<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:39:28 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES
  • - DreamWeaver
  • Prev by Date: Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES
  • - heidi

    Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES - Barbara McCrary

    There has been a perception for a long time that it is the rider's fault ("he over-rode his horse") if the horse has been pulled for lameness, or PARTICULARLY for metabolic reasons.  This is, of course, not always true, but I've heard riders complain because they didn't want the information made public (and thereby the criticism), so they chose  RO.  I thought the stigma could be reduced by adding some codes, namely RO-L and RO-M, meaning that the horse was lame or on his way to being so, the horse was just not right and might be on his way to a metabolic crash.  Since it was the rider's option to pull, it showed that the rider was astute enough to pull the horse before he really got into trouble.  The other code added was SF, surface factors...a cinch gall, a scraped knee due to a fall, a small cut that was of concern to the rider, etc.  Somehow, these new codes do not seem to be accepted by some riders, at least that's the impression I'm getting from these posts on ridecamp.  I'm not exactly sure why, because it seemed to me that this sort of code was indicating that the rider was wise enough to pull his own horse, but the vets would be still be able to glean some sort of information about what was happening to the horse. Can anyone explain to me why  RO-L and RO-M are not satisfactory to some of the membership?
    Barbara McCrary
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Charles
    Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:44 AM
    Subject: Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES

    I'm going to venture into psychology again, not that I'm a psychologist, a psychology expert, nor do I play one on TV.
    This is based on what I've read on ridecamp, and how I've seen people behave in the outside world.
    I always had the impression, (based on what I've read and skimmed here) that a ride code carried some sort of stigma, either for the horse or the rider.  The impression I got is that having a horse pulled as RO means that the rider took it out either because the rider had a problem (the casserole at the pre-ride potluck I hear about) or because of concern for the horse.  On the otherhand, having a horse go lame, or a metabolic breakdown seems to carry a stigma.  Lameness or metabolic problems seems to imply that the rider wasn't careful and even hints that the rider abused the horse.  (NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THE RIDER ABUSED THE HORSE IN REALITY).  The unspoken message I've picked up is that if the rider was more careful the horse wouldn't have gotten hurt.

    RE: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES, Bob Morris
    Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES, Charles