 |
Re: [RC] Overridden and Fit to Continue - Susan Garlinghouse, DVMThose are all good points, Truman. All things and horses being equal, I agree I couldn't fairly allow Best Buddy to go on while I arbitrarily pulled Infamous Cowboy. And I'm not talking so much about a horse that is clearly done for the day, I'm thinking more of the horse that just needs to slow down before something bad happens on the next loop. I just think there are other ways to monitor and control different horses and riders without unfairly affecting the outcome of the competition. I guess I don't see it quite so much as preferential treatment, as I do using all the subjective information I have available to me, including whatever experience I might have of that rider, good or bad. I guess I was also thinking more of the completion only rider versus those actively competing for placement (and I realize the back of the pack rider may still be competing for national points). I do agree with you that fit to continue is fit to continue, and any horse that doesn't meet the criteria can't be released regardless of who the rider is. In my mind, the question is whether your knowledge of that rider is fair game to include in how hard you lean on him/her regarding the current speed, or whether I'm going to ask for a recheck or exit CRI or make additional notes on the card for the next vet to pay special attention to this one. I think that's all just part of judging the entire situation and using all the information available to you. Is that all that unreasonable? Susan G, DVM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Susan Garlinghouse, DVM" <suendavid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <jlong@xxxxxxxx>; "Howard Bramhall" <howard9732@xxxxxxx>; <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [RC] Overridden and Fit to Continue 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|