Re: [RC] [RC] May 2007 Veterinary newsletter - FXLivestock
In a message dated 6/20/2007 9:56:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
As Truman has already pointed out, most of the flak came from having the
pulled riders posted at all, not from having their pull codes published.
I am truly sorry for riders who feel that this is some sort of a stigma, and
have not gotten past that sort of ego trip. (No, I amend that--I'm sorry
for their horses.) Eliminating publishing of the pull codes does not
change the fact that the riders who truly object don't seem to want their
names published at all.
Heidi
But this discussion has not been about not listing pulled riders but about
pull codes being published. It is muddying the waters to tie the two of
these together. I certainly don't have a problem listing pulled
riders in results but am really against indivdual pull
codes in results and records.
Look, I am about done with this topic. I have been vocal about this
for at least three or four years. I contend that accuracy is compromised
because of the way these codes are recorded. A lot of energy is wasted
between riders and vets and riders and ride managers. I keep
hearing claims that accuracy is so much better then in previous years.
I certainly do not see this. I keep hearing that riders shouldn't
care, yet I see time and time again riders justifying a pull as RO, thereby
putting "value" on these codes. We wouldn't have RO L or RO M if riders
didn't put "value" on this stuff. The reality is a metabolic pull is a
metabolic pulls and a rider shouldn't care if it is listed as an RO M
or an M but riders do...
A lot of ride managers and vets agree with me on this topic. But if
the majority of members like this - keep the system we have. I just know
from my personal observations in the past and in the PRESENT that many of the
pull codes listed are not accurate and therefore the data taken from this will
also not be accurate. If the main purpose of pull codes is peer pressure,
punishment, etc. it is working just fine. But if it is to collect
accurate data, it is really a failure and will continue to be a failure.
