Re: RC: Fw: RC: endurance prospect, etc.

[Dbeverly4@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/6/00 3:41:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, Tivers@aol.com 
writes:

<< When you say "the eventual winner is willing to push their horse harder 
than 
 I am", it's a statement without criteria. Define "push". Is it the same as 
 "ask", or does it mean that winners automatically are putting their animals 
 at risk? If it means the latter, what evidence is there of that? For 
example, 
 in the last ride you were in, where you finished 10th, on purpose, so that 
 you wouldn't have to face the guilt of winning, did the winner injure the 
 horse by winning? You can't win if you injure your horse, can you?  >>

It's called gambling.  Its not about "pushing" its about "letting" the horse 
go as fast as he can.  In my experience you can't push a tired horse all that 
far, simply doesn't work.  Now, letting them go as fast as they want is a 
different proposition and what I think Whitney was referring to.  You pretty 
much roll the dice as to whether or not your horse can do it.(Sounds like 
those desert races the gamble is on whether a humvee will hit you or not).  
If he crosses the finish line first and sound, you won the gamble, if he 
doesn't...hopefully you'll be back to race another day.  Tom, someday take 
that helicopter ride and come check out the Tevis trail -- now THERE'S a 
gamble if there ever was one.  Regardless if you're a "win is to win" type or 
a "finish is to win" person.  Tom, I don't want to start an argument with you 
(God knows you'd kick my butt), but I think your response to Whitney was a 
bit of an overreaction and (dare I say it?) kind of rude.

Sylvia (putting on my asbestos flack jacket)