<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: [RC] Vet checks

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:35:57 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: Re: [RC] January 2002 European Chef d'Equipe Resolutions for FEI
  • - Heidi Smith
  • Prev by Date: RE: [RC] January 2002 European Chef d'Equipe Resolutions for FEI
  • - Steph Teeter

    [RC] Vet checks - Karen

    I think the ones who *can* complain are those who have safe riding
    records.  I've never had to have a horse treated,

    Oh good, then I can do lots of complaining. My two horses have 11,150 miles and have never been treated.

    I've been thinking about the differences in the rides and how vet checks are managed. At the Oregon 100 that I just did. Well, okay, I did the 50 and then crewed for Rocky (my horse) and Calina (junior) on the 100. They had 7 vet checks during the ride with 3:15 in hold times. The pulse criteria was 60, even at the finish line. In addition to the 3:15 hold times, there were three vet checks 'out' on the trail that did not have hold times taken out. So the horses did get plenty of time to eat, and I knew that with all the vet checks (they never went very far between checks) if something went wrong that they would get pulled. I asked the vet to be extremely critical of my horse and pull or slow them down at the first sign of trouble. This was Calina's 2nd 100 on this horse, and she's ridden him a lot. Don't think I wasn't extremely nervous.

    Then the 100 mile ride Rocky did before that, with me -- we also finished up in the front but it was a harder course. (tho, probably easier on the horse) That 100 mile ride had 4 vet checks on it. The first one at around 25 miles, was a full vet check with a 20 or 30 minute hold, then a trot by at mile 43. Our first long hold came at 50 miles (yes, really). We had an hour then, went out for another 25 mile loop, had another hour hold at 75 miles, and then did the last 25 miles (no vet checks during either of the 25 mile loops).

    No horses were treated on the 100 on either of those rides. The riders on the 100 with less vet checks and holds took care of their horses and didn't need to have it mandated to them. The stricter criteria used at the Oregon 100 was necessary I believe, because the terrain warranted it. Plus, many of the riders on that ride are interested in qualifying for Pan Am next year, and this was a ride that really lets you move out. I really am not comfortable with MY horse going that fast, I think it's too big of a risk and it is never safe to race on a 100. Now I know he can do it, that is good enough for me and we'll go back to happily plodding along and trying to get this horse to his 6,000th mile next month. Maybe FEI or UAE needs to start a mileage program for their horses. If there is no other goal but to win, horses will keep dying no matter how strict the vet control is.

    I can say without a doubt that had I let Rocky race when he was younger or had less experience, I would not be riding him today. What is more important, you have to ask yourself. Placing well in a few rides for a season or two, or getting to ride the same horse for many years. Would you trade one win or top ten for ten middle of the pack rides? Or, is any number of rides on a horse worth trading to win a single ride? If the horse is a really good horse they will only get better with each thousand miles they complete. The sooner they get raced, the sooner their careers will likely be over. There are so few exceptions.

    Happy Trails,
    in NV

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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

    If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the upcoming By-Laws Election!!!! (it takes 2/3rds to tango!!)