Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Joe Long wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:02:18 -0600, "E.L. Ashbach"
> <samaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Well, we make them pay extra.  Remember that I agree that providing
> > > guidelines and advice to new riders is a good thing to do ... it's
> > > mandatory controls I object to.
> > >       
> >       
>
> > Boo hoo for new riders, again, their labors are large. I see it's too 
> > much to bear,  a sacrifice too large for endurance riders to 
> > bear...let's definitely protect their freedom to immediately over ride 
> > their horses.
> >         
>
> It's so easy to use sarcasm to cloud an issue, and so easy for
> promoters of "nannyism" to rationalize their rules and controls.
>         
        
It's so easy to let whining about personal freedom and the rights of the
individual, and glorification of a pre-existing set of made up rules prevent
us from taking positive action, from another point of view. ;-)
> No speed limit is going to prevent overriding of horses.  There is NO
> -- NONE  -- NADA -- arbitrary speed that is right for all of the
> horses on a given trail on a given day.
>           
          
Why are you talking about *all* horses?  I'll say it again, this is not a
rule for all horses on the trail on a given day, unless they're all beginners,
of course.   ;-P
> There is no human being or
> collection of human beings that has the wisdom to decide that X miles
> per hour is the "safe" speed of the day.  Hell, after 12,000 miles I
> still adjust what I consider a safe speed on the trail, as the ride
> progresses.
>
> ...
> > > Under the system you're proposing, you would not be allowed to start
> > > with 100's or even 50's, you have to do your speed-limited-rides
> > > first.
> > >                 
> >                 
>
> > > Or, new riders who don't want to be speed-limited will just jump right
> > > into the 50's where they won't have to put up with that.  Is that what
> > > you want?  
> > >                     
> >                     
>
> > Joe, again, please read my posts.  I know it's been a while since this 
> > whole discussion started but the idea is this.
> >                       
>
> > I'll lay it out like how it might read with lots of options for 
> > additions and deletions, how's that? :-)
> >                         
>
> > " for a Rookie Rider at the inception of their endurance career:  
> >                           
>
> > AERC doesn't not recommend that the rider start with any particular 
> > distance.
> >  AERC will consider you a Rookie Rider until you have completed 200 
> > miles of competition, and during the Rookie Rider period you must ride 
> > within the following minimum and maximum time limits.
> >
> > 25 miles -  min ride time 4 hours ride time.
> > 50 miles - min ride time 8 hours ride time
> > 100 miles min ride time 18 hours ride time
> >                             
>
> Egad, this is even worse -- totally arbitrary, no consideration of
> trail difficulty or weather conditions.  And by implying that that
> riding time is "safe," it could increase overstressing of horses, not
> reduce it.
>                             
But Joe, the new riders this is aimed at are *not the beginner tail enders*
for whom a min. time is *totally irrelvant* anyway. 
> I'm thinking back to my first 200 miles of rides.  Started out green
> as grass.  One 25, ridden well below 4 hours.  Four 50's, all ridden
> below 8 hours.  Yeah, I sure ruined that horse.
>                               
                              
Joe, a minimum means you can't ride *faster* than that.  The *slower* part
is controlled by the maximum since we're counting time here.  Below means
slower than, I hope?  That's really good for YOU.  You're not who this rule
whould be for, see?  And not for the nice new folks, Max and Lisa, who used
LD this year the way it was intended to be used, either.  Keep looking for
who it's for, and I'm sure you'll find them!  They're out there!  :-)
                              
And it's all arbitrary  (and I mean more than endurance here ;-)  ), and
I think I did mention, (didn't I?), that the ride manager or head vet could
also be relied on to set the fastest acceptable pace to be set for the new
folks.  I don't know who says, but I know this type of rule would be a *real
benefit* for some folks, since they don't know or can't control themselves.
> > This rule is created as an aknowledgement that endurance riding is a 
> > physically demanding and challenging equine event, and it is imperative 
> > that riders properly learn the direct correlation between speed and 
> > horse health.  AERC does not in any way suggest that the minimum times 
> > outlined will guarantee a horse will be introduced to this fun and 
> > exciting sport in a safe and responsible way, but that is our stated goal. "
> >                                   
>
> That's pretty much what I thought you were advocating, and that is
> what I am vehemently opposed to.
>                                   
                                  
Why?  On what grounds?
> IMO it is exactly the WRONG way to
> deal with the problem, sends some wrong messages, and is likely to
> have unintended consequences.
>                                     
                                    
What is the right way? 
> The defninition of an endurance ride in our Bylaws includes the
> provision "There shall be no minum time limit."  I'm glad this
> proposal could not be done without a Bylaws change, because I think
> that is quite unlikely to pass.
>                                       
                                      
I'll get out my Bylaws and check later, but I've had more than my fair share
of creating corporations and the legal system, and legal matters are flexible,
if change is determined to be in the best interest of the organization.  
                                      
I'm pretty sure that if we create the *racing* part of Endurance (with no
time restrictions and full on personal freedom to the max) as a privilege
to be earned (READ THIS FOLLOWING PART WELL -  IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO WHAT
I'M SAYING - by the new folks and those with a financial interest in overlooking
the long-term best interest of the horse in the first few "performances"),
instead of a "right" to be lost, we'll be miles ahead in the future.
                                      
jmo
                                      
Lisa
>