So what is stopping those in the US to develop a program to identify
"young" horses with potential? Really how much money would have to be
invested for those in USEF to have a program that would overlay what is in
existence right now. A program would not have to be identical to those
in other countries but could take some of the best ideas that work and adapt
them to what is in existence here. The basic problem I
see here in the US (besides government funding) is that the
pool of horses/riders are coming from a philosophy and a program that is
based on amateur competition. Then at the International level we
expect those riders/horses to be able to be "competitive" in a field where
other national programs are set up to groom all potential horses
for international level competition from the time those horses are
started. My guess is only the best or most competitive horses
are allowed to compete in the longer distances because they had to qualify to
get to the next distance. These horses and riders have to "prove
themselves" to move up. It isn't like here where tomorrow I can
enter my unproven horse in a 75 mile ride.
Now do not get me wrong, I do NOT want to change AERC.
I just feel that when we are talking "racing" the French system of
qualification to move up in distance is superior for choosing the best
athletes for an international event. At the longest distances
you only have the cream of the crop competing against each other. This
is pretty obvious when you look at completion times and when you look at how
close in time the first 20+ horses finish at some of the French
races. The spread in races between the first and last place
horse with more than 70 completers is sometimes less then what
we commonly see between our 1st place and 10-th place horse.
I am repeating, I do not want AERC to change. But,
what I do not see is USEF or those interested in US international
endurance racing taking an interest in grooming young horses (not their
own) and potential riders for endurance racing. Even if there
is not a formal program like what is funded in France there are not even
published guidelines in this country to help riders prepare their horses for
this type of competition. All that is given are "qualifications" to
nominate for high profile events which can change from event to
event. It is expected that riders get their horses up to
the 100 mile level and nomination qualifications on their own
and any way they can through AERC and AERC philosophy (which does not
promote "racing") and then it is expected that riders take
advice, be team players, and turn over control to whomever happens to be in
charge when it comes time for a big competition. I remember
reading in one of Steph's posts on the Eurpean Championships which quoted
a USEF official stating something to the effect that US riders need to realize
that they don't know everything and need to listen to advice more.
(Don't quote me but something like that) Why should they be more open
when they have been doing it on their own to get to the nomination
process. Where were guidlines or a program from USEF when they started
their 4 or 5 year olds? Where is the trust developed between the rider
and the organization?
At least if there was more investment of
TIME and money in developing potential horses here in the US for endurance
racing there might be some improvement. For me, there is such a
distinct differnce between International Endurance racing and AERC
Endurance riding that it makes absolutely no sense to expect horses and riders
to prepare for a WEC with no real input until the horse is ready to
nominate. It would be one thing if AERC was an organization that was set
up to groom horses towards high level competition and racing but it is not and
it should not be. There is a gap that is not being filled either by USEF
or by AERC I and I think that is part of the problem.
