ridecamp@endurance.net: Re: ROC

Re: ROC

lahayward (haywardl@shentel.net)
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:32:06 -0400

I want to know why only the ROC coverage only presented the top 20 riders
-- what happened to the other 15 riders who finished???? If our motto is
"To Finish is To Win" I think that they deserve just as much glory as the
first place finishers. Personally, I think that there is way too much
ceremony and politics going on and that is not what I was there for.

Lori Hayward
LIV2RYD in VA
----------
> From: RUN4BEAR@aol.com
> To: greenall@vermontel.com; Ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: Re: ROC
> Date: Thursday, October 09, 1997 12:06 PM
>
> In a message dated 97-10-09 10:33:07 EDT, you write:
>
> << Well, I was waiting for the ROC to be a topic here. Before we get
> carried away with what went wrong, I think we need to look at the big
> picture. We, the riders, should be the ones controlling this sport.
> We do that through the AERC and supporting rides. If Susan wants to
> run her own "game", let her. Read your AERC newsletter, they are
> aware of the problems and almost did not sanction the ride. However,
> 100 mile rides are hard enough to find and we all know that the lure
> of the trail keeps us coming back, not the "glitz" that Susan puts
> on. I know that riders would still ride her ride even if it was NOT
> sanctioned, although it would not be as many. Not sanctioning the
> ROC , would it really make a difference?
> I was very much in the thick of things and want to commend the FAHA
> and volunteers for knowing the rules and acting "professionally".
> Even in the midst of chaos, they came up with solutions, and those
> solutions were in favor of the rider completing the ride.
> Frustration and anger sprung from decisions that did not appear to
> favor the rider completing the ride. I think that we all agree that
> this is a BIG factor in what we want in this sport. Veterinary
> criteria was "stiffer" than we are used to because it was a
> championship ride, thus the high pull rate. I am sure that the vets
> felt justified in that but it was hard on those of us who qualified
> under less stringent criteria. Let's face it, many of the horses at
> the ROC were not top runners, they were there because the riders
> wanted to participate in the sport and were willing to get to five
> rides to qualify, no matter what it took. These riders are the bread
> and butter of the sport, just like the training and preliminary
> levels of combined driving, eventing and dressage. They are there to
> learn, to support, and to aspire. It is very important to any sport
> to treat these people well and to encourage them for they are our
> future. Not only did they support the ROC, they supported at least
> five 100 mile rides to get there. Discourage them and what do we
> have? Do we want to send a message to the vets, and managers,
> that adding the word "championship" to a ride does not mean a
> different playing field?
> My final comment is that endurance riders, like wild animals, become
> dangerous to deal with when not fed. My deepest apologies to the
> poor man who donated the food, which we paid Susan for, and took the
> wrath of the riders when it ran out before the last rider was in.
> John and Sue Greenall
> mailto:greenall@vermontel.com
>
>
> >>
>
>
> Here, here!!!! Susan has an e-mail address. I wonder if she is
subscribed
> to ridecamp. We don't want to tell her she is terrible..she has done
great
> things for this sport. BUT, she does need to know and should WANT to
know
> what the problems are. Only good press to correct problems and cater to
> riders (within reason).
>
> I could not have said it better myself.
>
> Teddy
>

Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff