 |
RE: [RC] FEI Championships - David LeBlancHeidi said:
First of all, the non-completion rate at high-level FEI events doesn't bother me anywhere NEAR as much as the treatment rate. If the sport is
getting bad press over the non-completion rate, then we need to do some
serious educating. It's ok to pull--but what is NOT ok is when the pulls so
often occur too late to avert a serious medical intervention. The huge
number of medical interventions that are required are truly a cause for
shame. (And that's true when it happens at AERC rides as well--but I don't
see very many AERC events across the board that look like MASH units...)
So you can change that by changing the game. Right now, the game is winner
take all, and this one ride is for all the chips. Let's remember that there
are other types of racing where the welfare of the horse is very secondary
to financial concerns. What you need is a system that doesn't depend on
people having good intentions, because some of them don't, and there's no
way to regulate that aspect.
If instead the game were a series of rides, and you didn't get to start the
2nd if you didn't finish the first, or if just not finishing put you out of
the running, then people would slow down, take better care, and ride more to
finish. I think others are right - a race composed of the very best horses
ought to have a higher completion rate, not worse. Now let's say that these
were 3 100 mile rides spaced 3 days apart, then you _really_ don't want to
trash your horse, or you're not going to be in any shape to start the next
ride.
One is the continued emphasis on the primary veterinary check being at the beginning of the hold instead of at the end. (And that comment applies to AERC rides as well.) At the PanAm ride where I worked as a vet scribe, the exit exams were required, and worked very well. It also takes a lot of the pressure to make a call off the vet at the entrance exam - if they're not sure, the horse will either get better or worse during the hold. I personally believe that NO horse should be at a world-level event without being at least 8 years old AND having at least 1000 miles in
competition AND having at least three seasons in competition AND having done
a minimum of three rides at the distance. (I think that the 2500 miles
suggested is not practical--but 1000 is quite attainable, and in most cases
is enough to make sure that the horse can handle the sport.) I also believe
that riders should have even more stringent qualifications than that.
This is a lot more do-able. I would like to really run the numbers, but I
believe that completion rates on 100's correlate well with the experience
level of the horse.
Third, Steph, I am appalled that you in previous posts suggested that the distance should be shorter. It does NOT take freakish horses to be good 100-mile horses--but it DOES take very well-managed ones. And to shorten the distance (as other posters have so aptly pointed out) increases the speed--and as such, increases the risks. I'm not so sure about that - risk is a function of both speed and distance. An alternate approach to changing the game to a series would be something akin to the way a weekend bicycle race is typically held - it's generally 3-4 events, each with a different focus. So we could do the same - hill climb, technical trail, road. Each of them could be shorter, but in aggregate, it would be longer. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|