What vet checks are for (was:Completion times)

[K S Swigart <katswig@deltanet.com>]

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Kathy Myers wrote:

> I used to think hold times should not be included in
> total time, but I've changed my mind.  I think they
> should continue to be included in the total time
> allowed.  And I think that 6, 12, and 24 hours are
> good values for 25, 50, and 100 miles respectively.

I not only think that they should be included in the total time allowed, I
think they should be included in the ride time published as part of the
official results.

_I_ would like to dispel the notion that we have vet checks at endurance 
rides so that horses can rest.  This assumes that ride managers and/or 
vets are responsible for resting our horses.  As far as I am concerned, 
vet checks are so that the vets can inspect the horses to confirm that 
they are "fit to continue."

Horses must meet criteria before being presented to the vet, because the 
vet needs to see the horse after it has "recovered."  And there is a 
hold time in order to make it fair to all competitors (so that the time 
spent seeing the vet and waiting to see the vet are the same for all 
competitors).  We have a one hour "lunch" hold so that vets can see the 
horses AFTER they have had a chance to rest, adrenaline levels to drop, 
and impending problems to manifest themselves.

Riders are responsible for resting their horses, and they are 
responsible for resting their horses when their horses need to rest 
(there is nothing in the rules that says riders cannot rest their horse 
whenever they want to).  This is in keeping with the AERC policy (and 
rule) that says riders and riders alone are responsible for their horses 
throughout the course of the ride.

If more riders, ride managers, and vets kept this in mind during the 
ride, the whole problem of tough rides having more vet checks so that 
the horses can rest would go away.  It is absolutely silly to assume 
that all horses need to rest for the same amount of time at the same 
place along the trail.  Horses of differing conditions as well as having 
differing aptitudes need rest at differing intervals as do those having 
riders of differing capabilities.

Vet checks ought to be placed along the ride course (with the 
understanding that accessibility is a major factor in many cases) in 
places where allowing a horse that is not "fit to continue" to continue 
would endanger the well being of the horse (e.g. you want to put a vet 
check just before a section of trail that is difficult and inaccessible 
so that horses that will get in trouble far away from any assistance are 
pulled from the ride before they get to this area).  It is not up to 
ride management to rate the horses in the ride by planning vet checks in 
order to slow down the riders and rest the horses.  Rating the horse is 
the responsibility of the rider and the rider alone.

As a perfect example of this:

A number of years ago, I did the Malibu ride which has a very difficult 
climb up a very steep hill after the lunch break in the heat of the day 
with virtually no shade.  At the top of this hill is a vet check.  As we 
are climbing up this hill we come to a small shady spot.  The person I 
am riding with decides to stop in the shade to rest her horse.  I 
continue on, figuring to rest my horse at the vet check, where I am 
required to rest...and to go slowly up the rest of the hill (thinking 
that this is rest enough and I didn't want to lose/waste the time along 
the trail).  I get to the vet check, it takes quite a while for my over 
heated horse to recover.  The rider behind me, who stopped to rest half 
way up comes into the vet check, quickly meets criteria and is on her 
way...DOWN the hill, which both horses did easily.

This story demonstrates several things:

Sometimes, the best place to rest your horse is not the vet check.  
Smart riders know this and rest their horses when their horses need to 
rest.

The vet check was not where it was so the horses could best rest.  It 
was at the TOP of a hill.  As far as I am concerned, going down hill is 
almost as good as resting, so resting just before you start down hill is 
not the best place to make horses rest.  The vet check was where it was 
so that the vets could check to see that going up the hill did not take 
too much out of the horse (I also think that accessibility might have 
had something to do with it).

However, all horses DO get to rest at vet checks (different horses reap
different benefits from this rest time, true but unavoidable); therefore,
hold time should be considered part of ride time...and as far as I am
concerned, should be reported as such.  I believe that it is total elapsed
time that ought to be reported in official results so that we can dispense
with this myth entirely that it is taking less than the total elapsed time
to cover the course.  If that were the case a one-day 100 and a two-day
100 would be the same thing.  That 12 hours of rest in the middle of the
two-day 100 doesn't count right???  Don't be silly; of course it counts. 
Just as the 1 hour at the mid-ride vet check counts. 

kat
Orange County, Calif.