 |
Re: [RC] Overridden and Fit to Continue - Joe LongOn Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:55:40 -0400, "Howard Bramhall" <howard9732@xxxxxxx> wrote: OK, this is a viable argument and there have been times in the past I have thought this way, also. First, let me say if a horse is in trouble, by all means, talk to the vet. Tell them everything you know. But, the competitive part of endurance, the part where it's a pass/fail test at the vet check concerning lameness, heart rate and anything else related to completing the vet check should be as objective as possible. For a rider, who personally knows the vet or vice-versa, this is where you get caveats thrown into the game that should not be there. For example, a well known rider comes in with a horse that appears to be tired. The vet tells the rider that the horse needs to go slow or stop completely. The rider agrees and promises to slow down the next loop. The vet, because he/she knows and trusts this person, allows the horse to continue. The above situation should not happen. Period. Why not? If the horse is getting tired but is capable of finishing safely at a slow pace, and the rider is known to be one who will take care of the horse and go at a slow pace, why shouldn't the rider be allowed to continue? Why should the good riders be penalized because some riders are idiots? IF the horse is in some sort of trouble, maybe, you should pull him out of the game. Then, by all means, speak with the vet. If the horse is in trouble, that is not the same as getting tired and needing a slower pace to *safely* continue. But, until then, let's handle the vet checks objectively, the way they were intended. Hmmm, I thought the "way they were intended" was to help the riders complete safely, and provide safety controls for the horses. FTM it is impossible to make a pull/continue decision 100% objectively, the experience and even the intuition of the vet must enter into the decision. Why not the experience and reliability of the rider as well? Sometimes the will of the rider to complete an endurance ride influences a ride vet more than it should and this is what I'm talking about. Take it out of play and our vet checks will become more objective. Yes, that is a gain, but IMO by doing that we lose more than we gain. When I made the comparison between FEI rides and AERC ones I was speaking of the fact that at FEI rides (and, someone please correct me if I don't have this right), the vet and the rider do not interact during the Vet Check. Not at all. The reason, I believe, is to show impartiality and fairness to all. All riders treated equally. Imagine that! Ugh!!! I think not allowing communication between vet and rider at a vet check is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard in endurance. In a process that is difficult enough, with insufficient information to begin with, we withold vital information from the person who is in the best position to know it? Egad! -- Joe Long jlong@xxxxxxxx http://www.rnbw.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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 Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|