Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> There have been several comments about Dr Melissa Ribley and her position on 
> awarding 
> a BC for LD rides.  They portray her position incorrectly.
>
> "In the Sept EN Dr Melissa Ribley writes that she would prefer
>   no placings or BC in the LD."
> "I've judged more LD BCs than I can shake a stick at, and other
>   than Melissa and a few other vets in her region, I've never
>   heard a vet complain about doing it..."
> "I thought I would respond to Melissa Ribley's letter to EN
>   about not offering BC on LD's."
>
> Dr Ribley is NOT opposed to giving a Best Condition award at the LD rides.  
> What Dr 
> Ribley is opposed to, as am I and many others in the Endurance community, is 
> having a 
> Top Ten finish be THE #1 CRITERION for receiving a Best Condition award as 
> well as 
> the use of riding time, ie SPEED, as one of the criteria for this award.
>
> To get Dr Ribley, and other vets who are opposed to the current procedure, to 
> support 
> BC's for LD rides, all that needs happen is 1) make the award available to 
> all 
> participants in the LD ride, regardless of placing and 2) stop using the time 
> portion 
> of the BC form when judging Best Condition for an LD ride.  These changes 
> would allow 
> the vets to choose the LD horse that truly IS in the best condition.
Actually, many vets in the West region HAVE complained that they don't
want to judge LD BC at all.  I don't know that Melissa is one of those,
but this HAS been a barrier in that region.  RMs have also reported that
their vets refuse to do it because it takes too much of THEIR time to do
it--not that the riding time aspect is an issue.

I'm not sure how Dr. Ribley would propose to judge the award if time is
not an aspect.  I have vetted one ride in the PS region where the RM
asked that ALL LD horses be judged--and I did so.  I think I judged
somewhere around 80 horses.  Now that DOES get to be a time-consuming
thing--I love the idea, but if vets are already protesting that it
takes too much time to judge, I can just imagine getting THAT one to
fly.  

I've heard it attributed to Dr. Ribley that she feels that judging the
Top Ten promotes racing--Melissa, I'd love it if you could respond and
let us know if that is an accurate portrayal of your objections or not.
If it is, I would submit that it is something that we've been doing for
years in the NW, and I know it has been happening in other regions as
well--and we simply have not found that to be true.  The requirement of
recovering before one's time stops pretty well eliminates the racing
aspect, and because the times are far less separated on the LDs than on
longer rides, the time factor has far less effect on the overall score
than it does on, say, a 100-miler.  If you maintain the same relative
speed to the horse ahead of you, you will be FOUR TIMES further behind
him on a 100 than on a 25.  Furthermore, we still consistently see
winning times on LDs at a slower speed than winning times on 50s on the
same courses.  Additionally, if you have an LD horse that completed the
ride in 3 hours, and one that completed in 5.5 hours, their stress
levels really don't equate--how could you fairly judge?

> When Limited Distance rides were first approved for sanctioning, the BOD was 
> very 
> clear that they did NOT want speed to be part of any awards that might be 
> given.* 
> Their concern then, and the concern today, was not that competent, 
> knowledgeable 
> riders might override their horses.  It was that NOT so knowledgeable or 
> competent 
> riders, given the allure of a Top Ten or First Place award might race a horse 
> not 
> properly prepared for the task.  Now we have exactly such an award.  Although 
> it has 
> been labeled "BC", it still requires, ABOVE ALL ELSE, that a horse Top Ten.
I was one of those people who was fearful of placings on LD rides.  I
remember all too well hanging jugs on 25-mile horses back when they
were allowed as endurance rides, and bandaging bowed tendons, and all
sorts of things.  Back in those days, I saw a 25 won in 1:09, and the
horse crouched on his hind legs afterward with bilateral bowed tendons.
There was very good reason why endurance was redefined as 50 and up
sometime in the mid-to-late 70s.  

However, there have been three developments that have made the fears
unfounded, IMO.  The first was the aforementioned removal of shorter
rides from the endurance definition.  By putting them into a category
of their own, the incentive was removed for people to run them for
overall points.  The second thing was the institution of
fit-to-continue.  And the third was the institution of a pulse-down to
criteria before the clock stops.  Those three things took the worst of
the "race" out of LDs.  Yes, there are still riders who go fast, and
who want to win.  But they have to temper that drive with the risk of
failure if they push too hard.

Given the above circumstances, even Top Tenning does not have the racing
aspects that were so damaging, and to earn BC, one usually has to have a
pretty well-cared-for horse.  I just have not seen the risk, given our
current rules.

> If you open the Best Condition award to all participants in an LD and 
> eliminate 
> factoring in riding time, all LD riders will benefit, except possibly those 
> who 
> should probably be riding the longer rides as they will will now have to 
> compete with 
> ALL the well-conditioned horses instead of just those who were raced to a Top 
> Ten.
If you do that, be sure to hire a couple of extra vets--you'll need
them, if you have LDs as popular as they are in many areas. 

> *The following is from a post by Randy Eiland to the AERC Members Forum this 
> last 
> September:
>
> I have pasted below the actual verbiage from the Feb 26, 1984 AERC BOD
> Meeting where LD got its "birth" and approval from the BOD - note that
> nowhere in this Motion is there mention of "novice", "inexperienced"
> or any other description that would indicate the distance was related to
> inexperience, novice, uneducated, or other similar descriptions that
> would indicated the riders knew less than those who competed in 50
> mile or longer rides.
I was on the board back then.  There was no mention of novice because it
was clear that there would be the very sorts of riders who have posted
to this list such as Dot Wiggins--experienced and caring horsemen who
ride LD for a whole host of other reasons.  It was even discussed that
the rides be named "novice rides" but that was quickly discarded as it
was clear that that was not the reality.

> LIMITED DISTANCE.RIDES  Moved and seconded that the AERC add a new
> division for limited distance rides, whereby the AERC will keep
> records and recognize mileage only in a separate category for limited
> distance (less than 50 miles) ride, which meet the following conditions:
<snip>
> 3.      The ride give NO speed place awards.
Please be aware of what the repercussions of this were.  What happened
was that strong regional organizations that DID award speed awards
simply shortened their rides to 20-24 miles, and did not sanction them.
It was far less productive to have regions with NO AERC-sanctioned LD
rides than to figure out why the rides were not being sanctioned and
adjust accordingly.  The membership spoke--and the board listened.  And
this part of it was dropped a few years later.

> 4.      A Best Condition Award is available.
So now the membership seems to be speaking again, and wanting this to be
a standardized AERC BC.  And I think it is far more appropriate to award
a BC (yes, even to the Top Ten!) than to offer points for placement. 
(That WOULD promote speed, far more than awarding a BC award does.) 
And I support them in it.

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!!

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