The Way We Win: Change the "Pay Scale" for Endurance?

[Roberta Jo Lieberman <woik@home.com>]

Jim Holland wrote:
<< Perhaps it's time to look at the way we "win".  "Win" is defined by the
rules of the game.  If you change the rules, you get another definition
of the same thing.  Maybe Endurance should move toward more of a team
sport?  Something to think about. If you could change the rules, what
would you do differently? Can we keep it competitive, fun, and avoid the
inevitable clash over horse abuse?>> 

Jim...
Wouldn't you know it...Matthew Mackay-Smith has also been pondering this
very subject recently. He asked me to look over several pages of
hand-written-on-a-yellow-legal-pad comments that address the "pay scale"
of endurance and how we might change riders' rewards. 

Before you flame away, please know that this is a work in progress --
far from a finished product. It's not copyrighted <g>. I know there
would be logistical challenges in making it work, and much of it goes
against the our ingrained notions of "winning". It took me a few days to
warm up to it myself. But...the day might be coming that if we don't
take action to put our house in order, the "big black train" might run
us off the tracks. Might be something to think about.

If anyone sees something here worth exploring, I would volunteer to
participate in an effort to incorporate your ideas and move it forward.

Regards,
Bobbie Lieberman
Southern Calif.
****************************************************************************
Working Draft
Changing the Endurance Pay Scale: A Proposal
Or: “There’s a Big Black Train A’Comin’!”
(“It’s a comin’ here tonight...you better get your business right!”)

By Matthew Mackay-Smith, DVM
Introduction
Our evolving national moral ethic places ever-increasing disapproval and
ostracism on people and activities that impose pointless risk--risk seen
without high and noble purpose. Sanctions against such people and
activities are receiving increasing public support, especially when
animals are the unwilling victims. Accepted standards of respect for
animals are becoming ever more stringent and will continue to do so in
the years to come.

For example, according to a recent editorial in _The Animal's Agenda_,
an animal advocacy publication, "There can be no doubt that public
opinion is increasingly educated about the plight of animals....we have
learned how to transform broad sympathetic public support into
legislative success by targeting indefensible examples of animal abuse."

People do what they are paid to do, whether the “pay” is in money, in
publicity, in personal achievement, in admiration from one’s peers, or
in “bragging rights.” We say we want endurance riders to put their
horses’ interests first, but we pay the contenders to do the opposite.
Continuing down the present path is sending us down a slippery slope
that threatens to lead to outside sanctions on endurance when the public
perception of its risks becomes intolerable.
 
We can redirect participants’ behavior by changing the rewards and who
gets them.

Nature of Endurance Riding
Endurance riding--as sanctioned by the American Endurance Ride
Conference (AERC)--is two things at once: a recreational activity for
those who ride to finish; and a competitive sport for those who contend
for placing. International endurance riding is entirely competitive:
leisurely completion is discouraged; there is no presumption that it’s
“fun”. The sport of endurance riding is dangerous, especially to horses.
It is a survival contest, a Demolition Derby, with risk management left
largely to veterinarians of various experience and temperament. The
nature and rewards of endurance competition pit riders, crews,
organizers and authorities against control veterinarians.
 
Let’s review current problems, the threats they impose and the costs of
continuing the present policies, and then consider some changes that
would shift the emphasis in a more positive direction, with the benefits
flowing to all segments of endurance riding.

Problems:
-- Over-riding due to individual ambition, political pressure, material
rewards--too much “pay for speed”, too little for caution, care,
condition and completion.
-- Vet check “circus”--over-crewing, both in checks and on trail
-- Disillusionment and frustration among experienced and expert control
and treatment vets, little inducement for “new” vets to come into the
endurance arena
-- Wariness among organizers stressed out by do-or-die competitors.

These problems are at the root of threats--
-- From a growing public perception that we are inhumane, that no horse
deserves to be used so as to knowingly endanger its life or necessitate
heroic medical intervention
-- To our autonomy, and the imposition of controls by outsiders.

It has been suggested that more stringent vet check procedures could
solve these problems and deflect these threats. If we only tighten
veterinary controls, however, we will still lose participation by riders
and nations repelled by the wastage of horses.

Consequences of maintaining the status quo:
...We will lose vets, perhaps all of them
...We will lose public goodwill
...We will lose control over our policies
...We will lose sanctioned endurance riding altogether.

Here are some simple, fundamental changes to the “pay scale” for
endurance riding, changes that could chase away some glory-hounds but
give substance to AERC’s motto, creating an equestrian sport that
demands conscientious stewardship for horses:

-- Abolish individual placings, overall and in weight divisions
-- Publish no individual times
-- Remove all mention of “race” in endurance publications and publicity
-- Establish categorical placings, as in Britain’s Golden Horseshoe
Series, as follows:

1. Gold Medal for all those who average a predetermined overall speed or
within an overall time (“x”); “x” to be determined by organizers, based
on their experience and/or judgment of ride conditions
2. Silver Medal for the next echelon, between “x” and “y”
3. Bronze Medal for all completers below “y”. Specific speeds/times
could be tailored to weight divisions, for fairness.

Examples
In England, a typical Golden Horseshoe ranking might look something like this:
-- Horses averaging 6.5–7.5 mph or faster = Gold Award
-- Horses averaging 6–7.5 mph = Silver Award
-- Horses averaging less than 6 mph but completing = Bronze Award
(Please see Appendix A, “Golden Horseshoe Series,” at the end of this
paper, for further information on how these rankings are determined in
Great Britain.)

Another approach might be based on finishing time. For example, with the
Old Dominion 100-mile ride, the scale might be as follows:
-- Horses who finisher at midnight or earlier = Gold
-- Horses finishing between midnight and 2 a.m. = Silver
-- Horses finishing between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. = Bronze

4. Offer Team placings for prenamed groups (ala Old Dominion and other
rides), scored on the basis of three out of four finishing: three team
points for each “Gold” placing, two for “Silver” and one for “Bronze”,
none for a voluntary pull, minus two points for any horse disqualified
and/or requiring treatment. No placing for teams finishing less than
three members. Ties would stand--equal performance gets equal “pay”.
5. All Gold finishers are eligible for BC judging.
6. Offer year-end awards to individuals, based on average achievement in
all rides entered, e.g.:
		3.00 = Solid Gold
	2.50 – 3.00 = Gold-Filled
	2.00 – 2.50 = Solid Silver
	1.50 – 2.00 = Sterling Silver
	1.00 –1.50 = Solid Bronze
	Less than 1.00 = No year-end mention, but standard mileage credit.
“Continental,” World and all FEI-sanctioned rides would become Team
competition only. US (with or without Canada) could lead this effort by
sending only a team even if FEI continues individual competition.

What would be the benefits from such a major refocus of endurance rewards?
Overall benefits:
-- Horses’ needs come first
-- Individual glory takes a back seat
-- Team effort, group/category achievement are recognized
-- Completion, consistency are #1; racers are renegades

Organizers, rider managers:
-- Reduced confrontation with and between participants, staff,
community, media
-- Easier to recruit help (vets, volunteers)

Veterinarians:
-- Truly partnered with the rider, for the horse
-- Fewer “pulls”, treatments
-- More collegial, educational, ethical relationships
-- Easier recruiting

Riders:
-- Mutual effort, shared rewards
-- Recognition for judgment and horsemanship, not “chutzpah”, luck, risk
-- Less expense to participate
-- Less tension and struggle at vet checks
-- Fewer horses to replace

Horses:
-- Less hassle, hurry, anxiety
-- Less strain/risk of physical harm
-- More finishers/longer careers

Nations
-- Less war-like image
-- National pride undiluted, just depersonalized (compare with Olympic
team sports).

Conclusion
If endurance riders and organizers do not take action to tip reality and
perception more in favor of horses, enrolling every participant in a
campaign of awareness and concern, our sport may be at risk. Reactive,
incremental and defensive responses to erosion of the public’s approval
leave the eventual outcome to peremptory action from outside of AERC.

We cannot keep on “as usual” and expect to control our own destiny.
There is still time to earn and deserve wide approval for our sport.
Going straight to the roots of current difficulties is easier now than
waiting for that “Big black train a’comin’.” Let’s begin the dialogue
now, and take action to “get our business right.” We’ll be glad we did.

Matthew Mackay-Smith, DVM, is a long-time endurance rider, equine
veterinarian and Medical Editor of EQUUS magazine since its inception in
1977. He has been elected to the AERC Hall of Fame and has logged over
5,500 lifetime miles. In 1995, he was first to finish on the same horse
in both the Old Dominion 100 and Tevis Cup. Matthew and his wife, Winkie
Mackay-Smith, who has finished top ten on the Old Dominion 10 times,
live in White Post, Virginia, where they continue to train and compete.

Appendix A
*Sample* Program:
British Endurance Riding Association
Golden Horseshoe Series Awards

Gold Award:
	Complete the chosen distance at 7.5 mph or over with no penalties
Silver Award:
	Complete the chosen distance at 6.5 - 7.5 mph with no penalties
	Complete the chosen distance at 7.5 mph or over with 1 penalty
Bronze Award:
	Complete the chosen distance at 6 mph with no penalties
	Complete the chosen distance at 6.5 to 7.5 mph with 1 penalty
	Complete the chosen distance at 7.5 mph with 2 penalties
Completion:
	Complete the chosen distance at 6 to 6.5 mph with 1 penalty
	Complete the chosen distance at 6.5 to 7.5 mph with 2 penalties
 	 Complete the chosen distance at over 7.5 mph with 3 penalties

Penalties are determined using the “Ridgeway Test” during final vetting
30 minutes after finishing the event, as follows:

Second pulse 44 or below -- No penalties
Second pulse 45-49 -- 1 penalty
Second pulse 50-54 -- 2 penalties
Second pulse 55-64, -- 3 penalties
Over 64 beats is elimination as normal rules.

To qualify for the Gold Series, horses and riders must have completed a
sequence of rides of increasing duration and speed, including successful
completion of a a ride 50 miles or more at a minimum speed of 6.5 mph
organized by a recognized Endurance Riding Society. Horses must be
registered and hold a Log Book in order to progress through the levels.
for more information, see http://www.british-endurance.org.uk/class_description.html