Howard wrote:
Karl, I'll tell you what. Enter endurance riding, give it a
shot. Do a 25, and consider what a 50 miler would be like, and then,
try to imagine what doing 100 miles in 24 hours or less entails. I
don't mean to belittle your sport; I know it's difficult and challenging,
but (no offense meant), it ain't endurance.
I actually take offense at
this, Howard, because it presupposes that non-endurance riders on this forum
aren't entitled to hold an opinion. Sometimes, an "outside"
perspective can give you a new slant on something, and actually be
beneficial.
My disciplines have been
affiliated to FEI for a whole heap longer than Endurance, so I do have some
experience with the way the organisation works. I've been exposed to
the "money" element of equestrian sports for a lot longer than you have, and
I think that what I've seen there may be beneficial to you.
There is good and bad in
FEI, there is good and bad in making prize money available to
"winners".
If you think I should shut
up now, because I haven't "done" endurance, then by all means, tell me
now. But until then, I'm going to have my say. You can hit
"delete" if you like.
I feel pretty comfortable in saying that endurance is the most difficult,
challenging endeavor that one can ever asked from a horse. This
includes team penning, roping, anything you see in the show ring, and on the
rodeo circuit. And, I'm talking about the distance and the pure
physical stamina required for an endurance horse to compete at top
international levels.
I'm not sure that this is
all that relevant, really. I've seen horses killed during showjumping
tournaments, killed at eventing tournaments. I've seen dressage horses
put down at ten, lame for life because they were pushed too hard, too
young. Endurance DOES place huge physical and mental strain on the
horse, I agree with you 100%, but that doesn't make it "unique". What
makes it unique, in my (uneducated) opinion, is that "winner" are very often
not the most talented horse on the day, but the best-prepared, and very
often it's a team which wins, not a horse.
If you start throwing money into the sport, like they do in your sport,
Karl, it won't fly with endurance.
It will, Howard.
Whenever you throw money into a sport, you'll attract people for whom the
"purse is all". That's the nature of people, I'm afraid.
The only sport, perhaps,
where this WON'T happen, is probably dressage, because I've found that most
of the money-driven people are also adrenalin-junkies, who like to get their
kicks from the dangers inherent in the sport. I have no stats on this,
it's just a gut feel.
The sport is too challenging, alone, as it is. If you add money to
the equation innocent horses will die, because the rider/owner gets blinded
by the light reflecting off the gold, and misses the tell tale signs he
would normally see when his horse tries to tell him to slow the heck
down. I don't think this is a real problem in any of the sports you
mentioned. I haven't heard of too many horses dying in reining, barrel
racing, poles or penning (unless you draw a really vicious cow). In
endurance, it does happen, and it's a real fear.
It's a fear in eventing and
showjumping, too, albeit a lesser one. What is MORE of a fear in those
sports is crippling injury. Horses who are put down in their prime
because they were not adequately prepared for the job, ridden badly, or
because of poor judgement on the part of the rider, were ridden in
conditions which weren't favourable (remember Rolex?), they suffered
career-ending injuries.
This is a cut-throat
game. Not many top riders will "wait it out" to see if the horse will
recover. A friend of mine got a phone call the other day from one of
our A grades to "come fetch your horse. He's f....d". The horse
might recover, but my friend will have to pay for his upkeep for a few
years. Fortunatley, he's NOT money-driven, and will do so. Many
owners would have put him down.
Try the sport, first, Karl, before you decide money would be a good thing
in endurance. Do a couple 50's and then let me hear you say it's a
great idea. And, even after you do those 50's keep in mind that the
money in the sport, if it ever gets there, will most likely be in the 100
mile ride.
It's not as simple as
that. Money in itself is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be a
great thing. By making big purses, you attract more people to the
sport. By doing that, you often educate people. By doing that,
you help horses. The ILPH gets some of its funding from the so-called
"big money" sports, through charity events. The winners earn a purse,
the rest of the money goes to the charity. Would the charity earn as
much money if there was no "purse"? Probably not - there would be
fewer entrants, and fewer spectators.
I'm all in favour of
attracting money into equestrian sport, provided it is put to good use (and
that includes reimbursing riders who've earned it!). And it can be
done intelligently.
We need to calm down a
little. We're all assuming that "money is evil" and we're alienating
the people we should be befriending, in order to have some influence over
them. At the end of the day, they are going to make the decisions
which affect all of us, so instead of going 'off pop' as my Uncle would say,
we need to devise sensible, non-paranoid solutions to what is a very real
problem.
It's *how* you do it that
counts. I've already discussed this in my mail to Karl, so won't
repeat it here.
Tracey
