Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

RE: [RC] [RC] Just Guessing - Howard Bramhall


Joe should be white. That way we'd all be red, white, and blue.

cya,
Howard

From: "Steph Teeter" <steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jim Holland" <lanconn@xxxxxxx>,<jlong@xxxxxxxx>
CC: "Howard Bramhall" <howard9732@xxxxxxx>,"ridecamp" <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [RC] Just Guessing
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:22:40 -0700

You guys need to start using color coded font. It's getting hard to figure
out who is saying what :)

Steph

Jim - you're blue
Joe - you can be green
Howard - red?


-----Original Message-----
From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jim Holland
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:36 PM
To: jlong@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Howard Bramhall; k s swigart; ridecamp
Subject: Re: [RC] Just Guessing


Joe Long wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:14:29 -0500, Jim Holland <lanconn@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >Joe Long wrote:

> Are you suggesting that those riders you mentored would have killed a
> horse, had you not mentored them?  Have you told them this?  How did
> they take it?

I certainly hope not....I did my best to scare the bejesus out of them
about how it easy it is to override a horse.
>
> But here again, we see you resorting to scurrilous ad hominem attacks
> on people who don't buy into your proposals.

If you don't like "scurrilous attacks ad hominem", then desist from
scurrilous attacks on other peoples proposals.
>
> >I would add one more thing to this proposal. If the rider has three
> >metabaolic pulls in one year, (not necessarily on the same horse), the
> >RIDER is suspended for a year.
>
> Another arbitrary, no-discretion rule.  Not one that would have
> affected me direcly, BTW.  But another panacea for which you have
> provided ZERO evidence that it would help any horse.

Provide me with some evidence that it won't? IMHO, the "possibility" of
that happening would be a deterrent.
>
> Now, having an appropriate committee review any rider who has TWO
> metabolic pulls in a ride season, with authority to suspend said
> rider, that might be a good approach.  That's worth considering, IMO.

I would agree to that. Just out of curiosity, why TWO? I think it would
be provide more "teeth" if it were an "automatic" suspension with "some
number" metabolic pulls, reviewable on appeal by the appropriate
committee.
>
> >> >3) Less distance between vet checks. That one is a no brainer. If a
horse travels in our sport more than 20 miles before seeing a vet, we are
just asking for trouble.

> No, Jim, my opinion means more than yours and Howards.  Because I've
> been there, and walked the walk.  I have both the theoretical
> knowledge and down-the-trail experience to know what I'm talking
> about.  And because I serve on AERC committees that are actually
> working on these things.

Bullshit! Doesn't mean jack to me....

> Generally speaking, it's best that a horse not go more than about 15
> miles between vet checks ... but there are exceptions, such as the
> first leg of some 100's and some multiday rides.

Yes, but if you're gonna make a rule, then you can't caveat it to
exclude "special conditions"...unless you special sanction.
>
> Now, you might ask yourself what it is about the multidays that
> results in fewer horses in trouble, despite fewer vet checks, and how
> we can apply that knowledge to improve safety in all rides.

Yep....certainly worthwhile.


> >You have done enough rides to know that many
> >riders have NO control over their horse during the first loop of a ride.
>
> This is not generally seen on those challenging 100-mile rides that
> have the first vet check over 20 miles out.

I agree...but such a ride should apply for special sanctioning to allow
this.
>
> I might add that a rider who cannot control his horse in the first
> loop of a ride has no business riding any endurance ride, but
> especially not a 100.

You're living in a dream world. You would eliminate at least 25% of the
riders. You been running up front too much...and we're not talking about
just 100's. This is MORE of a problem in 25's and 50's because horses
that do 100's usually have lots more "time out there".
>
> >They simply park their horse behind the rider in front, whoever that
> >might be, and "hang on".
>
> And that is foolish.

Maybe so...but it's a fact of life.
>
> >I've seen it many times.
>
> Howard?  Or yourself?

I would NEVER ride an out of control horse.....under ANY
circumstances....I can't speak for Howard. You'll have to ask him.

>
> >This can result in a
> >horse being in a deficit by the first Vet Check.
>
> And whose fault is that?  Clue:  he's the one on top.

Basically I don't disagree...One of the reasons I have been writing
Endurance Training Articles for almost a year now. New horses have a way
of turning into a "creature you don't recognize" as someone said at the
start of an Endurance ride.
>
> >Having an early vet
> >check can prevent this by giving the horse...and the rider..the
> >opportunity to relax and "start over". I am more concerned about having
> >a vet check EARLY...in the first 10-15 miles...than I am about how MANY
> >there are in a ride. It also gives the Vet an "early look" at the
> >horses.
>
> Good ride vets and ride managers consider many factors in placing and
> timing vet checks, including the availability of accessible points on
> the trail.

So deal with it...you can't make ANY changes without inconveniencing
somebody.
>
> Having a vet check too early on a 100-mile ride can be a waste of
> limited resources that can be better used later in the ride.  In that
> case, the early check doesn't help the horses, it harms them.

Why are you only mentioning 100's? In case you hadn't noticed, they are
in a minority and declining, unfortunately.
>

> >Experience varies widely among riders.
> >Too many vet checks is certainly better than too few....unless you don't
> >give a damn.
>
> That isn't necessarily so -- what would you think about a 100 mile
> ride with twenty vet checks, ten one-hour holds and ten 30-minute
> holds? You'd only allow the horses nine hours of riding time to
> complete the 100 miles!

That's a ridiculous answer....let's be realistic.....

> On some multidays, that's enough, as their experience has
> demonstrated.

Don't give a damn about multidays...whole different environment,
IMHO...but we can learn something from them.
>
> >> >4) We should develop a tier system (novice, intermediate, beginners)
for both riders and horses. A rider should not be allowed to go and do the
TEvis ride, for example, without some prior completions and proven ability
with a horse.
>
> >> Argghhhh!!!!!!! -- the worst idea I've seen anyone put forth on this
> >> discussion. Many people have repeatedly explained why to you, but you
> >> don't listen to anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved ideas.
>
> >Argghhhh????? Tevis is already doing that.
>
> That's news to me. What qualification do you have to meet to ride the
> Tevis?

http://www.foothill.net/tevis/rules.pdf

Item 3.


> >The HISTORY of this sport is irrelevant with regard to this issue....
>
> Absolutely false.  The history of this sport is not only relevant, it
> is essential that anyone promoting changes to our rules and policies
> understand how we got where we are today, what has been tried before,
> and how it has worked.  Sheesh.

Sheesh, yourself....if we don't get past this attitude, IMHO, this sport
is in deep yogurt...


> >Hmmm...that's what they do....read the proposal....it applies to
> >EVERYONE...with the same results. If you don't recover in 15 minutes,
> >you get mileage only.
>
> No, it sets up a two-class system where those who don't care about
> placing have a lower standard to meet ... without anyone showing any
> evidence that those who are running for placing are having horses get
> into trouble at any higher rate than those who are not.

How can we have any "evidence" when the AERC doesn't collect any? That's
as much a "guess" as my statement....and it's not a "two class system"
when everybody has the same requirement. That's like saying the people
who finish in the Top Ten are a "different class" from the people who
are not in the Top Ten just because they don't choose to go that fast.
Sheeesh!
>
>
> >OK...then how do you "qualify" those "faculty members"? How do you know
> >that they "understand endurance rides and endurance horses"?
>
> Easy.  The have to have a DVM.  Beyond that, it is the ride manager's
> responsibility (with some assistance from sanctioning directors) to
> hire qualified vets.

Hmmm...so you are assuming that the "faculty members" are never "dog and
cat" vets.  Seems that, like practicioners, "staff members" can also be
"dog and cat" vets.


> >Besides, unlike SERA, AERC does not require
> >"Treatment Vets", which as I understand it, could mean that there were
> >NO "real Vets" at the ride. GIMME a BREAK!
>
> Check your AERC rules.  A licensed treatment vet MUST be available at
> every AERC ride.

News to me? Where?

> >Gee, I'm glad you like something. Howard, make a note! Why don't you use
> >your past experience on the board, your ride experience, and your past
> >contributions to horse welfare to get the board do this? I'm fer it!
>
> How do you know I'm not?

I don't.....you may "talk the talk" and "walk the walk", but let's see
some action....why don't you share with us?
>

> >No, teaching people everything they need to know is not easy, which is
> >why we need some new rules to protect the horses while their riders
> >learn...AND some new rules to discourage people who should know better
> >from overriding their horses to "win".
>
> We already have rules that do those things, that have been developed
> over time.  We are continuing to look for better ways to do it, to
> provide better protection.  We do not need new rules that do not help
> the horse but do hurt the rides.
>
> >> >I realize we have some of those words stating how much we care about
our horses in writing, somewhere, but, the fact of the matter is we need to
reinforce those statements with actions.
>
> >> And you continue in your delusion that we have not been doing that.
>
> >It's not a delusion.....it's a FACT.
>
> It is a delusion which you share.

Your opinion, not shared by many members.
>
> Now, I know that sounds like I'm doing ad hominem.  But you have been
> corrected on this so often, by so many knowledgable people, that for
> you to continue to say it can be only one of two things:  you are a
> liar, or you are suffering from a delusion.  I'm trying to be
> charitable.

You have been "corrected" by quite a few "knowledgeable people",
too....and I'm not willing to be charitable.
>
> >AERC continues to "hide" the seriousness of the issue by not keeping the
> >membership informed.
>
> In a word ... BULLSHIT.

I got the facts, man....I can "walk the walk" and "talk the talk" on
this issue. You're a poker player....I don't "bluff" on this subject. Be
glad to share it with you anytime, but only privately...for now.

Jim, Sun of Dimanche+, and Mahada Magic


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

 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!!

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



_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year ? six months @$9.95/month. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup


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

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!!

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