<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: Re: [RC] RO, Fit to continue
Ridecamp@Endurance.Net

[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] RO
  • - heidi
  • Prev by Date: RE: [RC] RO, Fit to continue
  • - Tom Dean

    Re: [RC] RO, Fit to continue - Milinda Ellis


    Okay,  now I have to chime in on this.
    
    I am going to be overseeing a performance award in endurance for a breed
    society.  The competitors will carry a logbook and will be expected to turn
    in their vet cards (and they will be returned, of course).  Anyway, this
    will be people who will probably be unfamiliar with endurance and they will
    be riding a nontraditional - type/breed of horse for this sport.  We are
    planning to use this to provide a "safety net" of sorts for folks new to the
    sport.  I will also help to show which bloodlines might excel at the sport
    and which ones will not.  This is the current strategy for competitors for
    this award under the eventing, combined driving, and dressage categories.
    
    Usually, there is a notation on the rider card as to why a horse didn't
    complete.  That includes "Rider Option", which can also be due to the fact
    that the rider feels bad, the weather is horrible (like it was at the
    Armadillo last month), etc.
    
    Attaching stigma to pull codes is silly?  Yes -- the horse's welfare is of
    primary importance, but folks on Ridecamp seem to be forgetting that Rider
    Option can also be a pull for Rider reasons that have absolutely nothing to
    do with the horse having a problem.  As administrator of this performance
    award, that will be (and should be) taken into consideration, too.
    
    Milinda Ellis
    Beargrass Cleveland Bays
    Jewett, Texas
    
    T
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Tom Dean" <bdci@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    To: "Ridecamp@Endurance. Net" <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Barbara McCrary"
    <bigcreekranch@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Cc: "Steph@Endurance. Net" <steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:28 PM
    Subject: RE: [RC] RO, Fit to continue
    
    
    > I would not classify tired as metabolic, because the horse might just
    finish
    > the ride fine and does not have any metabolic problem at the time the
    rider
    > wants to pull.  You cannot pick a code on what might happen.  A rider
    should
    > be able to pull a horse without penalty, if the horse is healthy.  Another
    > example would be weather related.  A rider may not want to continue
    because
    > the rider believes the weather (icy, muddy, etc.) conditions are unsafe
    for
    > their horse.  This should be RO even though the rider made the decision
    > based upon the safety of the horse.  To go to your thoughts, the rider is
    > concerned that weather/trail conditions might lame the horse, but the
    horse
    > is not lame at the time of the pull, so it should not be a lameness pull.
    >
    > I believe that if a horse passes a vet check and the rider chooses to
    quit,
    > it should be RO no matter what the reason is.  We should not punish the
    > horse/rider's ride records for good decisions.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Barbara McCrary [mailto:bigcreekranch@xxxxxxxxxx]
    > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:14 AM
    > To: Tom Dean
    > Cc: RIDECAMP
    > Subject: Re: [RC] RO, Fit to continue
    >
    > I would classify a tired horse as M.  If he is pushed further, he will
    > become a metabolic case.  However, as this pull code thing becomes more
    and
    > more complicated, maybe it would be better to go back to DNF, did not
    > finish.  The pull codes were originally adopted to serve as a learning
    tool,
    > but it seems like they are spinning out of control.  I was the one who
    made
    > the motion to adopt the RO-L and RO-M codes, along with SF, surface
    factors
    > (to cover everything from galls to bleeding that did not produce
    lameness).
    > But it's becoming so complicated now that I would be perfectly happy to
    > return to DNF.  I'm not the sure the vet committee would agree, however.
    > They set his up in the attempt to learn something.
    >
    > Barbara McCrary
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Tom Dean" <bdci@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    > To: "Ridecamp@Endurance. Net" <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    > Cc: "Steph@Endurance. Net" <steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:00 AM
    > Subject: [RC] RO, Fit to continue
    >
    >
    > > What do you classify a tired horse?  His metabolic are good and he is
    not
    > > lame, but the rider just does not want to push the horse.  To
    > statistically
    > > call this horse lame or metabolic an error and distorts the numbers.
    And
    > > why punish a rider who is overly cautious about their horse.  There have
    > > been people that have suggested using rider history to judge and
    sanction
    > > riders or horses.  There are people that do not want the stigma of a
    pull
    > > and push their horses to completions that if there were a way to pull a
    > fit
    > > horse without this stigma, they would have pulled their horse.  Also,
    > horses
    > > are judged by their completion records.  Try to sell a horse with a
    couple
    > > of metabolic pulls.  Steph is right, this is not as simple an issue as
    > some
    > > people have described.  A couple of years ago, I suggested to the BOD
    > there
    > > should be a category "Rider Option, Fit To Continue" (RO,FTC).  This
    would
    > > be for a horse that cleared the Vet Check, but the rider for whatever
    > reason
    > > does not want to push the horse.  A rider/horse should rewarded for
    making
    > > the right decision, not punished for having a pull and less horses would
    > be
    > > put in danger.
    > >
    > > Tom
    > >
    > >
    > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    > >  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 Director at Large
    > >  and By Laws Elections.
    > >
    > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    >  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 Director at Large
    >  and By Laws Elections.
    >
    > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    >
    
    
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     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 Director at Large 
     and By Laws Elections.
    
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    
    

    Replies
    RE: [RC] RO, Fit to continue, Tom Dean