"If you
RACE....run hard enough to be in the Top Ten overall, you would now have to
temper your "racing inclination" with the knowledge that you have to meet a
smaller "pulse window"...15 minutes...at every Vet Check and at the finish.
If you miss one, you will still get completion miles and points just as you
would if you finished but not IN the Top Ten."
Isn't that kinda how we are set up now? If I am
in top ten for 2 vet checks, recovering within 15 minutes or as quickly as the
other top 9, then at the next check it takes me more than 15 minutes, I am
bumped, and the riders who came down before me, get to go out before me. Right?
Chances are, I am not in the running any more because I couldn't recover quicker
than the other riders. Right? Isn't that how we work now?? I understand that
under Dr. McKay's proposal, it would knock me out of the top, even if I could
catch up, but it might be too late anyway. My horse might already be in trouble
because it took longer on the last check to recover. And yet, I would be able to
continue if I promise to go slower? Isn't that how we do it now?
Jim said,
"But Lisa, IMHO, it DOES make sense. Everybody
has to "learn" this sport."
But you keep repeating this isn't working.
""Rider Education" is just not enough. We need
to allow riders to compete, but lower the intensity."
That's what you said. I don't disagree with Dr.
McKay, I would just like to see a little more substance. We are trying to keep
ALL horses safe, not just the front runners.
Jim said, "This proposal would make it easier
for our vets...take some of the pressure off them when evaluating marginal
horses. If a rider comes whooping into the first Vet Check with a horse that
doesn't recover in 15 minutes, then that rider gets to relax and trail ride
the rest of the day"
The vets should not have any qualms about pulling
a horse. If the horse is taking 15 minutes to recover, the vets should feel no
pressure about whether or not to allow that horse to continue. It's their call.
This could be part of the solution. Stop sending out horses that are marginal.
The vets are not obligated to the rider. They don't owe them a "relaxing trail
ride" if the horses condition is "marginal".
I don't want to eliminate racing, at all. I love
to compete just as much as the next person. I am saying let's be realistic about
what horses can and can't compete. Let's double check our training and
conditioning to make sure we are competing within our abilities.
Above all, let's give our vet holds more substance and backbone for both those
who just want to ride, and for those who want to race.
Why would you think that shortening a parameter
from 30 minutes to 20 is so radical? Because it sounds like you think there
should be some drastic changes made. ( I agree some changes need to happen) Why
not in this area? I don't think it is making it harder for anyone to
enjoy the sport. Maybe just harder to do it in the best interest of the horse.
I am so confused. If the rider is ultimately
responsible for their horse, then why can't we expect the riders to live up to
that responsibility? Why can't we expect everyone to be able to participate, but
not at any cost? Why can't we just say, "Ride at the level you think you are
capable of, but the horse comes first and we have to be strict about that." Are
we more concerned with making all riders happy or keeping all horses healthy?
Can we can have it both ways?
You are right, Jim. That may exclude some horses
but not necessarily the rider. But if those who are riding the "marginal"
endurance horses end up in treatment or worse, was it fair to the horse? Just
because a horse can finish in the top ten a few times, doesn't make him an
excellent endurance horse. He might be just doing what is asked of him.
If you think people need to "learn this sport", part of that education is
picking the right horse for a particular job. If they do their homework,
get a horse that can do the job, whether it be for fun, or to run fast and
furious, then the strict criteria won't be a problem.
Why don't we have higher expectations? Why can't
we expect that if we don't enforce strict criteria for this sport, horses might
get into trouble? Why do I hear, "the horse comes first, " followed by "that is,
as long as it makes EVERY RIDER happy"?
