 |
RE: [RC] Pull Codes - heidiI am not Truman, but A reason for publishing the pull codes is the same as the reason for publishing the rest of the ride results, so that people who were there can look at them and confirm that they are accurate before they become a part of the permanent record. Good point, kat. This is actually a pretty good reason. It wasn't until the AERC started publishing the pull codes that the AERC became aware that the information wasn't being collected accurately. Yep. Some vets worked hard at getting correct data sent in, and it was a real shock to discover that others did not. Of course, it still isn't being collected accurately for several reasons. <snip> But I am willing to wager that the data currently being collected with respect to pull codes is more accurate now than when it wasn't being published. Yep. We've gained ground, but it still isn't what it should be. However, I think the biggest reason for the continuing inaccuracy lies with the vets. You stated: vets are aware that somebody might actually do something with the data and therefore it is more important for it to be accurate I don't think this is the case. The inaccuracies I have observed have been done by the vets involved, not the riders, and the examples that Kim cited to me privately, as she said she would, are all cases where perhaps riders took advantage of vets that don't care or don't pursue the issue, but the bottom line still lies with the vets who don't check and take the time to make sure pull codes are accurately applied and the RMs that accommodate this sloppy reporting by not intervening when riders simply walk up and hand in their cards and say, "I'm pulling." (That was the case in virtually every example that Kim cited to me--and in those cases it is up to management to steer those riders to the vets. Period.) And I am personally of the opinion that part of the problem with the current reporting of the pull codes is the unfortunate selection of the words for the designation "Rider Option." I agree. We've struggled with this one for a long time. I prefer the designations that virtually all other sport disciplines make: They use the expressions of either "disqualified" or "withdrawn." Oh, good word! Yes, "withdrawn" would be a good choice instead of RO. BoD, are you listening here??? If the AERC then wants to give the reason for either the disqualification or the withdrawl to make the information more useful, they can do so....however, if the participant is withdrawn, then the "reason" for that and its accuracy is entirely up to the participant to provide, and there is nothing the officials can do if the participant is less than forthcoming or honest with their reasons. You're right that we can keep track of disqualifications (L, M, OT, and DQ could still mean a rule violation) but it is really up to the rider if they "withdraw" due to a broken arm or just because they didn't like the weather that day. I think that RO-L and RO-M still give good info, if riders will cooperate about them. But part of that cooperation is vets having good communication with riders and really discerning the reason for the pull. I pulled my horse from a ride one time because "the horse wasn't having any fun." (being a member of the Janet Ruprecht sect that says the first commandment of horsemanship is "Rule number one, the horse has to have fun.") You tell me, which of the AERC's pull codes should be used there? LOL! Yeah, that's a legitimate "RO"--er, "W"--in my book... <g> 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|