 |
Re: [RC] Just Guessing - Joe LongOn Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:36:09 -0500, Jim Holland <lanconn@xxxxxxx> wrote: ... But here again, we see you resorting to scurrilous ad hominem attacks on people who don't buy into your proposals. If you don't like "scurrilous attacks ad hominem", then desist from scurrilous attacks on other peoples proposals. There is quite a difference between "attacking" a proposal, and attacking the person making it. ... Another arbitrary, no-discretion rule. Not one that would have affected me direcly, BTW. But another panacea for which you have provided ZERO evidence that it would help any horse. Provide me with some evidence that it won't? IMHO, the "possibility" of that happening would be a deterrent. When you want to add a rule, the burden of proof is on you to show that it will actually do some good. With evidence, not opinion. Now, having an appropriate committee review any rider who has TWO metabolic pulls in a ride season, with authority to suspend said rider, that might be a good approach. That's worth considering, IMO. I would agree to that. Just out of curiosity, why TWO? I think it would be provide more "teeth" if it were an "automatic" suspension with "some number" metabolic pulls, reviewable on appeal by the appropriate committee. Two, because anyone can have a horse get into metabolic trouble on any ride, no matter how caring, careful and knowedgeable the rider. A second time in one season is an indicator that there is *possibly* a problem with the rider, which bears looking at. Much better to *evaluate* the circumstances of two metabolic pulls rather than have an automatic suspension for three. ... No, Jim, my opinion means more than yours and Howards. Because I've been there, and walked the walk. I have both the theoretical knowledge and down-the-trail experience to know what I'm talking about. And because I serve on AERC committees that are actually working on these things. Bullshit! Doesn't mean jack to me.... I know it doesn't. But it does to most people. Generally speaking, it's best that a horse not go more than about 15 miles between vet checks ... but there are exceptions, such as the first leg of some 100's and some multiday rides. Yes, but if you're gonna make a rule, then you can't caveat it to exclude "special conditions"...unless you special sanction. But I don't want to make a rule regarding distance between vet checks or number of vet checks in a ride. Such a rule is unnecessary and counterproductive. ... I might add that a rider who cannot control his horse in the first loop of a ride has no business riding any endurance ride, but especially not a 100. You're living in a dream world. You would eliminate at least 25% of the riders. You been running up front too much...and we're not talking about just 100's. This is MORE of a problem in 25's and 50's because horses that do 100's usually have lots more "time out there". I haven't been running up front lately, because I've been starting a new horse. I haven't run any hundreds lately, for the same reason. Just 25's and 50's. ... Good ride vets and ride managers consider many factors in placing and timing vet checks, including the availability of accessible points on the trail. So deal with it...you can't make ANY changes without inconveniencing somebody. Deal with it? I have, and I've managed rides. The issue here isn't inconvenience, its what is best for the horse. ... Too many vet checks is certainly better than too few....unless you don't give a damn. That isn't necessarily so -- what would you think about a 100 mile ride with twenty vet checks, ten one-hour holds and ten 30-minute holds? You'd only allow the horses nine hours of riding time to complete the 100 miles! That's a ridiculous answer....let's be realistic..... It illustrated the error in your statement. On some multidays, that's enough, as their experience has demonstrated. Don't give a damn about multidays...whole different environment, IMHO...but we can learn something from them.4) We should develop a tier system (novice, intermediate, beginners) for both riders and horses. A rider should not be allowed to go and do the TEvis ride, for example, without some prior completions and proven ability with a horse.Argghhhh!!!!!!! -- the worst idea I've seen anyone put forth on this discussion. Many people have repeatedly explained why to you, but you don't listen to anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved ideas.Argghhhh????? Tevis is already doing that.That's news to me. What qualification do you have to meet to ride the Tevis?http://www.foothill.net/tevis/rules.pdf OK, that's something I didn't know. Apparently it's new this year. It isn't really a bad idea for the Tevis, considering the circumstances of that ride. There is precedent, you know, for special rides -- such as the Race of Champions. The HISTORY of this sport is irrelevant with regard to this issue.... Absolutely false. The history of this sport is not only relevant, it is essential that anyone promoting changes to our rules and policies understand how we got where we are today, what has been tried before, and how it has worked. Sheesh. Sheesh, yourself....if we don't get past this attitude, IMHO, this sport is in deep yogurt... The sport is not in deep yogurt, either. ... No, it sets up a two-class system where those who don't care about placing have a lower standard to meet ... without anyone showing any evidence that those who are running for placing are having horses get into trouble at any higher rate than those who are not. How can we have any "evidence" when the AERC doesn't collect any? But it does. That's as much a "guess" as my statement.... No, it's not. and it's not a "two class system" when everybody has the same requirement. That's like saying the people who finish in the Top Ten are a "different class" from the people who are not in the Top Ten just because they don't choose to go that fast. Sheeesh! But under Matthew's system everyone does not have the same requirement. If you start the ride with no interest in Top Ten, you have different vet check requirements from those riders who are running for Top Ten. Read it, it's clear enough. OK...then how do you "qualify" those "faculty members"? How do you know that they "understand endurance rides and endurance horses"? Easy. They have to have a DVM. Beyond that, it is the ride manager's responsibility (with some assistance from sanctioning directors) to hire qualified vets. Hmmm...so you are assuming that the "faculty members" are never "dog and cat" vets. Seems that, like practicioners, "staff members" can also be "dog and cat" vets. You keep trying to claim that I'm saying, or assuming, things that I am not. Read that part again about the ride manager's responsibility. Remember that I was answering your question about how you know a faculty member is qualified, if he does not have a license, and I answered: he has a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree. All of this in reply to your wish that all control vets having to be licensed vets. Again, if it came down to that choice, I would much rather have a non-licensed academic DVM who was familiar with horses and endurance rides, than a licensed practicioner who had a small-animal practice. Under our current rules the ride manager has that choice, under your rules he would not. -- Joe Long jlong@xxxxxxxx http://www.rnbw.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|