Weight Division Points

["Nancy Mitts" <mitts_n@hotmail.com>]

The following letter is being sent to the AERC Board of Directors, Endurance 
News, and Ridecamp.  Directors without an e-mail address will receive it by 
Fax or snail mail.

I am writing this letter in response to Mr. Eiland’s bizarre interpretation 
of AERC Rules 8.5.5 1 through 8.5.5.3 that appears in the “President’s 
Message” of the January 2000 issue of “Endurance News”.  As he quotes 
8.5.5.1 it states clearly “Where there are fewer than eleven senior 
starters, all bonus points are reduced by the following methods.”  As I read 
this, the way the points have been figured thus far IS CORRECT as stated in 
this rule.  Had the board members who originally wrote the rule meant for it 
to say “eleven starters in each weight division” they would have said so!  
Anyone who deems this method as unfair has the right to say so, and Mr. 
Eiland has presented a case for CHANGING the rule.  But this should be 
handled as any other rule CHANGE, not summarily re-interpreted and altered 
without the opportunity for discussion and input by the membership and vote 
of the full board.  Perhaps this so-called inequity hasn't been brought up 
earlier because the majority of riders are satisfied with it as is.
That said, I would present my objections to this change.  It’s not fair to 
riders who live where rides are small, and it will hurt those small rides.
Yes, most of us ride for the love of it, not just for points.  But points 
are rightly taken into consideration when deciding to pay entry fees and 
travelling expenses to go to a sanctioned AERC ride, as opposed to riding 
and enjoying our horses with a group of friends free of charge.  It is also 
an attraction to consider when encouraging new memberships.  After all, if 
points really don't matter, then lets drop the whole AERC awards program.  
Certainly would save AERC lots of money.  No points, career mileage only.  
Let each individual ride award the winners as they saw fit.  The main 
accomplishment at a ride is to beat the trail anyway.  Or does Mr. Eiland 
mean that points only matter at BIG rides?  If your area of the country 
doesn’t put on BIG rides, your accomplishments really don’t matter.  It 
would be very disheartening to finish a difficult trail and then be 
penalized because you didn’t beat phantom riders that don’t exist in your 
area of the region.  Say for instance that somebody would win a ride that 
has 25 riders in it, but only 3 in their weight division.  They would be 
severely penalized in weight division points.  Another rider in that region 
might win a ride with 15 riders, but 10 of them were in that rider’s weight 
division.  That rider would get a lot more bonus points.  In effect, they 
won a geographic weight lottery!  The last time the issue of fairness in 
weight divisions was discussed, the answer was to add another weight class 
so the competition was between people of nearer actual weight.  Now this 
split will really haunt the riders in some areas because it not only 
increases the numbers needed to fill a ride from 11 to 44, but they must be 
in specific weight divisions.
What effect would this change have on ride management and the viability of 
small rides?  Well, for one thing, managers better have a really good set of 
scales handy.  (I see upcoming weight challenges galore.)  Remember, as the 
rules are set up, you must make the minimum weight, but you can ride 
“heavier” than the weight division maximum.  So even though I weigh in (with 
tack) over 160, I ride featherweight.  Actually, everybody can ride 
featherweight, then we’d sure have a full ride.  The trick comes in for 
people who weigh on the borderline of other divisions.  Do they go up to the 
higher weight (and never change to lighter tack or diet) or ride in the 
lighter division?  For the most part, this didn’t concern anyone but that 
individual rider.  According to the new formula, it will matter to everyone 
else in those divisions.  Which one “needs” the rider to get full points??  
I can see people who really don’t care about their points being “encouraged” 
to enter whatever division needs them!  It adds another complication to a 
sport that has tried to remain simple.
In areas of the country where endurance is a rare event, rides will seldom 
have 11 riders total, let alone in every weight division.  It will also 
really penalize people riding 100’s, as they are fewer in number to begin 
with. A point was made that it is not fair for someone who completes a ride 
of eleven riders to get 450 points because they are the only one in their 
weight division, while at a large ride a rider may have to beat 14 or more 
riders to get 450 points. On the other hand, is it that person's fault there 
are not more competitors? They still had to complete the course. Typically, 
a large rider population encourages more rides to be put on. While a rider 
may have to attend more rides, there are more rides to attend. That person 
who got 450 points for a completion may not have many opportunities to get 
points at all. In our area of the Central Region, 44 riders is a good size 
ride with 25’s & 50’s of all weight divisions combined!  Our local club 
tries to spread rides out in different areas (from western Kansas to St. 
Louis, Missouri) in hopes of getting new riders interested.  It’s hard to 
get new people into the sport if there aren’t rides in the area for them to 
try.  These small rides need support.  But now, guess what, according to Mr. 
Eiland’s interpretation, any experienced riders that want to place in the 
region will go to the rides that are most likely to fill, leaving smaller 
rides to die.  Some way to encourage growth, huh??

Sincerely,
Nancy & Monte Mitts

cc AERC Board of Directors, Editor Endurance News, Ridecamp

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


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