Re: RC: vetting

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/15/99 7:29:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
tina@liveonthenet.com writes:

<< Hmmm....so fewer pulls = good vetting? Nah, I don't think so - I've been
 to rides with a 50% pull rate and every single one of them was
 justified. Conversely, a ride can have NO pulls but not necessarily have
 great vetting. >>

You caught that one too, eh?  Ditto--with good vetting, the pull rate is up 
to the riders and the conditions, and the vets calls 'em as they sees 'em.  
The only way good vetting can help the pull rate go down is if the vets are 
sharp enough to catch problems one vet check before they become pullable 
problems (which often we can) and the riders are willing to LISTEN to the 
vets and slow down, or take extra time to eat, or whatever.  I would still be 
surprised to see a completion rate as high as was reported here--if the vets 
WERE good, that still had to have been a heckuva good day....

Heidi


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