Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Title: "There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong

Diane Trefethen wrote:

In response to Truman's attempt to differentiate between pacing and just riding along, it is important to note that the rules do not address INTENT.  Were they to have done so, then yes, riding along might not qualify as pacing.  However, in the absence of requiring intent, then the rules should be interpreted in their strictest sense, to wit, that any riding along will have the effect of pacing and therefore should be considered pacing, ipso facto.

Maybe Joe Long or Randy can speak up the history on the issue of "pacing or prompting." From my memory intent was the prime reason for the rule. The rule is very specific in that it states "paced or prompted" which are overt acts to move a horse along at a pace he might not otherwise go. That could different in riding with another rider.  If I remember correctly the original issue was pushing along tired horses via the use of following them with vehicles - although using a fresh horse would apply. The words, "pace and prompt" are in there for a reason. When does an endurance rider that rides with a trail rider rise to the level of passing the threshold of being "paced or prompted." There is a burden of proof implied in this rule and intent IS the issue.

*Both 2.1.5.2 and L2.1.5.2 state, "Equines disqualified by the control judge must not continue on.  This practice by a rider is considered grounds for barring that rider from future rides."

**Both rule 6 and L6 state, "Completion requires meeting all of the following criteria: k. Not having been paced or prompted by an un-entered, withdrawn, or otherwise unauthorized equine, vehicle, or a person other than another entrant..."

Truman

--

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken