Re: RC: Re: Silver State 2001

[DreamWeaver <nvrider@home.com>]

At 01:08 AM 11/27/01 -0600, you wrote:
>  The ride report I read said the horse hit its ankle on a rock and
>yes, it was lame for a short time, but the vet checked it over very
>carefully and gave permission to continue the ride. Surely he wouldn't have
>done that if the horse was truly lame.

Guess you shouldn't believe everything you read.  I know what I saw with my 
own eyes.  The horse was lame going down the trail, and it wasn't on just 
one leg, it was sore on all four feet, I wasn't the only one that saw that, 
and the horse was in a lot worse shape later.  Talk to ride management and 
find out for yourself.   Or maybe ask the rider why the horses pulse hung 
so high for so long at the vet check.  For all you know, I'm the one you 
shouldn't believe. :+D

We were a little surprised that the rider didn't get off her butt and walk 
her horse back to camp once she got to the rocky riverbed on the second 
loop.  I would have.  The horse was quitting on her, besides bobbing.  It 
was not happy.  That's my version.  The horse somehow made it into the 
finish and was able to complete by the skin of it's teeth and if you ask me 
she was pretty lucky to get that.  (the rules do allow for a grade 2 
lameness to complete --- the horse wasn't nearly as lame in camp as he was 
going down the trail)  I'd be willing to bet she won't be doing that ride 
on a barefoot horse again.   This kind of thing doesn't sit well with me, 
because I think it is bad for the sport.  Endurance riders are better than 
this.  I'm out there sponsoring juniors and don't think it's so great to 
have to explain that there are people that will continue riding a dead___ 
lame horse down the trail in order to prove a point.

Karen
in NV