 |
RE: [RC] Endurance - FEI, UAE - bobmorrisTruman: To quote directly from page 22 of the January 2005 Endurance News; Requirements: 2. Horse and rider team must have one top five finishing in their weight division in an endurance ride with a minimum distance of the championship ride in which they intend to compete. So, I would say your initial statement is incorrect. Bob Bob Morris Morris Endurance Enterprises Boise, ID -----Original Message----- From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Truman Prevatt Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 6:38 AM To: StephTeeter Cc: ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [RC] Endurance - FEI, UAE We also dropped a requirement that a horse and ride must have completed a 1 day 100 together as a team from the nomination requirements for the NAC this year. So that opens up the issues again that can arise with riders not knowing a horse until they have to put the pedal to the metal because they want to be "selected." Is that really good for our horses? While we beat ourselves up over qualifications that many feel too lax for the AERC NC, USEF is basically eliminating all requirements to nominate for an FEI championship ride. Then they throw out a 13:20 time standard for a rider to have to do their first 100 at the Biltmore or Ft. Howes or don't apply. A horse that is not even qualified for the AERC NC can nominate for the WEC. Does any one else (except Steph) see something wrong here. About the only thing this will accomplish is to produce more dead horses. Is this really the direction we in the AERC want to see? Is the evolving FEI sport a sport we want to be associated with? I think it's time the AERC have an open debate over this direction in international and to decide if it is in the best interest of the AERC and our sport of endurance riding, to cut international loose. It has evolve in a direction which was unanticipated and in a direction that I must say I find repugnant and not compatible with the our standards of care and compassion for the horse. FEI endurance seems to have evolved into a sport of the throw away horse. It is a sport some might want to pursue, and that's their choice. However, I would prefer that they not do it under any official recogonition of the AERC. It's time for International endurance to leave the nest and go out on it's own in this country. Truman StephTeeter wrote: (Caution: the following paragraph is totally subjective, I'm going to vent a little ). At a recent conference call of the USEF High Performance Athletes committee (USEF riders elected to the committee), of which I am a member, a motion was put forward to recommend to the USEF Endurance committee that the mileage requirement qualification for horses to be nominated for the 2006 WEC be eliminated. The proposal put forward by a committee member was to allow riders to nominate horses with no previous mileage requirement. By majority vote, the committee recommended that the horse requirement to have completed two 100 mile rides be eliminated. The committee recommended by majority vote that the requirement of the horse to have completed 500 lifetime miles be reduced to 200 lifetime miles. The argument of persuasion was that 'we need younger faster horses to compete' and that 'we have too many old high mileage horses trying to compete'. I have to ask - what was the age of the US horses that have won World Championships in the past? It appears to me that some are now promoting the quest for 'victory' at all costs. This is short sighted and IMO foolish. Do we really want to allow riders to nominate 6 year old horses, that have done 4 50-mile rides, to be considered to represent the US at a World Championship 160km race. The potential for pushing horses beyond the limit of conditioning is very high in this circumstance. We might see some younger horses turning out faster ride times w/o the lameness issues that often accompany high mileage horses... but we probably won't see these horses compete successfully for very long. What is the cost? And do we, USEF, really want to endorse this attitude, this 'message'. I personally do not. Ok, venting over. later - Steph =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-= -- ?It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong? Richard Feynman =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|