Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

The problem I see is, how to write rules that punish those who deserve to be punished, but not those for whom "sh** happens. 

 

The Mariposa case is pretty clear-cut...the guy over rode and abused his horse.  Due to lack of knowledge?  Determination to win at all costs?  We don't know for *sure*. 

 

Then there's the case of someone who has a history of doing things right, and their horse still gets in trouble.  Someone (I can't remember who) posted a story a month or two ago about their horse colicing at a ride (I think it was a 100 out west?).  They gave lots of details about the ride, and how everything seemed to be going just fine, then the horse colicked.

 

Then there is the case of a rider who might have a "history" of their horses crashing.  They ride very competitively, and sometimes they win/top ten, the other times they are pulled for metabolics or lameness...all or nothing, so to speak.  They have quite a few instances of their horses being on jugs, either when ridden by themselves or someone else.  Seems to be a pattern of pushing the horses too hard and/or too often. 

 

Three different scenarios/types of riders.  The first one is pretty clear cut overriding/abuse.  The second one is pretty clear cut not overriding or abuse...and I think everyone will agree that that person doesn't need to be "punished."  Perhaps we could draft a rule that would "get" the first person, but not the second.

 

Now consider the third scenario.  Seems to be a pattern of making unwise decisions about which horse(s) to ride, how often, and how fast.  Or perhaps not unwise, but maybe fueled by other things...competitiveness, increasing sale value of horses, potential for leasing the horses.  One can speculate, but not prove anything.

 

So - how to deal with the third example, and get the rider to put the horses first?  How does one draft a rule to "catch" that kind of behavior, but not hit the riders for whom "stuff" happens?  Dealing with the third kind of rider requires a lot of knowledge of their thought process, motivations, etc.  And one can't really "prove" anything with respect to those things.

 

So while I feel that someone should have filed a protest against the Mariposa rider, which would have enabled AERC to take some action, no one did.  Don't blame AERC for not doing something to the rider, when no one bothered to file a protest.

 

JMHO

Dawn Carrie, Texas

 

On 11/18/07, frank solano <fradasol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It was said, "Thanks to AERC, he didn't lose it, and he got "edified."...regarding the horse at Mariposa...and I really understand Heidi's perspective, it seems to make sense.

 

Rather than "discussing" it from the wrong end, perhaps "discussing" from the "other" end would be more effective.

 

As if to say, "Thanks to AERC, he was able to show up and jeopardize a horse because he (in fact) MET the rules, UNTIL HE DIDN'T."

 

Why must we always speak of "narrow escapes", "but, the horse was saved", and so on?

 

Why can't the organization see a need to protect all horses BEFORE they're jeopardized? 

If it is the RULES which are lacking, heck, don't write MORE, write MORE EFFECTIVE ones, which would preclude the repeat of truly bad behavior, which happens at a ride every weekend in some part of the country, in some region, on the part of riders, new ones or experienced one.

 

Ultimately, it isn't even about the rules, it is about seeing what is wrong with the way we pursue our "entertainment" and the need to discontinue rationalizing what happens to horses, any horses, who suffer.  It's curious how we, as an organization, seem to be able to quantify "suffering", i.e., "a little is okay, a medium amount is probably okay, a whole lot is....well, at least the horse was saved!"

 

  It is downright strange.

 

Frank Solano