Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

[RC] Int'l vs domestic - terre

Also, our values have been
to conserve the horse so that it lasts year after
year in competition.  I would doubt that a horse that is brought
along and
peaked to a speed that can win at today's Int'l races could not compete
at
that level for more than a year or two at the most.  I don't think
we'll get
too far if we can't/won't change that value system. 

I've heard from some people privately that indicate that we don't train
near
hard enough to compete in today's Int'l environment.  I really
believe that
our long term goals for our horses have a lot to do with why we don't
train
harder.  

Karen
        I think it is almost an accepted "truism" in our sport that 'a horse can have a long career or a fast career but not both'. There are, of course, a number of famous exceptions (Rio, Khalil, others).  I "sort of" believe this to be true in general--but just for the heck of it, let's examine the proposition.         I think our statistics indicate that while a lot of horses achieve their 1000 mile medallion, far far fewer get to 2000 miles.  Estimate that it takes 3-4 years to get to 1000 miles (that's 20 50 mile rides, 5-7/year). Doesn't the fact that so many of these horses don't achieve 2000 miles indicate that their "careers" are not lasting 6-8 years?  Since we are counting from their very first 50 mile completion, is this really a shorter career than the "racers"?         Consider this: probably most people can take a sound, reasonable athletic horse and in a few months train/condition the muscles and cardio system to the point where it can "win" rides.  But if everything isn't perfect--the horse properly legged up, shoing, feeding, teeth, worming, living conditions etc--the horse will..in a season or two...break down.  OTOH, if someone else rides much more slowly but neglects the same things, those horses will also break down!  and possibly as soon.          Alternatively, if a really knowledgable and proficient "horseman" trains an animal according to the best protocol available--and this may include detailed feed analysis and bloodwork, treadmill studies for fitness and gait analysis, riding instruction to perfect equitation skills--might not that horse (by virtue of being better prepared) actually enjoy a longer career than the second example above?  And when such a horse is "retired" because it can no longer compete at International levels, is it not more likely to be in better shape than a domestic 'completer' that has blown suspensories from poor foot care or a sloppy rider?         Is it not possible that Rio and Khalil, rather than being "freaks" were simply extremely talented athletes that also had the good luck to fall into the hands of excellent horsemen(horsewomen?)         FEI has no system for recognizing 'longevity'.  This allows us to take the superior moral stance that "those people's horses" are expendable, while ours are not.  But anyone who has brought a horse to that level of competition has an enormous investment in it--of time, effort, money, dreams, hopes, blood, sweat, and tears.  I doubt that any of them consider those horses 'expendable'.  It is quite possible that the 'systems' they have for qualifying riders from entry level to the "top" is actually MORE beneficial to the horses than our system of 'show up and ride, learn as you go, the trail is your final exam'--and a failing grade may be paid for by the horse. terre (Kim, I thought your "think outside the box" post was brilliant)