RE: [Enduranceriders] Getting Pulled

["Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

I am not surprised at the comments regarding the decision to publish the
reason for getting pulled at a ride. Almost every one of the comments comes
from a personal view point and I find most of them quite selfish.

Realize! One of the basic points of AERC By-laws is outlined in Article VI
PURPOSES Section 1. To promote the sport of endurance riding, to act as an
education center and clearing house for information concerning endurance
riding, and to encourage better care of endurance horses and prevention of
cruelty to animals.

That one section alone spells out a responsibility for AERC. The collection
of such information, the publishing of it , is a matter of education and
should serve as encouragement for the better care of our animals. If you see
this in a different light, that is your choice, but the primary purpose is
as stated in Article VI.

To me, the trend of the E-mail is that most persons do not want to be
embarrassed, let alone go to the effort of being educated!

Bob Morris

-----Original Message-----
From: DreamWeaver [mailto:karen@chaton.gardnerville.nv.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 6:55 PM
To: ridecamp@endurance.net
Subject: [Enduranceriders] Getting Pulled


Just curious what others think now that Endurance News is publishing the
names of the riders that do not complete rides?

I could go either way with it.  I don't really care from a personal
standpoint, since I don't get pulled very often.  (though that could change
anytime, so I better not say that aloud!) :^)

On the other hand, I was thinking about the motto "To Finish is To Win",
and is it really fair to publish the "losers".  Endurance riders can be
very judgmental.  (and I'm not saying that not finishing is losing,
everybody has bad luck)

My only real problem with it is that I think that if they are going to
publish why riders do not complete rides that they need to address the
issue of the whole system not being very accurate.  I have seen horses
pulled from rides as "RO" (rider option) that later ended up at a vet
clinic, and I've even heard one vet say that she liked when riders chose to
pull their own horses (as RO), that way she didn't have to do it and of
course then everything looks much better than if the records are showing
more L or M horses pulled, right?  The record keeping needs improvement.

I think that they need to have more options.  Right now we have RO = rider
option, L = lame, M = metabolic and I guess there is also OT = over
time.  Are there more?  There should at least be RI = rider injured or HI =
horse injured.  I just think that RO is far too vague.  I think that RO
should be used for when the rider wants to pull because something just
doesn't seem or feel right, but the horse passes the vet check.  I guess we
could add categories like RW = rider wimped. :^)  And if a horse dies, how
would that be logged?  RO....yeah, I chose not to continue, no use riding a
dead horse.....(said jokingly)

Happy Trails,

Karen
in NV
& Rocky, 2,515 miles
& Weaver, 3,255 miles
http://members.xoom.com/ridephotos/


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the best and coolest websites come right to you based on your
unique interests. eTour.com is surfing without searching.
And, it's FREE!
http://click.egroups.com/1/3013/5/_/527326/_/956916884/
------------------------------------------------------------------------