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

RE: [RC] [RC] A few points - David LeBlanc

Heidi said:


> As Bruce already pointed out, this just isn't so.  100s get WAAAAY more points per mile than 50s, just as LDs don't get points at all but instead have their own mileage category. 


OK, so we treat one of the several classes of ride differently as well.


>And if you want to talk recognition


I don’t. Doesn’t matter to me. Fairness does matter.


>The distances are simply different events, pure and simple.


Exactly my point. 25’s are different than 50’s, which are different than 75’s, which are different than 100’s, which are different than 2-day 100’s, and all of them are different than multi-days. Out of the 6 classes, we treat exactly 2 of them differently. Some of the differences make sense, others do not.


> 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.


>Boy howdy, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one!  No way do two LD's "add up" to one 50, any more than two 50s add up to one 100. 


Sure they do, in terms of miles. Or maybe you’re agreeing more than you think – they don’t really add up, but we let some of them add up, and others not.


> If being in a different "category" bothers you, that isn't the sport's fault--that lies in the perception problem. 


It’s the fact that the categories aren’t treated equally when there isn’t a good reason to do so. I’m in the category that I’d like to be in, and still feel like it doesn’t make sense. This isn’t at all about recognition in my mind.


>You've missed the whole point of being out there on your horse in the first place.  If it is really important to you to get the "stuff" that goes with the next category, then RIDE in the next category!  But don't try to pass that on as an indicator that you're being treated like a lesser rider just because you ride in a different category!


Heidi, I’m IN the next category. Only category I’m not in is 1-day 100, and I’m working on getting there. _I_ do not get treated like a lesser rider. This isn’t about me, nor is it about recognition.


I think many people care quite a lot. We've had numerous, ongoing arguments,
often quite passionate, about this for years here.


>Sure.  But do they care for the right reasons, or have they missed the point of the sport?  We live in a whole culture of instant gratification--that doesn't make it right.


Again, that’s a diversion. Go off on the dumbing down stuff, and completely miss the point of whether it’s right or fair to have a national LD BC award and having some RM’s just decide on their own not to do that.


>As for BC, you know my feelings on that--I think it is wrong not to offer it at all rides, and I continue to work toward that goal.  But that's a relatively regional problem, as most of the country already does that. 


OK, so we agree on something important – let’s treat LD the same where it makes sense. It makes sense to give more points for a 1-day 100 because it’s that much harder. It makes sense to have LD pulse down for completion. I think everyone deserves a placing unless something unusual happened during the ride.


>As you state, we already dealt with the placings issue, which was also largely a regional problem.  But those two things still don't make the rides "endurance" rides--they are still run differently and have some unique rules that are necessary for the horse's safety at the shorter distances. 


That’s the semantic part of the argument, and while I don’t agree, I think it’s the least important part of the discussion. It’s fine for them to have unique rules _if it makes sense and is fair_.



> Additionally, PNER was one of two regions that pioneered the change from what is now called LD being flat-out races to having the clock continue to run until the pulse meets a preset pulse criterion.  But make no mistake about it--one of the key reasons why PNER was able to continue to hold these events in relative safety was BECAUSE of AERC's action in removing the shorter distances from the "endurance" umbrella--not in spite of it!


I think pulsing down was what really solved it. Having a standard pulse into hold of 60-64 bpm is probably one of the best things ever for the horses in this sport. I don’t think points changed anything.



>I still remember seeing a horse run a 25-miler in 1:09, and then get in the trailer with bilateral bowed tendons, never to be seen again.  Yes, the newer veterinary controls would have helped--but the bottom line was that the rider was racing for AERC points.


Again, I don’t think points is nearly as big a deal as the controls. If you don’t pass the controls, 0 points for you, one way or the other. We give PNER points for LD, and there’s a bunch of highly competitive people, and I’ve seen teams place 3 50+ mile horses in the LD knowing they’d take a bunch of top-10 places. We’ve still got the points, but the controls prevent the abuses.


> But by taking the "endurance" and the points out of it, the ones who want to do that are not there turning up the heat and increasing the speed in the LD "races."  And that is key to this discussion.


The people who are capable of turning up the heat are out there running 50’s in 4 hours. Even giving LD points, the people on top of the heap are running the long distances. Winning an LD gets you as many points as being around 7th in a 50.


> I can't seem to make the indent feature work for my last comment here, but in all fairness, David, you were not around "in the day" when PNER had full-out AERC points races on the shorter distance rides.  It was an unmitigated disaster. 


No, I wasn’t there and am glad I didn’t see that. I think it’s the veterinary controls that stop it. I really don’t believe adding points at a national level is going to undo the good done by the controls.


> The friendly sort of racing that we see now doesn't even hold a candle to it.  Nor do the majority of LD riders come to race.  Only a small handful do, and often they are the ones of most concern to the vets at the rides, too. 


The usually get their come-uppance at the BC awards where they get last place over someone that was fit to go that fast. Which is an argument for LD BC – it’s educational.


>But make no mistake about it--taking away the AERC points was one of the most crucial safety decisions that was ever made, and it rates right up there with the stricter and different veterinary controls that we have at the shorter distances.  Bruce is right on target on this one.


I don’t agree with you on this. I see people run awfully hard for PNER points, and I think the controls are what did the job. I think you could put the points back, and not see the problems come back.



RE: [RC] [RC] A few points, heidi