Ridecamp: [RC] [Guest] Is it about the horses? (Was: He/Him)

K S SWIGART katswig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

John Bass said:

>Howard states:
  <I'm sure capitalism is alive and well all over the world and Americans
are not the only ones who sell to him.
  My point is, if he continues to buy up all the best, whom will he be
racing against in the future? >

> Would it make a difference if the he/him were from England or is it the
idea that he/ him is from the UAE?
> Do I sense some bigotry?

Actaully, I suspect that had it been Prince Harry (of England) that
had done the same thing, that Howard's response might have been
similar.  My guess is that it has as much to do with envy as with
bigotry. And a feeling that there is something "not quite right"
about giving a medal to somebody perceived to have done little
of the preparation himself (although I, personally, don't know
very much about how much preparation these competitors did themselves).

If endurance riding is just about being a passenger on a good horse,
then it isn't a human endeavour at all and we ought not be giving
out medals to anybody.

If endurance riding more about preparing the horse as it is
about riding the horse, then we ought to be giving the medals to
the person who prepared the horse not the person who rode it.

If, instead we realize the endurance riding is about selecting a
good horse (even to the extent of breeding it), raising it,
preparing it for competition, then actually getting on it and
riding it in the event, then who got the medal is irrelevant
what we ought to recognize is everybody who had a part in it.

Up until recently, most of these aspects of endurance riding
have all been done by the rider (except maybe the breeding part),
because up until recently, people have competed on horses that
they have raised, trained, conditioned and prepared themselves.

To me, it is relevant that much of the endurance accomplishment
can be acheived by somebody other than the rider of the day
by either buying or borrowing a horse that other people have
prepared for the effort.  It is because so many of us realize
that (like any athletic endeavour) most of the winning comes in
the preparation leading up not just the effort of the competition
itself, that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with
the outcome when there is the impression that the "winner" of
the day has had somebody else do all the preparation leading
up to it.

In strictly human events such as pole vaulting and the 100 yard
dash, there isn't any (at least not very much) belief that
somebody other than the competitor him/herself can do the
preparation.

In any horse event this is simply not the case.  It is possible
to buy or borrow a "made" horse and thereby win by having done
only a small part of the preparation.

If we have a problem with this, since there is, realistically
speaking, no way to make rules against it without disquaifying
just about everybody, then, indeed, we ought not be giving out
medals at all (which, BTW, is one of the reasons I think one
ought not be able to win an Olympic Medal for endurance riding
and I hope that the IOC agrees with me, since it would, in many
ways cheapen every Olympic Medal to give them out to people who
didn't do the preparation themselves).

However, in this instance, I know very little about how much of the
preparation that any of the competitors other than the US team
did for themselves (Steve Rojek appears to be one who actually
DID put in ALL the preparation).

But what I suggest is that people recognize the efforts of all
the people who participated in the accomplishments of the winners
and it would be wildly inaccurate to not recognize that one of
those people is the person who was actually ON the horse, ON the
day in question.  The victory goes to all the people involved,
including the rider.  And there is nothing to keep all the
people involved from reveling in their victory, who gets to take
home the hunk of metal then becomes irrelevant.

As for the horse?  I can honestly say that I have yet to meet
any horse that even knew the relevance of its accomplishments
nor cared about what recognition it may receive from people it
doesn't know and has never met. And that hunk of metal is
irrelevant to the horse too.

The fact that the piece of metal itself is irrelevant does not
in any way take away from the accomplishments of any of the
people involved, and were the actual medals to fall into the
Mediterranean Sea on the the way home and be lost forever, the
accomplishments of all the people involved and the horse itself
would remain the same; they would not be lost with it.

kat
Orange County, Calif.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=