 |
Re: [RC] another proposal - Heidi SmithHmmmm...not the way I understood it. This DOES need clarification. I understood "placing" to mean Top Ten and "completion" in this case to mean the same thing as finishing normally, just not in the Top Ten. There is a HUGE difference. Under your interpretation, ALL riders would have to recover within 15 minutes or you get nothing but the "pleasure" of a trail ride. IMHO, that's the same as reducing the time for recovery from 30 minutes to 15 minutes....as Lisa suggested. If that IS the case, why bother with all this? Just drop the recovery to 15 minutes at all checks and the finish and forget about a "completion only". I think this interpretation is too drastic a change all at once and would impact too many riders who are NOT racing. I understood it to mean ANY placing at all, as well. And if it only impacts the Top Ten, why bother? People race to be 5th HW, clear back 40 riders down in the pack. Are their horses any less deserving of consideration with veterinary criteria than those who come across the line in the first 10 overall places? The way I understood this is that if you successfully manage your horse, you are placed according to how you come across the line. If you are in the next tier, where you push too hard at any one point on the trail and fail to meet the first tier for competition, you can still complete and get your mileage by successfully meeting the criteria of the second tier. No placing means no placing. 30th is a placing. 9th HW is a placing, even if there are 50 riders in other divisions and 8 HWs ahead of you. If you can't properly care for your horse and meet the first tier of placing, then you are listed as "completion only" just like the folks who missed a turn but did the miles, or had some other reason for not quite getting around the course in the prescribed fashion but that doesn't merit disqualification. All we are doing here is raising the bar with regard to how you take care of your horse and how you pace. I personally find no problem with that concept. I also agree that we are looking at options for the sake of the HORSE, not for the ease of RMs, ride secretaries, or anybody else, although I don't think this would be as tough to implement in terms of ride personnel and paperwork as some detractors think. That said, the only reason I can imagine that might be sufficient not to try this is if we had a properly designed look at sufficient data that indicated it would have no effect. I do agree with those who say that it won't catch 'em all--but my response to that argument is that no tool catches 'em all, and any tool that catches a few more before harm is done is a good tool. Don't wimp on me now, Jim--you lambasted me for not "signing" the thing--hey, I've supported it wholeheartedly, but it needs to apply to ALL horses in ALL placings if we really want it to do what it is intended to do. :-) (I'll add the smiley face so some folks don't think I'm being mean to Jim...) Heidi =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|