Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

The memories of warm tropical Malaysian days are fading, replaced by the
realities of winter in the USA, and a glorious weekend ride in Arizona's
Sonoran desert. Time to write things down...

The two strongest impressions I have of the event are 1. of the Malaysian
people who are so strongly committed to hosting a World Endurance
Championship, and are so eager and willing to do it right. And 2. of the
foreigners, the westerners, who attended the event - as delegates of the
FEI, and as athletes willing to test themselves and local horses against the
challenges of a 160km ride in the tropics - All in support of an honest
effort to judge the suitability of Malaysia as a venue for a World
Championship.

On the day after the ride the FEI delegates and the foreign riders met for
lunch at the Sutra Beach Resort (where most of the invitees were staying).
Dr. Jim Bryant, Dr. Halvard Sommerseth and John Robertson were FEI officials
of the event, and were also closely monitoring the ride in order to prepare
a report for the FEI: can Malaysia manage a World Endurance Championship,
and can the horses and riders handle a WEC competition in the tropics? Dr.
Bryant and Dr. Sommerseth had asked the riders to join them for lunch in
order to discuss the event, ask questions of the riders and gain a greater
understanding of how to insure safetey and horse welfare: what went well?
what went wrong? what changes or improvements would we suggest?

At the table were Dr. Jim Bryant, Dr. Halvard Sommerseth, Leonard Leisens,
Brook Sample, me, Jeanne Linneweever,and her husband Charles, Paul Jeffrey,
and Kevin James. Paul Brown (Australian trainer for the Royal Stables)
joined us later, and John Crandell III wasn't able to stay for the lunch,
but had spent time earlier talking with Jim and Halvard. The discussion, the
intensity, the honesty and sincerity - this was really a tremendous
discussion. Everybody was a little tired from the ride, but well aware of
how important the discussion was - in terms of  Malaysian effort to host the
WEC, and for the health and credibility of the sport of FEI Endurance
competition. We had some general talk, the obvious - but 'fixable' problems
(timing system was slow, traffic flow in and out of vetgate was somewhat
chaotic), the obvious successes (completion rate, well marked course) and
the general conditions of heat and humidity throughout the event
(http://www.endurance.net/international/2006terengganu/temp_humidity.htm).

Then Halvard asked that each rider take a few minutes and summarize their
opinion of the event, and address the suitability of the event for a 2008
WEC. This was really an amazing session. These were World Class riders,
every rider at the table had represented their country at a World Endurance
Championship, some more than once, and the views and opinions were so keen,
so honest and open, and so refreshing! So often it seems that WEC's are
overshadowed by politics and staff and Federation in-fighting and wrangling,
but to hear things straight from the mouths of the athletes, the
individuals who actually lay it all on the line and make the mile by mile
decisions about how to best navigate a 160km course - how to capture the
best possible performance of their horse for their Federation, yet mile
after mile keep the health and welfare of the horse at the forefront - do
your best for your country, but don't cross the line - don't demand too much
of your horse. This is so obiously the essence of the sport, and something
that seems to be frequently lost in the politics of WEC Federations. The
riders too often lose their voice, and all the staff in the world can't
substitute for a brilliant horse and rider performance.

Most of the riders had similar opinions - yes, it can be done, but
absolutely caution must prevail. The ride will be about pacing and strategy,
speeds seen at other venues will not be attainable here. The course was
basically good - well marked, good footing, although some changes could be
made regarding loop layout: less repetition, more variety. Perhaps a shorter
loop in the beginning to separate the caliber of horses sooner? Though
riders disagreed on this - some preferred the traditional longer first
phases (30-40km), some thought 30 was perfect, some thought 20 or 25 might
help control the early speed. Perhaps shorter holds in the beginning? Most
agreed that the overall amount of holds was appropriate (5 hours total hold
time - 6 holds of 50 minutes) - but that the earlier holds could be
shortened, possibly add the extra time later in the day.  The flat course
was good for night riding, and night riding itself was fine. Although the
terrain itself was non-technical, the actuality of riding at night created
another level of difficulty, in essence forcing riders to go slower in order
to ride safely. It was good to have the first loop in the daylight, a chance
to take some of the freshness out of the horses before dark, a good way to
span the coolest (darkest) times of the competition day.

The rain was generally a blessing - cooling the horses and riders,
generating some breeze as the storms moved in and out. The track got a
little sloppy from rain and hoof, but this could probably be improved, and
minimized by having less repeat trail. Generally the concensus was that
having the event during the rainy season was a good plan. The water and
steward points along the trail were adequate, though maybe having some
troughs on the trail with ice water for cooling would be good, and having
more stewards who could pass water up to the riders to help cool the horses
(rather than having to dismount to douse the horses). The cooling fans and
ice troughs at the vet gate were good - though there needed to be warm water
for horses to drink as well as ice water for cooling. The crewing areas were
good - plenty of space, maybe more fans in that area would be good.
Generally the venue, the Endurance Park, was excellent - well planned and
functional.

There were a few more details discussed and suggestions made. Open
discussion, positive discussion, So very encouraging to see the calm
intelligent discussion, the apparent lack of 'agenda' - the honest desire to
give a fair evaluation of the ride. After each rider gave their summary, the
discussion turned to more general FEI Endurance topics. Some hint of the
need to evaluate the sport and address the concerns of other FEI disciplines
and the general press. I figured this was a good time to ask my same
question to people whose experience as riders and veterinarians and
officials would give real depth to the discussion - "is 160km the right
distance for a WEC?" The answers were varied - some were adamant about the
tradition - 160km is the true test of Endurance the only way to test world
class athletes. Some said they preferred 160km but felt that eventually the
WEC's would probably go to 120km. Some felt that 160km was indeed too far
for a high stakes (high speed) high publicity Endurance competition - where
asking horses to give everything for 160km was too much. Would 120km be
better? Faster? yes. More dangerous? maybe. Less risk of injury and
exhaustion for the horse? probably. More humane? probably so. Would it favor
the 'crazy, daring' competitors? maybe.  Drawing from experience as riders,
and from experience as vets.

Jim and Halvard threw out some other ideas that were being tossed around
among FEI heads. What about changing the concept of the event from one of
'progressive elimination' to 'progressive qualification'? Rather than
placing the emphasis on elimination -  i.e. 'this horse is lame, it must be
pulled. this horse is exhausted, it has failed and must be withdrawn' -
Place the emphasis on qualification - 'i.e. this horse has passed the first
test and is qualified to continue'. 'these horses have passed the 4th test
and are qualified to continue'. It is a subtle shift in perception, but
actually very powerful. While the mechanics are still the same, the emphasis
is shifted to the athletes that pass, rather than those that haven't failed
yet. The press obtains a list of horses who have qualified for the 3rd
phase, rather than horses that were lame or exhausted at gate 2.  This is a
concept that I really like - something I can wrap my brain around easily -
sometimes these subtle changes in perception can have surprisingly positive
results.

Another idea is that of stopping the competition, stopping the clock, at a
certain point. For instance after the first 30 horses have crossed the
finish line, the competition is over. For purposes of team calculations, the
competitor's times would be calculated based upon where they were when the
clock stopped (e.g. the 5th vetgate was that last official time). All
competitors still in the field at the time the clock stops have earned a
completion - a progressive finish completion. The point of this idea is to
avoid the need for riders to drag tired horses around the course simply in
order to earn a completion. To avoid the injuries and fatigue that many
horses (in this case the less elite athletes) experience in the final miles
of competition. The best horses will finish within a certain time percentage
of each other, the rest can stop at some point without the (unneccesary)
stress of getting through those last miles, when the race is basically
already over. Very interesting concept.

I guess the thing that impressed me the most about all of this was the
dedication to the sport that was evident. It is a wonderful sport, a sport
that has captured much of the world, mixing all classes of riders, all races
and religions, more so than any other FEI sport. It is worth preserving, and
worth spending time and energy to make it worthy of all equestrians'
respect.

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!!

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