Ed, I will be more then willing to give some of my thoughts on pull codes :)
1. I have no problem with the pull codes and believe they could be of some benefit in the future if records were kept in a data base. AERC needs to find a way to insure that the data collected is correct and not skewed.
2. Why is RO data skewed??? I believe that one possible reason is the pull codes are public record and published in Endurance News. I believe that some riders do not want a L or M on their horse's public record. I for the life of me can't figure out why there is such opposition to listing the individual pulls as DNF in EN. If the membership wants to know how many L, M and RO pulls there are at a particular ride that could be listed as a general stat. For example 50 horses starting - 40 finishing 10 pulls (3 M 6 L 1 RO). Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation why it is AERC's job to list the reason an individual rider is pulled in EN?? Why wouldn't a general statistic as listed above be enough for the membership? If this information was not listed as part of the ride results there would be absolutely no reason why an individual would try to get an RO. Once we eliminate the reason the individual riders are skewing numbers it will be much easier to educate the RMs and Vets on using the correct pull codes.
3. Ride Managers could still send in results to AERC with the pull codes next to the individual horse. That information would be available in the data base.
4. What is the real purpose of pull codes? Is it for data collection? If that is the purpose why does AERC insist on publishing in the membership magazine. If data collection is not the purpose of using and creating pull codes what is the purpose? I personally do not believe that it is AERC's job to provide pull code information to the membership/public so they can use the data for personal reasons such as using the data when buying a horse that has an AERC record or even using it as bragging rights or putting down another rider/horse. Again, I have no problem with listing the overall reasons for the pulls in EN as that could be useful information but I really see no reason to list why an individual horse was pulled.
5. If pull codes were not published then there would be no reason to add the RO-L or RO M category. I believe those were added because of the pull codes being published in EN and riders wanted it known that they pulled their horse as their choice and it wasn't a mandatory pull by the vet. If we had 4 simples categories such as M, L, RO, SF. It would be much easier to expand on adding a grading system to the pull codes. I don't have an opinion on what the best way to expand on the pull code info. But for data purposes I really don't think it would matter if a M-grade 1 was a pull because a rider decided to or because a vet decided. A grade 3 lame horse is still the same lame horse regardless of who pulled it.
6. It is really too bad that all the data collected so far can not be considered useful and valid. I don't go to all that many rides and I know of at least 5 pulls in the last couple years that should have been listed as M or L that were RO. Do you think with my personal experience plus the stats on RO pulls that was just put out that I am going to believe anything that is derived or based on this skewed information??
7. Eliminate publishing individual names next to pull codes so riders have no reason to care why they are pulled, create a pull code system that is simple enough for a ride vet/rm to use easily at a ride, create codes that have uniform meaning, add a grading system that will designate the extent of the lameness, metabolic distress, and Surface Factor.
8. I would really like an answer on if my assumption that pull codes were for a data base WHY there is such opposition to DNF code in EN. If AERC created pull codes for another reason that needs to have this information published what is it??
