RE: [RC] A few points - David LeBlancBruce asid: If not feeling like a full member is in no way tied to points, miles, recognition, BC or any other award or form of public reward or recognition, where does this feeling come from? It comes from the fact that not all LD rides have had placings, others have not had BC exams, and the fact that we accumulate miles and points differently for one distance class, but not the other 5 types of rides we put on, all of which are different events with different difficulty levels. 100 milers are awarded differently than two 50's. There is a point differential that rewards the one day 100 miler above the two 50's. Of course, the miles themselves are the same, as they should be. I don't think so. A 50 just isn't very hard. A 100 is very hard. Your argument was based on difference in difficulty, and a 50 isn't really very much harder than an LD. It's not consistent to say that 2 25's don't add up the same as 1 50 when 2 50's add up the same as a 100. We're just not consistent or logical about this - we lump a bunch of stuff together that's very different, then put just one of them in a different category. It only makes sense when you understand the history of the sport. Any member of the AERC can be one of many things--a distance rider, an LD rider (I have done many), a rider of endurance distances, a 100 miler, a multiday-er, a lightweight, a junior, a senior, and the nicknames go on and on under the umbrella of AERC. I don't think anyone really cares about what casual moniker we all want to apply to ourselves. The confusion comes from the fact that "endurance riding" is a global term that casually refers to our sport, and an "endurance ride" is defined as any distance at or above 50 miles in a day. This is circular logic. It's that way because it's defined that way. I say that if you're a member of the American _Endurance_ Riders Conference, and do rides, then it ought to be OK to call oneself an endurance rider. The distinction is really very silly - we act as if someone gets a whole lot smarter the day that they do their first 50. I think many people care quite a lot. We've had numerous, ongoing arguments, often quite passionate, about this for years here. Way back when the term was coined, there were no LD rides, proving that the choice of the term was not meant to be exclusionary. The exclusion happened when LD was brought in, and my understanding is that there was considerable wailing, gnashing of teeth, and predictions of imminent doom of the sport. Given the political climate at the time, to get it in at all was an accomplishment. We're still working on getting things equal. The fact that we have only very recently dealt with placings, and still (AFAIK) have yet to deal with BC awards, proves an inequality, and an exclusionary mindset. It's awkward to say, "I'm an AERC member who is riding an LD today." It's even more awkward to explain to someone outside of the sport, and it always comes up as "Gee, that's odd - why do they do it that way?" when I'm introducing someone new to endurance. Words change. Starve used to mean to die, not just from hunger, and now it means to be hungry. Hacker was someone who built furniture, then a computer geek, and now a criminal. Would it really be that awful if people said they were doing a 25 mile endurance ride? They wouldn't be a 50 mile rider until they'd done a 50 mile ride, just like I am not yet a 1-day 100 mile rider, but am a multi-day rider. Using this "insult" as a rationale, some have then often strategized to build a case for such things as adding endurance points for LD rides, and pushing to make the LD venue one designed for racing. I don't think the semantic silliness makes much of a case for anything other than accepting that language changes over time. What does make the case for accepting the fact that LD rides are races is that it is indeed just the reality of what's actually happening, and that several regions do count points for LD, and add them into the rest of the distances. The NW region, under PNER - which I believe actually predates AERC - does count LD _points_, and the sky has not fallen, we do not see the problems people are worried about, and actually have an extremely healthy bunch of rides, and even a _growing_ number of 100's and 100 mile riders. We tend to take PNER awards pretty seriously up here, and if these things were actually bad for the sport, I think we would have seen the results. This is not a recent change - we've been doing it that way for years. The fact that we have not seriously undermines an argument that LD points are wrong, and adding them in with everything else is wrong. The latter agenda causes grave concern amongst those who have been around long enough to remember what happened in the early days when LD did not have the restrictions it has today, as well as amongst our veterinary staff in their concern for the welfare of the horse. We have some world-class vets up here, and while it is right to be concerned about those things, it hasn't actually worked out to be an issue. The problems of the early days were mitigated by veterinary controls that everyone was subjected to, and the smartest thing for stopping problems with LD was pulse down at completion. This is what I'm getting at - let's not make decisions about whether or not to give points based on how we feel about semantics, let's make those decisions based on hard data about the results. We have plenty of results in this region, possibly some others (SE, MW, I think), and the results show these concerns aren't warranted. I care much less about the plain-bellied Sneeches vs. the star-bellied Sneeches part of the argument than what is and is not good for the horses. My observation over the last 25 years has been that the majority of people who find themselves riding in an LD at any given time (that would be me three weeks ago) are indeed there for the reasons I mentioned earlier--not wanting to ride the longer distances, physical, time and financial limitations, and equine limitations of maturity, conditioning, soundness and injury recovery. That's pejorative, though I'm sure you don't intend it as such. One could easily say the same about why not ride more than a 50. It's also not true. Some people like being done in time for lunch. Last one I did, I was seeing if my saddle was set up right. Or I might be mentoring someone. I think it is a vocal few who are wanting the sport to change to allow LD to become a full fledged racing opportunity and other benefits currently only ascribed to rides that are two to four times longer. Allow it? It already is. You mentioned that the sport has changed, and it has in many ways. I also see pressure being exerted by a few to change the sport itself to meet their personal taste or limitations, and I object to some of those changes, especially as they relate to what I mention above. I don't think it is a few. LD starts are around 1/2 of all of our starts now. My personal desire to see the sport change is that I believe changes would help the sport continue to grow, which in turn ensures that I'll have lots of rides to go have fun at. We both share the concern of preserving the sport, but just differ on what's the right way to achieve that. This debate has gone on for a long time, and will undoubtedly continue. I appreciate the opportunity to express how I see things. LD has been a very good thing for AERC. I don't believe making it a racing venue or awarding endurance points would be. I've seen the effect of that on the NW, and it's been positive, not a negative. People race - it's why they're not out doing CTR (which is a fine thing to go do, if you like that sort of thing). Racing in the longer distances tends to be more hazardous. Look into how the sport works in the regions that already do this, and see if there's problems - I'm not seeing them here. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|