Home Shop Classified News, Stories Events Education Ridecamp Videos Cartoons AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] LD BC - Compromise?? - Truman Prevatt

KimFue@xxxxxxx wrote:

In following this thread I would like to understand why a compromise could not be made regarding the LD BC. No one has answered my question on why the LD BC must be identical to the endurance BC. Why must speed or time be a consideration if we want to standardize the LD BC form? Wouldn't a compromise in eliminating the time/speed element satisfy both those ride managers/vets that have concerns about racing AND satisfy LD riders that a standardized BC form would be available so ALL REGIONS will have a fair shot at awards and would probably be used by 99% of LD rides regardless of the region?

In about '96 the SERA board tackled this question. The resosn was RM's were using different methods for BC in the LD. The riders wanted to know what to expect. I can't blame them. We kicked around several approaches - from using the endurance forms standards to using only the vet portion of the endurance standards with all horses being able to stand. At the end of the day after everything was considered we selected the using the endurance standard for BC in the LD. It has worked well.

Some of the issues that need to be considered are one of logistics. This is especially true when you have a large number of riders in the LD. To be fair the same vet will need to do the LD exam. At most of the LD riders in the SE region finish in a small time window (probably 80% finish within an hour time window and 95% finish in a 2 hour time window). Checking all the horses would be a significant impact on the staff.

Take an example of a ride with 60 LD riders - probably a little on the low side these days (some rides have upwards to a hundred LD riders). If you checked all riders you would have an LD exam about every two minutes - with a big peak at about 4 hours into the ride. This will result in several problems, the LD riders seeing a delay in the BC judging, the vet not having the time to deal answer questions and talk with the rider concerning the condition of his horse (this is about education after all) and one vet being taken away from vetting the rest of the ride for the time window.

For those that have attended many CTR's where the final judging drags on and on becuase 40-50 horses have to be checked - this would become the norm in LD's if all horses were checked. It would not work well.

Riders in the SE don't have vet lines very often, and when they do they get real craky ;-) . If we checked every horse for LD BC either another vet would have to be hired (it's difficult enough to find sufficient vets) another vet or people would experience lines they are not used to. We didn't see that fair to either the RM's or riders in the longer distances.

This is the main reason the SERA board rejected the check all rider option. Once you accept the first "so many" stand for BC then the issue of how speed counts was considered. If you have to top 10 to stand for BC you will find that at least in the SE region the top 10 normally finish in a very small time window and the speed plays a very small role in the calculation of the score. Because of this we selected the option to use the AERC BC standards from the the longer distances. It's clean, the vets understand it, the RM's understand it, the riders see the same standard at every ride and if they do a 50 and qualify to stand for BC they see the same standard in the 50.

It has worked fine. As far as "racing " for it to get BC as Heidi pointed out the 60 pulse finish for the LD's changes the game for racing. Many a time it is not the first riders arriving to camp that are the top 10 because it takes their horses too long to come down.

I must say, I don't see it is broke so I don't see any reason to mess with it. It works well for most rides. No ride manager has to follow the AERC BC standard for any distance. How a ride does BC is really between the ride manager and the riders. If they use the AERC standard it counts for the AERC award. If they don't it doesn't. This, however, again is between the RM and the riders.

It seems that this is an issue because a minority of RM's primarly located in a minority of the AERC regions are not follwoing the AERC standard. It almost looks like the push to make a change is to give those ride managers cover so they don't have to answer directly to the riders that want to be considered for an AERC award. I sure can't see changing the standard for that reason. I don't see that anything is broke so I sure can't see tinkering with it. If the RM's in question do not want to award the BC to the AERC standards - that is their call and it's an issue between the RM's and the riders.

One option that I might consider, however, that might work would be to regionalize the LD and allow each region to decide how to best award BC. This would, however, require those regions that don't have regional organizations to form one. It would also put people that live close to regional boundaries at a disadvantage since a BC in a neighboring region might not count in thier home region. But given that this would be a fundmental change in the way endurance riding in the US is organized - it probably would not be an option.



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!!


[RC] LD BC - Compromise??, KimFue