Check it Out!    
RideCamp@endurance.net
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Re: Protective Boots



Linda:  ECTRA still has this policy.  It comes from CTR philosophy that if
the horse ineterferes, he is tiring.  They are scored on this.  hence, they
fell that a tiring horse (one that interferes) does not deserve to stand for
BC consideration.

I don't agree with this, but I know where they are coming from.

AERC rules can be added to, but it MUST be in WRITING and available to all
riders BEFORE the start of the ride.

Teddy

Flemmer, Linda wrote:

> Teddy Lancaster wrote:
> >
> > That is an ECTRA rule and applies to ALL sanctioned ECTRA rides.
>
> Yes, the rides in question that banned leg protection for BC
> consideration were ECTRA sanctioned.  I haven't belonged to ECTRA in a
> couple of years, however.... Back then, when ECTRA sanctioned AERC
> rides, it specifically said that the ride was run under AERC rules.  I
> don't remember them saying that it was AERC rules except no leg
> protection.  It was my impression that this rule was set up by ride
> management.  Do you know if this has changed since I dropped my
> membership with ECTRA?
>
> I know that ride managers have some leeway to add rules to the minimum
> that AERC requires.  As long as it is on the entry form (must have
> helmets, etc.) or it is announced before the start of the ride, I have
> no problem with that.  If a ride routinely has conditions that I find
> abhorrent, I just don't go back.  One RM rule I see quite a bit of is a
> 10 minute penalty hold if you fail your first attempt at a P&R.  (ie.  I
> enter for P&R (parameters 60) and horse is 64.  I must wait 10 minutes
> to present for a re-check.  Since there is only 30 minutes to get P&R's
> done after arrival, two failed attempts could knock you out after only
> 21 minutes.)
>
> Potato seems to object to this rule about leg protection.  When I asked
> ride management the "why's and wherefores", I was told that a horse may
> interfere as he tires.  Protective boots would diguise this interferance
> and the horse would not show this change in his condition.  I disagree
> with the rule and rationale (let your horse hurt himself so we can see
> who is most tired), but I agreed to the rules of the ride <as stated> at
> the beginning.  If they had pulled this on me as I walked up to be
> judged for BC, it would be a whole 'nuther story.
>
> Of course, that brings up the question of how often I ever get to stand
> for BC.  (Don't hold your breath, folks.)
>
> Linda Flemmer



    Check it Out!    

Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff

Back to TOC