In a message dated 7/20/2004 5:05:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, PFmorabs@xxxxxxxxx writes:
how do you define success in the sport? Wins, or longevity, since they are generally exclusive of each other. I know Rio managed both, but how many others,especially in the last five years? Anyone who is willing to use up a horse every year or two will be able to do much better than one who top tens "by accident" when the weather, their horse, and the competition was the right mix. Since there is no monetary reward for riders (and thus breeders) there is no pressure in our capitalistic society to breed for any particular type of endurance horse.
Lgically very true - but it is amazing what a little bit of ego - or a lot - will do. Using up a horse" every year or two SHOULD be unforgivable, since a horse who CAN be used up is either unsuitable or is being managed so poorly so as to make his or her rider unmistakably a DNF in thsi sport. There is no excuse for this kind of horse patronage. BUT...since there ARE those kinds of riders looking for the horse to create their own legacy, as it were, it is even more incumbent upon the sellers and breeders to keep an eye out for that mentality, and also to include in every ad, contract and statement a caveat - refusing to sell or breed to the benefit of any person for any reason. If I don't like the way someone's horses are fed, turned out or ridden - or simply if I think someone's mother dresses them funny....I keep my horse. We don't breed many, but we do breed with the understanding that we CAN manage and feed them well for as long as necessary until we find the best home predictable.
The statement above would be a relief valve if it were true, but sadly, too many people stake their own personal value in how well they finish at an endurance race. sigh!
