[RC] Roger's Post - Ridecamp Guest
Terre O'Brennan tobytrot@xxxxxxxxx
Thank you, Roger, for sparking an interesting and valuable discussion. Here's a few comments:
1. CRI at all rides at all Vet Checks NOT AT THE FINISH.
2. NO chasing hazing of horses by anyone at the VC to obtain a trot. Crops for
unruly horses only, NOT to make a horse trot.
3. Fix COMPLETION PULSE to 64 for 50 miles and up (NO more lower 60 pulse for completion).
4. Completion time at finish LEFT as is at one hour - incudes pulse recovery
and vet out process. (NOT the 30 minute pulse recovery I have seen at
a few rides)
5. More then ONE VC on 50 milers and above. Some standard on the
number of VC per mileage and conditions- yes within reason- may not apply to ALL
rides.
Points 1 & 4: is there not a discrepancy in the current AERC rules? We wish to define completion as "fit to continue". A horse taking more than 30" to recover to criteria would NOT be 'fit to continue' during the ride--why is it 'fit to continue' after? I know that it is not 'actually' continuing--but if it was, it couldn't--right? Similarly with the CRIs--if they are justified to help (note I said 'help') determine fitness to continue during the ride, should the exact same standard not apply at the end? To summarize: *should* 'fit to continue' mean one thing during the ride and another at the end? Maybe we should change it to "capable of continuing in an emergency"...
Point 2--can't make up my mind on this. Roger said "to obtain a trot"--he didn't comment on pinned ears. If a horse flat refuses to trot without hazing (regardless of attitude) that may well say something valid about its level of tiredness, especially if it trotted at pre-ride and earlier checks voluntarily. On the other hand, Julie Suhr says she has seen horses trained to trot no matter how tired they are--and as the oath says--if Julie deigns to speak then *that is IT*!!
Point 5--I agree with the rms who posted that you cannot impose this kind of structure on all rides--it just may not work for some trails/situations. If we wanted to make a change in this area, perhaps it would be more valuable to decide on an optimum total hold time per distance, and allow rms to break it up to suit themselves. In other words, if we decided that 1' 30" was optimum for 50s, then a rm could have 3 30" holds, or 2 45" holds, or 1 30 and 1 hour hold or whatever. Problems: who decides what the optimum hold time is? and would this be valid given different trail and weather conditions?
Hey, we got a good discussion going on something more substantive that Howard's writing style! Roger is right--people should step up on this one!
Terre (#2548)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
|
