We need the "rider" on board if we expect to get any accurate information
at all concerning horses who do not fare well at endurance rides. Rider
info is key to what really did happen with the horse during the ride.
Without it, there's not a chance for an answer, if there even is an
answer.
The rider knows how much he/she trained the horse. The rider knows
what they fed the horse, when, how often, how the horse drank, what electrolytes
were used (or not), etc. The rider knows what happened at the
P-Stops. The rider knows what their intent was at the start of the ride
and, if that intent changed during the ride and how that intent kind of flew out
the window during the time their horse was in trouble. The rider knows if
they withheld information that might have been pertinent from the ride vet at
the checks. The rider knows if the horse was performing normally, or, if
something was amiss out there on the trail. Quite frankly, the rider knows
just about everything we are looking for here.
The problem is: "How do we get the rider on board if we are going to punish
them if it was their horse that got into trouble at an endurance ride?"
The answer is, "We do not punish the rider at all," (except, possibly, if the
horse dies at a ride, which should be in a completely separate category than a
horse that is treated at a ride and survives.) It's the only way to get
the information that we need to help other members in our sport who want to know
what is working and what is not.
Like Stagg said, it isn't always the front runners whose horse gets into
trouble at a ride. Quite often, it's those competing in the middle of the
pack or at the very end. I really hope we don't think that removing the
competitive part of endurance is the answer here. If we do that, it won't
be endurance at all, it will become Non-Competitive Trail Riding, a sport that
sounds like it will die on the vine during it's first year. When that
happens we might as well have PETA representatives present and judging the
event.
I do believe that one of the best things we can do is to implement a
thorough investigative team effort, involving all the players (Welfare of the
Horse Committee, Education Committee, & Vet Committee), coordinating and
finding out what happened during the ride day which turned out the be the last
day of the life of that horse. This is where our efforts should be
focused. What, exactly, happened???? What caused the death of this
horse?
The flip side of the coin, also, involves the rider. What are the
really good riders doing with their horses that the rest of us are not
doing? This is where the education committee should focus. How hard
can it be? If you win BC at a ride, the Education Committee mails you a
thorough, well thought out questionnaire asking you everything you do before,
during, and after an endurance ride with your horse that just received BC.
And, the reward for filling this out? A BC T-Shirt, of course, from the
AERC Education Committee.
The rider is where we need to focus our attention. Exclude the
punishment aspect against the rider except in the case of an equine death.
There, if the rider elects not to respond, than, I would suggest automatic
sanctions against them, but, only as a last resort after all efforts were made
and chances given for them to do so. In most situations, even if a death
does occur, I believe the rider will want to come forward and explain what
happened. It's their best chance for vindication. Or, if it really
was their fault, for redemption of their soul.
Most endurance riders I know are like sponges. They want to absorb as
much information about this sport as they possibly can. AERC should
provide the "water" for them to do so.
cya,
Howard ("I admit to having groped Adolph Hitler," signed, The New Governor
of California)
