Kris brings up an excellent point. I recently saw a write up in a breed journal describing an "endurance" race that, from the sounds of it, was little more than a 25 mile turf race. No vet checks, just keep the pedal to the metal. Now that scares me. The thing is, races like this drive the public's perception of what an 'endurance race' is, AERC aside. If it says it's 'endurance', it's 'endurance', right? John Q. Public doesn't care what the AERC says. And now there's a ton of folks out there thinking that is what 'endurance' is, and they are clueless to the contrary as most of them have no idea what AERC endurance is all about. I'm working on changing that, but nonetheless, the damage is done.
It seems to me it's a much better thing for AERC to manage these 'short' (by AERC standards) distance races if they are going to happen anyway. People are competitive, and they will find the venue that fits. If they want to race for 25 or 30 miles, they will find a way to do it. I would sure rather these horses race, rightly or wrongly, under the auspices of AERC and its vets, than out there just "going for it."
Dana
Kris Hazelbaker wrote:
Here in Idaho there was an "endurance ride" advertised for this weekend... .12 mile and 25 mile "endurance" rides .... Advertised to have vet checks, but not a sanctioned ride that I
have seen. I assume this kind of thing happens elsewhere too.
So, if people are going to advertise "endurance rides" that are really
limited distance rides, is there a way to draw them into the larger AERC
community? Is that something that should happen?
Kris in Idaho
ddbpaso@xxxxxxxxx
************************************
<\___~~ "Paso Fino: Born to Love"
(\ /\
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
