Re: Eliminate Sanctioning of 2-day 100's and 3-day 150's (long and HOT!)

["Thomas, Barb" <thomas@amgen.com>]

I don't believe that AERC should stop sanctioning 2-day 100's and 3-day
150's.  I can't see anything in Brad's discussion that would merit this
action.  Perhaps AERC should look at how these rides are handled as far
as points are concerned.  From Brad's discussion:
"*  There is no way that riding a 2-Day 100 is the same as riding a
1-Day
100 - never has been, never will!"  
I agree here.  The strategy and challenge are completely different.  But
this does not invalidate a 2-day 100 or 3-day 150.  It just makes it a
different category of ride.
"* The Rider "Strategy" Myth:  A rider will ride differently (in
strategic,
pacing terms) if they are going to enter a 2-Day 100 than two
consecutive
50's (50/50).  BALONEY!  Coming to the two day event, the rider will
always
choose between one of three options:
1.  Not riding (for various reasons), but drinking (also for various
reasons);
2.  Being "competitive" (Top 10, etc.) on Day One, and hopefully riding
on
Day Two if he/she has enough horse left, plus drinking;
3.  Going for the mileage, and riding at a pace that they know they can
finish both days, unless that evil stone finds a foot somewhere along
the
trail, plus drinking;
So, which option will the rider choose if they want to enter both 50's?
#3.
Which option will they choose if they want to enter the 2-Day 100?  #3."
My, my, we are stereotyping riders here aren't we!!  First, just my
observation, but not all riders drink.  Second, there are people who
choose option 2 (though usually foolishly), some who just go for the
enjoyment of the ride, and some who are strategic wonders with great
horses and are competitive every day of the ride (or rides), which
aren't even listed options.  Plus, I'm sure there's many other ways to
do a ride not listed here.
"*  The only reason they were instituted was for the ROC as qualifying
criteria.  It is no secret that Susan does not actually require
completion
of "sanctioned" multiple-day events - she will accept completing any two
or
three days in a row."
I may be wrong, but I believe some of these rides existed before Susan
accepted them as qualifying criteria and they were not "instituted" as
ROC qualifiers.  More like they existed, Susan considered them and found
that they were acceptable criteria.  Anyway, what Susan accepts or
doesn't accept for qualifiers has nothing at all to do with sanctioning
by AERC and shouldn't enter into this discussion.
"*  The "On-Going Myth Syndrome":  Riders enter them because they
believe
that they are necessary for qualifying for some rides and so Ride
Managers
sanction them because they believe riders want them.  Net result:  The
first time a rider loses the 50 miles they completed the 1st day
because
they didn't finish the second day is the last time they enter a 2-Day
100,
AND they cost the Ride Manager more money for sanctioning, ride fees
(although not much here, because not many enter them - check the EN ride
results!), and awards."
Brad, maybe, just maybe riders enter these rides because they WANT TO!
I do agree that the entries, especially on 3-day 150's are on the low
side but that's no reason to drop sanctioning.  Some rides in low
population areas have few entries, should we drop them, too?  I
completely disagree that riders who get pulled after day 1 or don't
finish the second day don't come back.  At Fort Valley, year after year
people come back to face the challenge again.  Please, give us riders a
little more credit than to imply that we are poor losers because we get
pulled during a ride.  It doesn't matter if you get pulled from a 2 or 3
day ride or a 1 day ride, it still hurts, but we keep coming back for
more.  It's in our blood.  As far as the "additional costs", if ride
management wants to put out a bit more for a ride, that's their
business, not AERC's.
"*  Finally, the rules still would need a change if we continue to
sanction
them.  Rule 5.2 states that you have 12 hours to complete a 50, and 24
hours to complete a 100.  If you have entered a 2-Day 100, you should
have
24 hours of "total competition time"; if you complete Day 1 in 8 hours,
that should leave you with 16 for Day 2.  However, the Rule is not clear
on
this, and because you are only riding 50 miles each day, some, but
certainly not all, think you should have only 12 hours per day within
which
you must complete."
This does pose a very interesting question that should addressed.  If
the nights are considered a "gate into a hold"  it does seem to make
sense that the team still has the remainder of their 24 (or 36) hours on
the clock.  From a ride management aspect, this may pose other problems.
This is something to discuss and settle.

There are issues you stated that I don't feel qualified to address,
especially points in detail, Pioneer Events, and award programs.  Maybe
someone more versed in these areas should take this up.

When you ride multiple day 50's, you have the option of not riding on a
given day without loss of the other day's mileage, which is an
advantage.  But the challenge of a 2-day or 3-day ride is getting you
and your horse through all the days successfully.  Why should we
penalize riders who choose to take on this challenge by dropping the
sanctioning.  

AERC members, let your Board know how you stand on this issue!!  No
matter what the outcome, both sides need to be heard from and the
decision should come from the prevailing opinion of the membership.
That's why we belong to this organization!!