Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Lynne,

Comments in ***** below ***

Lynne Glazer wrote:

> OK, Mike--
>
> Why don't you discuss that with the rest of the board? 

***** The LD committee is trying to come up with 
something(again) on BCs.  I believe there is something in 
the minutes from the Mid yea meeting on this.  More when I 
can publish them.  ***
 Yes, if it's a
> training ride, go all the way.  AND treat it like the 50s, there are 
> winners who also include those who come across the finish line faster 
> than others.
>
> Currently RMs submit LD results however they want to.  For instance, 
> when the ride managers submit them in alphabetical order, the finish 
> placement is not right.
>
> Example: Hog Wild  (PS) at least in the first two years, all I checked.
>
> I don't see placings in your example, unless you want to assume that the 
> list has been submitted in placement order.   My rides are always 
> submitted in placement order, and they have been published that way.

****** Are the numbers not showing up in your display in the 
left column?  Times are not there but the placing number is. 
 The example had numbers in the left column that were 
placings. If a ride does not have placings - there are no 
numbers.  As an example - see

http://www.doublejoy.com/erol/RideResults/rrReport.asp?distanceID=8301

or

http://www.doublejoy.com/erol/RideResults/rrReport.asp?distanceID=7982

It's interesting that I had to try 10 LD rides in the W 
region to find one that didn't have the placings in the left 
column.  For a region that says they don't like placings - 
most of the LD rides have placings and the finishing time in 
the header for the winner and BC.

For those riders where Finished is the placement - you will 
note that the winners time is fixed at 5:00.  Unless the 
riders are in alpha order after that - then the order w/o 
the placing at the left is the finishing order.

Of all the LD rides in the results - I would guess that less 
than 5% do not contain the correct finishing order.
*****************
> It doesn't have to matter in the traditional "I beat so-and-so by an 
> hour!" sense, but rather "hmmm, that guy just blazed from the start, and 
> I must've passed him by doing better in the vet check, or by pacing 
> better over all".  Training!  Education!
>
> I still feel we ought to encourage use of LD as training, and 
> de-emphasize its use as a racing goal in and of itself. 

*** While I certainly agree with that - I do support the 
fact that we have a diverse set of members with different 
goals.  I have a number of friends in the CT region where LD 
is all they do - they do it well - and one has over 3,000 LD 
miles.  She's not a racer...

But if it's a training aid for 50s - then it may need to 
have many of the same elements 50s have.  It depends on 
whether you mean "training" to be learning to pace your 
horse and some of the techniques or you mean - it's a "mini" 
version of what you will be going on to.
************************

 We experimented
> with that concept at my last ride by having a training division and an 
> open division in LD, the training division was eligible for 5 high vet 
> score awards and the whole field was considered, the open division could 
> compete for 1st place and AERC-style BC.  Each division was numbered 
> differently so that the vets and volunteers and riders knew who was 
> who.  Each rider placed themselves in the division of choice.

**** I really thought that was a nice idea.  It takes a RM 
who is willing to put out the extra effort but you did it 
well.  What was the LD rider feedback?
> We'll probably try that again in 2004, albeit with better finish line mgmt.
>
> Lynne



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

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!!

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