Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Here's another voice. Tom wrote this letter after his 100 at 20 Mule Team:

=========

February 19, 2003
Dr. Hallvard Sommerseth Nor, Chairman/President, Endurance
Federation Equestre Internationale
(no mailing address listed on Website, would like so I may mail hard copy)

j.braissant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
m.slama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

USA EQUESTRIAN, Inc.  (US FEI Organization)
4047 Iron Works Parkway
Lexington, Ky  40511-8483
sfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To:  FEI Representatives, USA and International


I thank you for taking the time reading my letter of concern and protest
about the changes in the FEI Certificate of Capability (COC) for the 2003
Pan American Championships (PAC) in the United States.  I would like to
approach this issue from two different points of view.  First, I believe it
is unsafe for the horses and very unfair to the riders to change the
standard for the COC nine months (seven months prior to team selection)
before the PAC and secondly I would like to discuss the specific standards
the COC is based upon.  I am relatively new to the endurance sport, but have
competed in sporting events all my life.  I think your changes were well
intended, but in the short and long run they put horses at risk and they
will damage support for International Endurance in the United States.  I
appeal to FEI's sense of fairness and for the safety of these great horses
that FEI reconsider its decision.  It is my desire to have the
qualifications for the 2003 PAC Nomination period be reversed to the
standards used in the 2001 PAC.  If your standard is not changed, it is my
belief that there will be regions that cannot field full teams and the there
will be horses hurt in an attempt to meet these standards in the shorten
qualifying window of time.  The overall quality of the 2003 PAC will be
reduced.


Changing the Standard 2/3 of the way into the COC Qualifying Period.
In my Pan Am region, Pacific North there has been a lot of excitement for
the Pan Am Championships (PAC).  All written and verbal communication about
the qualifications for nominations for PAC indicated a rider/horse team
needed to just complete a FEI ride (there was even one document floating
around that suggested no FEI ride completion would be required).  These
communications were from US FEI officials and International Endurance
Representatives. This is how rider/horse teams had qualified for nomination
in the past.  There was never a hint that FEI would change that and the bar
would be raised as high as you have raised it.  Many Pacific North riders,
who are big supporters of International Endurance and the FEI, rode in FEI
events over the last 14 months believing they had qualified to nominate for
a spot on Pacific North's Team.  With FEI's changes in the requirements for
the COC, 40% of the qualified riders are not qualified to nominate.  It has
caused a great deal ill will towards FEI and International Endurance.  It
seems like a very disorganized rule change.

A second discussion and a more compelling argument to reverse the change for
the 2003 PAC is the safety of the horses.  I just returned from the FEI ride
at Twenty Mule Team, in Ridgecrest.  (I found your FEI officials to be
friendly, helpful and informative).  This ride had a FEI pull rate of excess
of 50%.  I saw lame horses and horses being treated for metabolic issues at
every vet check.  Hundred mile rides are inherently risky to the horse.  I
looked at last year's rides in the NW and we averaged a 70% completion in
100s.  Because the qualifying period has been essentially shorten to 7
months (February to August) many rider/horse team will only have one chance
(or no chance) to qualify to your COC standards.  Our 100s in the West (USA)
tend to be mountainous and tough. Unfortunately, it will be human nature
that riders will push their horses to meet your COC standards and more
horses are going to be hurt.

I understand totally your current COC requirements for World Championships.
There are only a few horses that qualify and they should be the best.  But
PAC is more of an introductive level of International Endurance that opens
the doors to more rider/horse teams.  Your change at such a late date has
closed the door halfway and many International supporters will be excluded.
International Endurance does not need anymore detractors in the US.  Please
reconsider your change for the 2003 PAC period.

The Specific Certificate of Capability Standards:
I would like to discuss my opinions of the current COC standards and how
they apply to the 2003 PAC and future PACs.  I believe the PACs are a
different event than other International Endurance events.  It is mostly a
North American event and it is in AERC's back yard.  The majority of the
rider/teams are AERC members. And the US 100 mile courses as a general rule
are tougher and more demanding than rides in Europe and the Middle East (It
is my opinion that these are the areas that are driving the change in the
COC standards.).  I will put them in the order of importance to me.  I
personally would like the old standards used for all PACs, but I will
approach the COC standards as if we are stuck with them and what changes
would make them better.

The 50% Rule:
The rule allows for 50% of the riders completing the FEI ride will obtain a
COC.  The flaw of this rule is the "completing riders" portion.  It should
be 50% of the FEI starters.  That way riders are judged on both speed and
horsemanship.  If the trail is tough there is a reward for taking care of
your horse.  It puts a larger portion of focus of the rider's management of
the ride.  One of your components should reward horsemanship.  At the 2003
Twenty Mule Team FEI ride, with 20 finishers out 41 starters, all the
rider/horse teams within the 50% (10 rider/horse teams) were well within the
140% speed rule.  I believe in the US that would be the case at all FEI
rides under the current rules.  It is unlikely that this current rule will
let any US riders obtain a COC that have not already achieved it with the
140% rule.

I was told by an FEI official that the reason the rule was written this way
is that in Europe and the Middle East there are people that would falsely
enter rider/horse teams that had no intentions to qualify so their
rider/horse team would qualify.  I cannot believe in the US that that would
ever happen.  This is not a "money" equestrian sport here.  We at times take
our endurance very serious, but we are a very honest group sportspersons.  I
played competitive golf for years and I find the integrity of golf and
endurance to be very similar.  There are both have a high level of self
regulation and honesty.  It must be different in Europe and the Middle East.

This rule is the only COC rule that has a chance to reward horsemanship.
FEI is viewed in the US by some in the endurance community as a "go fast, at
any cost" organization.  Please reconsider the language of this rule, even
if lets some "cheater" in Europe or the Middle East get away with something.
You cannot make rules to catch everybody and the possibility of showing the
endurance community that horsemanship matters is very important.

12KPH Rule and the 140% Rule:
I fundamentally disagree with any speed rule.  I understand your attempt
with these rules.  You want rider/horses teams to be of a certain level to
obtain a COC.  Most of the 100s in my Region are tough, mountainous and hot.
Very few rider/horse teams can meet the 12KPH safely.  In Europe and the
Middle East you must have flatter rides.  Your rule will force US FEI riders
to pick flatter FEI rides to qualify at and in the long run that will hurt
some of the classic FEI rides in our region such as Twenty Mule Team,
Washoe, Sunriver and Mt. Adams and hurt the popularity of International
Endurance in the US.   The last thing the US endurance community wants is to
turn the ultimate endurance test, the 100 ride, into flat race track event.
FEI will lose support in the US.

A possible solution, besides throwing this rule out completely, is speed
indexing each FEI ride.  Most of our rides have a history and most of the US
FEI officials are endurance riders.  It is not difficult to look at a ride
and see its toughness, the weather, past rides, etc. and develop an index.
In US golf, each golf course is rated by the USGA and a Handicap Index is
developed so a player can judge the toughness of the course and the player's
individual handicaps can be adjusted.  A FEI official could sit down with
ride management, they could talk about the trail and how it compares to
previous years, the times from previous years (like maybe averaging the top
ten times), the weather forecast, trail condition (wet, dusty) and other
external items.  Then a proper speed index could be posted.

If you created a speed index and allowed a 140%  of that to qualify, then
every rider would know before they left the start what they had to do, and
they could use their horsemanship to manage their horse safely through the
ride.  Now all FEI is projecting is speed, speed and more speed.  That
spells disaster for the horses.

I was looking at a FEI ride results in Europe on the internet the other day.
Every rider that completed that ride was faster than 12kph rule.  To me that
was not a fair test or a fair qualification for a COC.  To me that that is a
bigger violation to the spirit of the COC rules than anything somebody could
do with the 50% rule mentioned above.

With this change and the 50% rule change, FEI can safely set standards that
judge speed and horsemanship.


Competed in 2001 PAC:
This one bothers me the least because these people were selected by their
regions and deserve recognition for that.  I believe there are many in this
group that could not meet your current COC standards.  Therefore it does
create a little of a double standard.  But this rule does not endanger
horses, in fact may save a few.  So I would not want to see it changed.

Conclusion:

For International Endurance to continue to grow in the United States, it
must be inclusive not exclusive.  International Endurance cannot survive in
the US, if it continues to put horses at risk.  The playing field needs to
be fair and riders need enough to time to adjust to rule changes.  100 mile
horses are developed over years and it takes months to bring them to their
peak.  Changing the rules within 7 months of the end of the qualifying
period is endangering horses and is unfair to those quality horse/rider
teams that spend years getting their horses ready.

There is nothing in the current COC rules that is increasing the safety to
the horses.  It is my belief that in the next 7 months many horses will be
hurt trying to jump the raised bar.  Let the individual teams select their
teams.  They can evaluate the horse/rider teams better than any rule made in
another continent can do.  For the safety of the horses, for the fairness to
the riders and for the betterment of International Endurance please
reconsider the implementation of the new COC until after the 2003 PAC.  Then
please look again those rules, to make sure the horse is getting the first
consideration.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long letter.

Sincerely,

Thomas, E. Dean
8427 Saghalie Dr., S.
Salem, OR  97306
503-378-1868
AERC #:  M19906



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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!!

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