 |
RE: [RC] Change - David LeBlancBruce said: But there is another side of the coin to consider, that being if we aren't aware of our history, we will be doomed to repeat it. Some things don't change, and in this case, an important example is the horse's tolerance to exercise. Though this does change somewhat - we have people running 100's in times unheard of even 5-10 years ago. I have very mixed feelings about it, and don't think this is good for the horses. Though any horse can improve it's own fitness with an intelligent conditioning program, horses are still being built pretty much the same as they were back in the days when they showed us it can be dangerous and deadly to race with a beginner on his back for 25 miles. It can be dangerous and deadly to race at any distance when the horse is not fit to do that on that day. This is not just a problem with LD, nor is it only a problem with beginners, though a racing beginner is a bad combination at any distance. I'd argue that it is a much worse problem if someone tries to race 50's and isn't ready. The carnage that occurred back then when LD's didn't have the controls they do now is, at least in part, responsible for why some RM's exercise their option not to offer a BC in their LD rides. That's also back before we had pulse down for completion, and before the pulse down criteria was as low as it is now. I think both of these have very significant effects. It isn't to exclude riders from a good educational experience, or to deprive them of placings or privileges enjoyed by those at the longer distances. It is because to be considered for BC, there is a finish time or "speed" component involved, wherein the rider must go fast enough to be considered for BC. At this point, we have several regions that consistently offer BC exams for LD. There's a huge amount of data available. If this concern were truly warranted, I think you'd be able to show a statistical difference. I don't think we have any evidence that the SE, NW, or some of the other regions doing this have a significantly worse problem with pulls, particularly metabolic pulls in LD rides. Someone with data ought to check me on this, and see what it really is. I can tell you that just from looking at the 2006 and 2007 statistics, there appears to be no correlation between LD completion rates, and whether that region typically offers BC exams. This is what I mean about making decisions based on data, not on whether we think someone is seeking recognition. I'm glad your main concern is for the horse, but let's make policy decisions based on data. And while certainly not all riders in an LD are beginners, with an LD being the entry level type of ride, the potential numbers of beginners is greater than the higher distances. Yes, but we have no evidence that offering a BC has any negative effect. It may not have any effect - it appears to me that other factors likely account for the variance - for example, the NE typically has a low LD completion rate, but doesn't tend to offer LD BC's. They probably have tough rides. A ride I just came from always has a low LD completion rate because people run overtime. Yes, there are controls in place, such as finish line recovery criteria that tends to slow people down ( That's a good thing, and another distinction where it differs from being an endurance ride). And, many proponents will say that because we have those controls in place, overriding occurs rarely or not at all in LD's. Show me data that proves this one way or the other. I've seen overriding happen at every distance, by the experienced and inexperienced alike. I was vet scribe at a horse's last vet check before it died, and the rider had an extremely large number of miles. Not a pretty sight. If overriding were more prevalent, the veterinary controls would result in more pulls, and we'd see a higher pull rate for LD than for 50's, not the same. An alternate theory is that there may be more overriding, but the shorter distance itself is another protection, and making mistakes for 25 miles is less likely to get you in bad trouble than making mistakes for 50 or 100 miles. Either way, the horses seem to do as well in both cases. The truth is, that while most riders are caring and compassionate, the effect of a competitive atmosphere on some people's minds can vary. Some can handle it, ride intelligently and work their horse within his limits to the finish line. A few get that glassy eyed look as they run their horse too fast to keep up with the leaders, desperately not wanting to let them out of their sight, while the horse may or may not be able to handle it, and could get into trouble before the vet can recognize what is happening at the next vet check and put a stop to it. Sure - people get race brain, too. I've seen people with 15 years (or more) experience do this, and people just starting not do it. Again, we have no evidence that offering a BC makes this problem better or worse. I'd argue that it makes the problem better, since an overridden horse won't be the one to get BC. Horses can run on heart and instinct, and it takes time and experience to know what your horse can handle and what he can't. An LD is a good place to learn that. I disagree. You can make a lot of mistakes on an LD and never see where your horse's limits are. If you want to learn that, do a 75 or a multiday, or even a hard 50. Doing 160 miles in 3 days taught me more about that than anything else I've done in this sport. Getting 50 more miles out of a really tired horse with good vet scores all day was a good lesson. Ironically enough for this discussion, racing and winning a 75 (I very rarely race) was also very instructive, but not something a beginner should attempt. This also goes back to my argument about anointing someone an "endurance" rider over just one 50. I'd rather see a system with some real titles based on real accomplishments. In my mind, a beginner is anyone with less than around 1000 miles. At least that's where I started to get a clue, though the people I try to learn from are in the 10,000 mile class. A racing atmosphere can distract an inexperienced rider's attention from monitoring the workload of his horse, and instead focus him on his placing and where the next horse ahead is. This has happened hundreds of times in our sport, and is part of what has led to how things work now. Some regions have given placings, BC's, and even points, but there's not any data that shows these regions have a problem. Otherwise, we'd be having a different argument here. If the SE, NW and the others that do have these factors were hurting horses, we'd have quite an uproar. Again, base policy decisions on data, not biases. So, it's not just us "old timers" doing things the same old boring way, with a need for change driven by the tastes of a few who would rather race at 25 miles than step up to the challenge and responsibility of a 50 miler. You're advocating policy that's not based on data. That's no way to run a business of any kind. I don't care if you're an old timer, new to the sport, if you have data, use it. It is because there are new people coming into the sport every day, and there should be a rite of passage that assures safety for the horse and adequate indoctrination for the rider so he/she can truly understand what a horse is and is not capable of, without the potential enticement to race too early. There should be. The Aussie system seems to be a good one, but I doubt we could put it in place. They set a maximum speed until you get (I think) 3 rides under your belt, and this applies for each new distance level. I have no objection to offering BC for LD rides, as long as the speeds ridden are commensurate with the rider's experience and the horse's conditioning. But, that is a difficult thing to police, and, since this is an amateur, every-man-for-himself kind of sport, the urge can sometimes be too great to get to that finish line first, whether the rider knows what they're doing or not. The BC exam itself polices this. I've seen it happen over and over. Someone goes out and comes in well up front, and then gets the "worst condition" award, often gets chewed out by the vet. I have a friend who is new and has a problem horse who's learned a lot through repeated hard knocks at the hands of the vets and bad BC scores. He got a heart rate monitor and is getting a lot smarter. Endurance riders are a funny lot. I know riders with over 25,000 miles who are humble, and say they still have a lot to learn. Then there are those who have done a few LD's, or one or two 50's, that already feel they know what sweeping changes should be made in our ride structure and awards system, and that those changes would, by definition, be "improvements." Sure - I know all kinds, too. However, you're making a mistake to think that the only people who think some changes are needed are new to the sport. You made the mistake of thinking I fit in that category when I've got 68 rides and 62 completions, and my horse has 63 completions out of 67 starts. I typically ride slowly, and encourage others to do so, especially if they are new. I don't think Truman's remotely a new person, and he and I seem to agree on this. Heidi's about as far from a newbie as you're going to get, and she supports BC for LD. I'm also not arguing for sweeping changes - let's do a little at a time, make sure we're not causing any harm, think about it, then move on, whether it's to accept more change, or reverse course. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|