Re: RC: Reply from an educated derelict

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/26/99 8:57:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
ralston@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU writes:

<< I give up. All Heidi, Joe, I and others who have questioned some of ti's
 hyperbolic pronouncements<

Not a very kind way to start a civial discussion, Sarah--hope you don't mind 
if I reply in kind.

>were trying to do was inject some balance>

Actually, you were trying to defend a point of view--balance had nothing to 
do with it.


> to the discussion. When pinned down ti actually, at least in his recent
 discussions, is not too far off base. If not questioned he actually can be 
 quite civil and rationale, as some of his recent posts have shown.>

I don't mind being questioned, don't mind a good argument, either. But I do 
respond to personal attacks in the same way that you do. For example, the 
beggining of this long treatise of yours is essentially a discussion of my 
personality, and an attempted put down from what you would have us believe is 
your hiigher perch on the intellectual tree. We'll see.

 But when someone questions anything he says he tends to go off on wild
 invective tangents like vehement arguments that horses can (and, by
 implication, should) survive without forage. >

This is wild invective? You need a dictionary. It is very clear, to me, that 
horses can survive, and have survived, without forage. You're is not a 
question, it is plain misinformation. 

>Yes, they can survive if the
 ration is balanced for all other nutrients (which can be difficult), we
 never said they could not.>

Just a minute. You said above that my statement was wild invective, but now 
you agree with it? This is the kind of logic that simply goes beyond my ken. 
So far, you're basing a personal attack upon a twisted perception that must 
have originated from your hindbrain--certainly not thought. 

 >BUT there is an increased risk of problems with
 such extremes that people need to be aware of.>

God save us from Tom Ivers and his heathen views. Joan of Arc to the rescue.

 >The sport is growing (which is good)-there are a lot of newcomers who may
 not have a lot of prior experience and who may take some of the wilder
 pronouncements as gospel or the only solution.>

People, for the most part, aren't idiots, although some would like them to 
feel that way in order to exercise control over them. it is the Liberal Way. 
A "pronouncement" is either correct or incorrect, and it matters not whether 
it comes from one in supposed authority or one of the struggling masses. More 
often than not, those who assume the robes of authority to themselves are 
more likely to be wrong, because they have past pronouncements to defend to 
the death.

 >We have nothing to 
 sell, nothing to gain personally from this discussion-just a deep love of
 the sport and concern for the well being of the horses. >

Give me a break. You're defending all those initials after your name. And not 
scientifically, but emotionally. Shame!
 
 > When ti first reappeared, I said in one of my first replies that
 I could see how, especially in horses that were truly racing at speeds 
faster 
 than a "normal" competitive pace, the carbo charge supplementation might 
help,
 especially if they were geared already to a high carbohydrate ration.>

I believe you said a lot more than that, mostly "sky is falling" rhetoric, 
warning all of the heresy involved in my philosophy. But, I'll leave you to 
your conceits for the moment.

 >However,
 even ti admits the use of the CC type products is not an exact science yet
 and 
 there is a risk of horses "bottoming out" (no, not imploding-just quitting)
 if not monitored carefully.>

You don't have to monitor--you simply have to keep up the supplement--or run 
out of gas. And if you run out of gas, no horse will die--after all, there's 
all those VFAs to survive on, right?

 > Horses are remarkable in their ability to
 adapt to wide deviations from what they were adapted over evolutionary time
 to consume, >

This is where you go wrong. You're making a religion of Evolution 101. Horses 
will survive on what's available, assuming anything, including camel's milk, 
is available.

>which is one of the reasons the species has flourished under a
 wide range of domestic situations. However, adaptations take time and every
 time we "fool" with mother nature we add an element of risk.>

For example, attempting to adapt a horse to a fat diet in 2-3 months.

> Risk, not
 certain death. I felt people should be made aware of risks so they could
 make an informed decision.>

I doubt that was yourmotivation, but, again, you're welcome to your story.

 >All of us are risk takers. Any horse sport
 involves an element of danger to both rider and animal. Some choose to
 accept high risks to acheive a certain goal, others would like to minimize
 risks to acheive a different goal. So be it-but you need to know the risks
 if you are to avoid or face them! >

You have yet to demonstrate, remotely, any risk at all to carbohydrate 
supplementation during a ride. Indeed, the reports coming in indicate 
benefit--for the horse. Your dire warnings, and those of Heidi, are 
motivated, in my opinion, by something other than the welfare of the 
horse--perhaps squirming attempts at defending past "pronouncements" from on 
high. Again, I confess that I can't fathom the logic.
 
> Horses have been competing successfully for years and continue to do so 
under
 a wide range of management systems. There have been  many "improvements" 
which
 seem to allow the horses to go faster for longer periods of time. This year's
 Old Dominion 100 was won in under 14 hours and most of the top
 ten came in in under 15 hours. I can remember the days when it was more
 likely to take the front runners 15+ hours to complete. The "easier" rides
 which are
 becoming more and more popular-ie: flat, no real technical difficulty (such
 as 
 needed to negotiate Sherman's Gap even in daylight!), are even faster.
 The horses are truly racing, which I have always admitted was ti's 
specialty. >

Thank you for assigning me a "specialty". I hope you won't mind, though, if I 
explore my own territory and define my own "specialties" as I go. Actually, I 
prefer a more generalized knowledgebase, and am hoping to expand it here. 

 >However, I wonder how many of the OD top ten (Stagg? Kevin? Steve? Patti?
 Jeannie?) were using carbo-charge products?>

Is that relevant? Yet? If you'd had the opportunity, you'd have shamed them 
all into not using it. Dire consequences, etc. Innovation takes a while, 
especially when there are ardent defenders of the past swinging moral and 
emotional clubs at the innovators.

 >My point is only that you don't
 HAVE to use carbo charge type products to top ten. On board heart rate
 monitors, beet pulp, improved understanding of electrolyte supplementation,
 conditioning and veterinary control have improved the sport. We are still
 learning and improving. >

And, yet, you need none of the above to finish in the top ten. 

 >From the recent discussion I can see the day wherein horses with shaved
 patches and multiple small scabs from pin pricks for their on board
 glucometer/electrolyte analyzer will become the norm as are 
 heart rate monitors now. I wonder if the comradery the sport is (was?)
 famous for will extend to the people with glucometers doing tests 
 for competitors who can't afford one, or if AERC sanctioning will hinge on
 whether the ride management provides glucose/electrolyte analysis at all
 vet checks?>

Wonderfully emotional appeal, particularly for a supposed scientist, Sarah. 
The future sure does look bleak, doesn't it?  Nice touch about folks who 
can't afford a glucometer--maybe your buddy Clinton can do something about 
that, eh? Right after he approves your next research grant.  
 
 I> was first drawn to this sport because, as I pereceived it in the mid-70's,
 it was an "everyman's" sport. To compete successfully (ie: complete on a
 sound,
 healthy horse, regardless of placing) one did not need a lot of fancy
 equipment, gadgets, high price horses or political pull. Very few people
 were looking for the "magic bullet" that would give them an "edge" over the
 other competitors-they were just concerned with their horse and their own
 personnal performance or goals and more than willing to share their
 experiences with others and help each other out.>

If "competitive endurance riding" is a part of the bylaws, you should have 
"competitive" written out. Call the "sport" "trail communing" or something. 

> Good horsemanship, good
 conditioning, 
 attention to the basics of nutrition and care were all that was (and
 hopefully still is) necessary for even the most unlikely types of horses
 (the wonderful Winston in competitive rides and Smokey Killian's Bandit in
 endurance come to mind immediately-there are many others) to compete and
 compete 
 successfully for many, many years. Think of the discussion of the horses 
with 
 10,000+ career miles-they did this before many of the innovations.>

More power to them. Johnny Weismuller set world records without the benefit 
of interval training on a diet largly consiting of beer. More power to him, 
too.

 >I will
 be curious to see how many of the carbo charged racers acheive life time
 mileage records of over 10,000 miles, but then, that is probably not their
 rider's goal.>

Why would you presume that? Anybody competitive can't give a damn about his 
horse? In the next sentence you're going to be talking about Valerie. Is that 
how you view her?

> As I said several times before I do not denigrate the
 racers-they do add excitement and have their own agendas for their horses
 and themselves. The truly knowledgeable ones like Valerie, Danielle, Joe,
 Patti, Steve Rojek and Baker!), etc could teach us all something about
 horsemanship if they cared to share. The few times one of these people have
 contributed to the ti wars, however, if they did not agree 100% with him
 they were slammed and put down as ignoramuses.>

Mind quoting the exchanges where that happened? I will remind you again, that 
I respond only in kind. I never attack when not attacked. Here, in defense of 
yourself, against a third party, you're attaking me again.  You're obviously 
struggling for substance.

> This by someone, who two
 years ago (according to my archived notes), was trying to convince us we
 should feed our endurance horses 20 
 lbs of grain a day (a practice even ti now admits is probably not
 appropriate for this sport, >

Again, you seek to put words into my mouth. i have not come to that 
conclusion. I'm sure you have, but your mind was closed on the subject long 
ago.

>now that he has gained some experience with
 it). It would appear a growing segment of the ridecampers scorn those of us
 who would place emphasis on basic nutritional principles, preferring to
 follow ti's cutting edge (pun intended), push them to the limit, lead.>

If there are attempted cuts here, they are yours, to which I'm responding as 
kindly as I can. It would seem to me that most of the people on Ridecamp have 
a healthy curiosity, are open to learn, and probably resent biased 
pontificating from on high as much as I do. Sorry to prick your balloon, but 
you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are. that, my dear, is 
invective. I've saved it to the end so as not to disturb the scintillating 
logic that that has flowed freely till now. 
 
> Fine. I am truly tired of being slammed and slandered for trying 
 to add a balance to the so called "discussion". Especially when 
 people like Roger, who I thought was a friend, slams those of us 
 that don't agree 100% with ti and total strangers appear out of 
 the blue to call me a derelict.>

Simply hyperbole, Sarah. We know you can afford a glucometer. You began this 
treatise with an attack on me, and you've continued with that attack 
throughout-- yet you find it unreasonable to be reacted to in kind. Do you 
think yourself immune? The Empress with no clothes? 

 >I'd come to expect
 invective from ti but it seems to be contagious.>

Yes, it does breed in a fertile environment, doesn't it? Your current 
fertilizer will help it right along.

>Since there is
 no vaccine for it, the best way to avoid catching it is to avoid 
 those who are infected. 
 
 Heidi, you are thicker skinned than I am.>

She's out for Christmas. Your tag team partner will be back soon enough. 
Hopefully with logic and dignity and little in the way of invective. However, 
I will be ready, come what may. 
 
 >Back to riding my own ride on my own horse and 
   not worrying about the rest of you.>

Yes, pleae don't worry about me, in particular.
 
>See you on the trails.
 Sarah and Fling  >>

ti


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