<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: [Fwd: [RC] PULL CODES]
Ridecamp@Endurance.Net

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:39:29 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: Re: [RC] grooming and the coming cold weather - what's the best way to wash
  • - Merryben
  • Prev by Date: Re: [RC] PULL CODES
  • - heidi

    [Fwd: [RC] PULL CODES] - Jim Holland


    Given the choice between listing pull codes with results and NOT listing pull codes with results, I would choose the latter..just use DNF on the ride results....if it meant that we could get meaningful data that would be used aggressively to protect horse welfare. Ahhh, there's the rub!

    However, I can't help but believe if the reason for pull codes was explained to our riders, the "stigma" would go away...and they would see it as it is intended to be....a tool to evaluate how well we are caring for our horses.

    With the right publicity, you can change perspectives....politicians do it all the time! <grin>

    JMO....

    Jim, Sun of Dimanche, and Mahada Magic
     
     >>says Bob: Now, you tell me why the membership cannot conform with such a simple thing.  >>I think there are two basic reasons.1. The human nature factor - For most riders, having your horse pulled from a ride because of lameness or metabolic issues is fairly traumatic. We feel bad for our horse, it's a big disappointment, maybe even embarassment, and it represents some sort of failure. And knowing that your peers will see in the ride results that your horse was pulled and listed as L, or M, is not a cheerful thought.  There are many circumstances where riders will take a marginal horse through a ride in order to get completion, rather than be pulled - even though it may be in the best interest of the horse to call it a day... Completion rate is something people brag about, yet?  Being pulled is something to avoid. Bob can poo poo this all he wants (and I suspect he will :) but it really is a factor. If allowing riders an option for a gracefull exit is in the best interest of the horse (the bottom line) then we should do so. 2.  L or M simply does not always apply -  For statistical purposes it would be much more meaningful if L always meant the same thing "the horse was eliminated due to a grade III lameness".  Or M always meant 'the horse was eliminated do to metabolic dysfunction'. If we include anything less than the this, and include times when the rider thought the horse 'didn't feel right' or even include times when the rider thought 'if I continue, my horse really will be lame' then we are diluting the statistics and they become less meaningful. Steph