Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

I have said for years to anyone starting this sport, that they need to understand that their horse is being put at risk at any given time.  When I say put at risk, I mean they can die.  Every time you enter that horse into an event it can happen.  People need to understand that.   We love our horses, and we do all that is within our ability to keep them safe.  And true, they can get struck by lightning, get cut and bleed to death, whatever and never leave the farm.  Horses are magnets for trouble.  So, to say that one distance is harder, or more dangerous over another I feel is not seeing the whole picture.  Horses die in endurance at all levels.  It is a risky hobby/sport to become involved in, and you just have to prepare the best that you can in all aspects.  And then you have to try to be careful, watchful, learn your horse the best you can, and pray that they will be ok at the end of the day.

 

Jody

frank solano <fradasol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Evelyn,

 

I wish I knew the answers, or even ONE answer, to the questions you've posed. 

I think they're very interesting questions. 

You ask if perhaps a lesser distance (than 100 miles) might significantly reduce pulls, deaths, etc. 

I guess, based on what has or hasn't happened in AERC policy, the distance ridden doesn't matter.  I imagine if it did, the AERC would have recognized some kind of pattern and shared it with the members.

The correlation of data, i.e., lamenesses, metabolic issues, co-incidental colics, deaths, IV Fluid Replacement treatments due to bad luck, bad riding, bad (whatever) seems something which has been difficult to correlate with any degree of accuracy.

 

I don't know how your questions can authoritatively be answered short of a program by which relevant information can be gathered, submitted, assessed and (eventutally) disseminated to the participants and (especially) people interested in venturing into the world of Endurance Racing/Riding for the first time.

 

Personally, I know a horse can die just outside my bedroom window with no endurance saddle on.  Some say endurance horse deaths are a result of things other than being involved in endurance races/rides, that it's just "bad luck".  Some endurance horses die because of rider incompetence.  Some die because they find themselves in a moment where their own natural instincts take over and, unable to quiet their fear, the horse dies.

 

I guess trying minimize the chances of bad things happening is the only way to go.  How that's done is something, I'd hope (in a sport all about "personal responsibility") each of us will be able to fathom.

 

Frank

 

 

 

 

On 4/4/07, Evelyn Allen <totaleclipse2007@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If the welfare of the horse is truly foremost in everyone's (or almost everyone's) minds, and if the 100-mile events cause by far the most stress on the horse and the most pulls for whatever reason, and more importantly the most likelihood of horse deaths (which is what I seem to recall reading many times), then maybe the problem lies with the fact that 100-miles is not really a great distance for horses to travel safely?  Does it have to be 100-miles?  Is perhaps a lesser distance where the probability of pulls, deaths, etc. is significantly reduced, not also something that should be looked at?  I'm sure not a popular thought, but nonetheless....

---

Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.