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
     Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
     Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=