Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

I remember a conversation with Jon Warren many moons ago at LBL about this
very issue. I think he was head of the vet committee at the time. His question
to a group of us was, " is it fair to allow one rider to go out with the
instruction to walk your horse knowing he would and knowing horse would recover
and not give another ride who he knew would take off as soon as he was out
of site of the camp the same option?" 

The example he used was if he told Lawton Johnstone to wake his horse for
awhile to give him a chance to get his second wind, Lawton would lead his
horse for 10 miles and get on and walk while a rider who will go unnamed
would walk out of camp and take off when he was a mile out. 

The question boils down to can a vet favor one rider over another in giving
a break, i.e. allowing them to go on for a completion, when he wouldn't give
another the same break? 

When it all boils down it is not an organized trail ride. It is a sanctioned
sporting event with a set of rules. Are not the rules the same for all riders.
You and I both know that we could probably get a break that some riders couldn't.
Is that fair? 

I don't know the answer to this and I can argue each side equally well -
(and have done so :-) ). This is a fundamental question that lies to the
heart of our sport. 

Truman

Rides 2 Far wrote:
> > Seems to me that a horse is either "fit to continue" or is not.  
> >      A vet should not have to count on the stars all lining up
> >   
>
> The more I think about my provisional idea the more *I* like it. >g< I
> thought Kat made a very good argument and I agree with her, there is a
> race going on and a ride. 
>
> I've had a vet tell me before, "He needs to eat some this loop" and he
> knew that I would be hitting every clump of grass along the way.  I know
> without a doubt that the vets know other riders who would totally ignore
> that advice and do what they had planned to do anyway.  You vets who have
> been around awhile know exactly who you don't trust...for good reason. 
>
> I'll agree that it would be hard for a vet to justify the decision, but I
> will not go with your argument that "provisional" horses do not go on.
> There's plenty of horses who are fit to continue *safely* who are not fit
> to continue to run for the win.
>
> Angie