Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff
This just ain't so. It took that horse 6 hours to go 50 miles. There is
great benefit to the horse to two hours of rest during the course of the
ride during which time it can eat, drink, sleep, cool down, etc. As an
example, the Indy 500 does not remove the time spent in the pit from the
time it takes to finish the race.
Increasing the mandatory hold time actually benefits the less fit horse. .
.fit horses are required to rest whether they need to or not. By
increasing the mandatory hold time of a ride, vets are actually leveling
the playing field for the horses. I, personally, am of the opinion that
it would be nice if there were NO mandatory holds. . .philosophically
speaking; however logistically, because vet checks are required, having no
mandatory hold gives great advantage to the person who happens to be lucky
enough to get in line for the vet first--and that one hour hold at lunch
allows the vets to see a horse AFTER it has had a chance to come down from
an adrenaline high.
My personal favorite is many of the multi-day rides that have just one vet
check during the course of the ride. If the horses need rest, fuel, etc.
otherwise, it is the responsibility of the rider to schedule these at
proper intervals. Does that give an advantage to horses that are more fit
and don't have to stop to rest as much as their less fit competitors? You
bet. That's the whole idea.
However, instead we usually have an assortment of vet checks along the
way. And the whole reason for these is to eliminate during the
competition (before they drop dead) horses that are not fit (for whatever
particular reason) to complete THAT ride on THAT day. . .because we can't
trust the riders not to over ride their horses without being required.
The fact that some rides are harder than others, and therefore, in order
to protect the horses from their riders (let's fact it, that's what vet
checks are for) the vets increase the hold times during the ride, just
means that some rides are harder to finish than others. So in hard rides,
more of the less fit horses will not complete...possibly because they
exceed the time allowed. So what? Less fit horses shouldn't complete.
Hard rides are supposed to be hard.
Endurance riding is supposed to be hard. You are supposed to have to
prepare yourself and your horse for a grueling effort. And finishing 50
miles in 12 hours of total elapsed time--including the time that you get
to rest your horse--is NOT that hard, if you ride intelligently and have
prepared your horse properly.
If the rules are changed to make it so that even the most unfit horse that
gets to rest for hours along way and still cannot complete in under 12
hours (yes, including that rest time), then endurance riding ceases to be
something that requires true endurance.
The AERC's motto is "to finish is to win." If we change the rules so
anybody can finish, no matter how unfit their horse is, winning becomes
meaningless. Incidentally (as a total aside) it is for this reason, I
think, that more and more rides are beginning to have some kind of award
other than just a completion award for LD rides. LD rides are so easy to
complete (relatively speaking) that the competition against the trail
(i.e. completing in under 6 hours for 25 miles) has become virtually
meaningless. Competitors want to compete. Since racing in a LD ride is
generally considered to be bad form, most rides are giving out some kind
of "best condition" award for their LD rides. This, in essence, is
turning the LD ride into a Competitive Trail Ride (e.g. four points for an
A, 3 for a B, etc. the horse with the most points wins the prize). Very
few people are satisfied with a 25 mile ride that is so easy that
everybody completes and that gives out the same prize to all competitors.
By the same token, it will also become the case that few people will be
satisfied (for very long) with 50 mile rides that are made so easy so that
anybody can complete. Lengthening the time allowed to complete (which is
what you are advocating if you want the hold time to not count as part of
the 12 hours completion time allowed) just cheapens the "victory" for
those competitors who have prepared their horses properly and ridden them
intelligently. Let's not make endurance riding any easier than it already
is. And let's not make it so ride management personnel have to wait
around any longer than they already do for horses that are 'too tired' to
complete in less time.
One of the great things about Tevis is that it is so hard to complete.
Some of this difficulty comes from the 24 hour maximum time allowed. The
accomplishment of completing Tevis would be reduced by making it easier by
extending the time allotted to complete. It it takes you three tries and
only half the starters finish, then, indeed the completion award becomes
'coveted.'
12 hours in total elapsed time is more than enough time for a fit horse to
complete 50 miles. Even if it gets to/has to rest for 2 hours along the
way. And my own experience with rides where many riders are pulled for
time are more a result of poor planning on the part of the rider (i.e.
dawdled along at the beginning not realizing that there was a mother of a
climb to be made in the heat of the day that couldn't be rushed so that by
the time they got to the end, there just wasn't any time left).
kat
Orange County, Calif.
p.s. I, personally, am not a fan of cut off times at vet checks as it is
just one more thing that takes away from my own responsibility as a rider
to rate MY horse; however, I can understand why, for logistical reasons of
placing the vets, that ride managers have them (and it also means that
ride personnel don't have to go hunting for slow, unfit horses in the dark
:) ).
Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff