Re: [RC] [AERC-Members] Status of 100's and awards - DVeritas
In a message dated 7/14/2003 6:24:21
I see someone's advice, then check and see they
have a gold level horse I'm going to pay more attention.
I know alot of riders who ride supposed "Gold Level Horses" who know absolutely nothing about how or why it happens that way to their horses. Some know very little about horses and are able, for whatever reason, to go hard and finish well for some time. Their "stats" are merely indications of that. Is it "luck"? Could be. Is it talent? Could be. But merely reading "stats" doesn't really indicate cause and effect. I'm not sure it matters.
I know alot of riders who don't ride "Gold Level Horses" who go to endurance rides, enjoy the miles and endurance folks. Their stats can be affected by a variety of things, i.e., number of horses owned, time willing to invest in pursuing titles, miles, etc. It doesn't automatically discredit their well-intentioned sharing of knowledge or experience.
In a sport where to "finish is to win," it seems we are gravitating to "To Win Is To Win."
That doesn't concern me too greatly, as I believe the nature of our true sport will always win out. I will continue to pursue my endurance miles in my way...it's just we, as an organization, need to review (once again) if "to finish is to win."
IF "to finish is to win" is now, somehow, an antiquated notion, perhaps we need to drop the hypocrisy and adopt a more accurate description of all those horses out there who just complete rides and fade into "relative obscurity", (until the next completion that is.)
I wish I could articulate more clearly why I am a little uncomfortable about "labeling" horses and their attempts to fulfill their riders aspirations, but, for some reason, I can't.
I leave this subject to you all who seem to know why it is important that we affix these new labels on the same ol' horses who stand waiting in the dark to don their saddles and hit the trails.
G'luck,
Frank
