Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

The problem I have with "unspoken perk of being a successful rider with 
a good reputation" is while it is an admirable trait and one all rides 
should strive for, I don't see anywhere in the rules that such a rider 
should get preferential treatment. I also don't see anyplace in the 
rules where this is defined so that all would know what was expected of 
them so they could get the same treatment.

An endurance ride is a competition and the vet is an integral part of 
the competition. By his/her actions a vet impacts the outcome of the 
competition and by his/her actions the vet impacts the outcome of year 
end awards in the AERC.

That doesn't mean the vet can't ask a rider questions or get feed back 
from a rider. But the vet is the person that is "calling the balls and 
strikes" and we have a well defined strike zone - fit to continue. This 
should be enforced fairly and equally to every rider - otherwise the vet 
is showing favoritism of one rider over another. If a horse is not fit 
to continue for one rider it should not be fit to continue for another 
one just because you like him/her better or think they are a better 
endurance rider or for whatever reason. That is favoritism.

Truman

Susan Garlinghouse, DVM wrote:

> If it were solely up to me, I also agree with advising/warning a rider to
> slow down on the next leg, especially one I know would pay attention.  I
> think that's one of the unspoken perks of being a successful rider with a
> good reputation for taking care of their horse.  
>  



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

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

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

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