Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] CRI - Truman Prevatt

Many vets have been doing CRI at every check for a long time. Many others do it when they think they need the extra data. It doesn't take any longer nor to vet through with or without. In the SE some use it at every check as part of their routine. Some use it when they think necessary. In either case it is one of the tools regularly used here. The CRI like all other parameters is not a silver bullet but it is a good piece of additional information. It also has to be interpreted in the context of all the data available to the vet. There was an interesting article by Ridgway (the guy that adapted it to horses) some years ago in the which he discusses when the numbers are meaningful and when they are not. It's not an absolute - which means you cannot make a hard fast rule based on thresholds.

I still believe the whole welfare thing gets down to dehydration and maybe we should be focusing on that. As far as the CRI, the vet handbook should emphasize it's use.

I'm not sure, however, it belongs in the rule book because I see too many difficulties in structuring such a rule. We have good vets all over the country that do a good job vetting endurance rides making judgments on each horse based on what they see, the understanding of how how the climatic conditions of the area impact the horses, the trail they have just been over, the ambient conditions of the day and the trail they have in front of them. I sure don't think they need micromanaging from Auburn with more threshold based rules.

Truman

Bruce Weary DC wrote:
I think I would actually be more in support of mandatory CRI's done throughout the ride, in that it would clearly be more effective in detecting fatigue and exhaustion all day long, including the finish line than taking a simple pulse rate. It would have ramifications, though. Such as, it would modify the definition of "fit to continue," if mandatory. I'm sure other complications would arise I haven't thought of, but I believe in the CRI. And I think we even have *data* regarding it's use and effectiveness. The question is, will the data be believed, or discarded as contradictory to previously held opinion? This whole "welfare thang" ain't easy. Dr Q

--


“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


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


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!!

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


Replies
[RC] CRI, Bruce Weary DC