Re: Nomination comments

["Barbara McCrary" <bigcreekranch@cruzio.com>]

The definitions within the non-finisher listing have already been tightened
up, primarily to clarify to the vets exactly WHY each horse did not finish.
RO, rider option, has been limited ONLY to the rider's choice not to
continue based on the rider's health, ability or inability to go on.  It may
not be used as the rider's choice not to go on because of OT, overtime, or
M, metabolic, or L, lame.  RO pertains only to the rider, period.  No longer
can anyone use RO as a cover-up for something going on with the horse.  The
vets need to know the statistics of lameness and metabolic situations, and
they aren't going to learn anything from RO, if it is a means of hiding the
fact that the horse just is not having a good day.  Riders need to be
completely honest with the vets, if we are to continue to learn for the
benefit of the horses and the sport.  It is no shame to the rider if the
horse is having metabolic trouble; it can happen to anyone, at any time,
even slow and cautious riders.

Barbara McCrary
West region director
Chair-Rules Committee


---- Original Message -----
From: <DVeritas@aol.com>
To: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Cc: <sunsetrim@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:00 PM
Subject: RC: Nomination comments


> In a message dated 9/30/01 1:46:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> guest@endurance.net writes:
>
> << Cindy Collins sunsetrim@hotmail.com
>  I have to say that I agree with much, if not all, of Steve's comments.  I
>  expecially would like to see the AERC take away all "illusions" of
placing
>  within L.D.  It just sickens me to hear people talking about "winning" a
>  L.D. ride and it happens all the time.  There's no way I can convince
>  novice riders that it's not a race when we list them in finishing order.
>  The idea of listing alphabetically, both at the ride awards and in the
>  AERC is EXCELLENT!  Also, while I'm at it, please consider adding pulled
>  because of  "time" or "over-time limit" to reasons why a horse didn't
>  complete.  It looks ridiculous to put rider option  and make folks
>  questions whether a horse was OK, when often, especially on 100s, the
>  horse may be absolutely fine, but the rider just misjudged the speed or
>  the terrain and ran out of time prior to the finish and so pulled at a
>  stop.  Having personally quit the Tevis and the Big Horn 100s at the last
>  vet check, with a horse in excellent condition, after passing the vet
>  check, because there was no way I could make the 24 hour limit, I'd
prefer
>  to be able to give a more accurate accounting.  Finally,  I'm also
>  concerned about the ideas being tossed about to require that all 50s have
>  more than one vet check.  If this happens, I just hope that multiday
rides
>  are given an exception.  Just my thoughts.  Cindy Collins, AERC #176
>
>   >>
>
>     I hereby NOMINATE CINDY COLLINS for Mountain Region Director for Ride
> Season 2002.
>
>     Frank Solano
>     #8422
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>