Ridecamp: Re: [RC] the way we win/redefining endurance

>
> It's a great sport, but it isn't endurance. It's just better than NATRC,
for
> us anyway.

That pretty well sums up MM-S's proposal for me altogether.  While there is
nothing "wrong" with it, it simply isn't the sport of endurance.  It becomes
just another way of doing CTR.  I did CTR as well several years ago, and
enjoyed it.  It is a great sport, and like several on this list, I happen to
prefer it in some of its non-NATRC incarnations.  But it is not and never
will be the same sport as endurance, any more than soccer and American-style
football are the same.  Heck, you take a ball and advance it up the field
and get it through the goal, right?  So you ought to be happy with either
one, right?  Well, as the Hertz car commercials say, "Not exactly...."  I
think trying to totally restructure the sport in a way that makes it
something different altogether is NOT the answer to solving the dilemmas
that we have.  Rather, we need to bring to bear the knowledge we have, and
not lose sight of that knowledge even under the pressures of new faces from
new countries, each trying to get their oar in the water.  Those of us from
countries with longstanding endurance experience--USA, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, etc.--need to take the bull by the horns here, and point out
that we foresaw problems with the format in Jerez, the problems happened, so
now let's get back to looking out for the horses and design our courses in
such a way that the horses are subject to veterinary exam at more
appropriate intervals, and have sufficient time to refuel and regroup.
Let's put pressure to bear on the FEI to take a look at the actual ENDURANCE
qualifications of OCs, and if they are shaky, perhaps we need to put
advisors on board with some OCs to ensure some reason in the process of
course design and working with veterinary commissions.

I agree with Dane that at least from what I've seen of veterinary
commissions in the past, the problem does not lie with inexperience
there--at most, there might be one or two on the commission lacking in
experience, and they are never in a stand-alone situation.  The veterinary
expertise is there--if only it can be used.  And again, that gets back in
some measure to the OC--having chaired an OC, I can tell you that WE were
the ones who put forth the names of the veterinary commission for approval,
although granted, FEI DOES have the final say.  We made sure we had people
that would likely be approved, and all were.  We certainly ran our list past
our techical delegate before submitting it (and Jim Bryant, who was our
technical delegate, is about the best guy in the world with whom to work on
an international ride--in fact, I made it clear from the time we submitted
our bid that I wouldn't do it unless I could have Jim for a TD) but our
choices sailed through with no opposition.  I cannot stress enough the
importance that the OC has here, and I really think we need to be looking at
the process clear back at the level of selection of venue and OC
qualifications.

Heidi


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 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

 If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the upcoming By-Laws 
 Election!!!! (it takes 2/3rds to tango!!)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=