Re: RC: Vermont 100

[Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>]

I do believe most of us are "generalizing" and not focusing on this one
incident.  The fact remains that it occurs too many times on too many
rides.

YES, riders are ultimately responsible, but, frankly, too many riders are,
in reality, not in a sane frame of mind because THEY are stressed.  Cough
it up to rider unfitness, be it mental or physical.

The fact remains that the vets do NOT see what happens on trail and this
kind of riding IS abuse, with or without D.I.M.R.

Teddy

John & Sue Greenall wrote:

> Whoa there guys, I am amazed that anyone would offer an opinion
> about a ride that they did not attend.  Only one post was from
> someone who was there, and understandably, they saw some not
> good stuff.  Conditions were as bad as it gets, I was sweating at 3
> AM!  However, I have ridden in just as tough conditions, such as
> 1997 and 1999 Festival of Champions in New Jersey.  Cosequin
> last year was just as bad.  Horses were treated on all of these
> rides, some were pretty darn serious.
> Ride management and the vets at the Vermont 100 offered every
> 100 mile rider the option to drop down to the 50.  Several did, one
> rider actually went from the 50 to the 100.  Riders were cautioned
> about the weather, hey, it was just as hot the day before so I am
> sure they noticed.  The vets were extremely watchful of the horses
> and did a very good job.  We had a super vet staff of seven,
> including Nancy Loving, Anne Stewart, Don Kiefer.
> Vermont terrain is TOUGH and deceptive.  Horses were in trouble
> at 18 miles, BEFORE the tough climbs.  The lead horses were
> going 10 mph for the first leg, many of the horses that had
> problems were going less than 8mph.  Some were going CTR
> speed.   Were they over riding?  Well, only the rider knows what
> his horse is capable of and some might have misjudged.  Most of
> the metabolic pulls were at 14, 42 and 60 miles.  The later pulls
> were lameness.
>
> Don't think for a minute that the vets and management were not
> concerned about the horses.  I rode the fifty, in fact, I won it, and I
> cannot tell you why my horse did not have a problem when others
> did.  I saw the front two finishers of the 100, Lucy Snook and Stagg
> Newman and their horses looked terrific!!
>
> This leaves us all to ponder why some horses can perform in such
> tough conditions while other, seasoned and fit horses, can not.
> Both of Valerie Kanavy's horses were pulled, yet two rookie horses
> finished the 100.
>
> As to what people saw when riders went by, that responsibility lies
> on the rider - period.  We all see riders who appear to be pushing
> their horses.  Unfortuately, our sport rewards some of this behavior
> in the way of a win or top ten. Who knows what any of us look like
> to a bystander.  I do agree though that many riders need to take a
> long hard look at what they are doing with their horses.
>
> The Vermont 100 left the vets, riders and management wondering
> what they could have done differently to have avoided the problems
> they encountered.  Of course, any time horses get into trouble, the
> same questions are asked.  Answers can only be obtained through
> continued interaction between vets and riders because there is still
> a lot we don't know.
> John and Sue Greenall
> mailto:greenall@vermontel.net
> http://www.vermontel.com/~greenall
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=