Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

First let me say that I think Diane's suggestion of the pulse down in 30
minutes and the vet check to be completed by 60 minutes is a more
reasonable and workable application of the principle that horses should
pulse down at the end of a ride in the same time frame that they have
all day. Some folks object on the basis that the current rule is
long-standing, and has been working. Another way to look at it is that
it is the last venue  that allows a horse to recover for 60 minutes
anywhere in the endurance world. Early detection of an abnormally high
pulse rate is a very useful tool for attracting more than routine
attention to any given horse in an endurance ride, wherever in the ride
it occurs. If we presuppose that a horse needing a 60 minute window has
"met the standard" of fitness in this most stressful of equine sports,
it may cause the loss of opportunity to turn a skeptical eye on a horse
on his way to trouble, but not obviously there yet.
  Most vets I know and have seen post here feel that a horse that
doesn't pulse down in 30 minutes isn't just "tired." He's compromised.
To what extent, and to what short or long term harm, is yet to be
determined. If your child has a fever of 101 degrees, you'll probably
take care of her at home. If it climbs, each added degree will increase
your concern level. At a certain predetermined standard, say 104, you're
off to the doctor, and at 106 she's in an ice bath at the hospital. What
I think I hear our vets saying is we don't want the horse to be at a
level of metabolic compromise that is potentially dangerous, but not
noticed, because there is general agreement that 60 minutes is a "safe
zone." Some will argue that they know better and would present their
horse to the vet if their recovery was longer than they know it should
be. But some beginners, or those who would prefer to conceal an
overridden horse, could camp out at their trailer for up to an hour
before a vet must look at the horse. That can be when trouble starts
brewing.
  The rule change is more designed to catch any horse that finds itself
developing metabolic trouble, regardless of how fast or hard he was
ridden. I mentioned before that most horse deaths are not related to
riding speed. Any horse developing trouble would be potentially be
caught sooner and attended to. The same way they were when pulse
criteria were lowered from 78, 72,68, 64 and so on.
 Additionally, there have been concerns expressed that there is no
"hard data", "statistical evidence" or "supported rationale" for
suggesting such a change. This recommendation is supported by the HWC,
and the Vet Committee, based on huge amounts of empirical experience
from our vets, and is a logical extension of historical trends in
standard-setting for evaluation of the horse during and after an
endurance ride. Around the world, standards are tightening. For those
who feel changes ought not be allowed to be made in the absence of hard
statistical data, could someone please provide us with a proper
historical perspective by showing us the tabulated information that was
used to make the last five pulse reductions? How about the stats used to
determine that sound at a trot was appropriate? Or the research papers
that indicated that weight makes a difference, and led to the formation
of weight divisions? Or the lab experiment that indicates all AERC head
vets should be certified?Yada, Yada, Yada. Bob or Joe--you were both
around in those early years. Exactly how were those decisions ground
out? I'm thinking it was after considerable debate amongst the board
members, based on their conscience and experience, not largely
statistical data. If you didn't have the data back then, how did you
feel compelled to move forward and make policy you felt would be in the
best interest of the horses and riders?
 It would be lovely if we had  a greater volume of neatly packaged,
boiled down numbers, but just because that doesn't exist in great
quantity, doesn't mean there isn't good reason to move in this
direction. It certainly isn't an ipso facto argument for things to
remain the same. It reminds me of the old "Did you stop beating your
wife, yet?" question. A yes or no answer is inadequate to explain the
entire rationale for the proposal.
  Let's take the horse out of the race. You do a 20 mile brisk workout
at home, and he's pulsed down in 15 minutes. No problem. What if he's
not down in 30 minutes? Still pounding away at 45? Do you relax and have
a beer knowing he's still within the 60 minute standard that says he
would be fit to continue? Or would you get the stethoscope and start
monitoring him? Maybe even the idea of calling the vet flashes across
your mind, if things don't improve? And, maybe he's about to colic, for
reasons entirely unrelated to his workout. Is it possible our concerns
are different in different settings? Are we concerned at home, but at a
ride more apt to say, "Oh, he'll be all right, he's just tired," because
now a completion is at stake?
 Lastly, I welcome the chance to declare here on Ridecamp, for all to
see, that there is absolutely no truth to the rumors, as many have
suggested here, that any member of the HWC has ever, or will ever, make
a recommendation that is "by the seat of our pants," "so that we can
feel good," or "so that we feel like we're doing something." I
appreciate the opportunity to clear that up.
  I'm thinking of a card in a deck of cards. If you can't tell me what
it is, it's really fruitless to say you know what else I may be
thinking, unless of course I actually tell you. And now, I have.  Bruce
Weary




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

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!!

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