Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

This is from Tom,

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Dean [mailto:bdci@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: 2003 PAC CoC's, my final thoughts


To all,

I have spent the last ten days exchanging e-mails with various people
involved in the International Endurance world and have learned a great deal.
Every person I exchanged e-mails with was informative, polite and made a
huge effort to explain to me the "whys" of International Endurance.  I want
to thank all of them for taking their time to respond.

I was left with several impressions and final thoughts about FEI's CoC and
International Endurance in the US.

I still believe the CoC is too high; speed not experienced based and will
push riders and hurt horses.

These are the results from Vermont off FEI?s site.  The winning time was
10:39 that shows this was not that tough a ride.
16 of 58 finishers average 12kph or better
31 of 58 finishers hit 140%
None of the 50% of 58, qualified that had not already qualified above.
If ½ of these great horses could not meet them the new CoCs, the CoCs are
too tough.  One half of Vermont?s horse hypothetically would not have
qualified if this was their only qualifying FEI ride, and this seems
ridiculous.  I realize they are qualified for 2003 PAC, just because they
finished the 2001 PAC. We should qualify the best pool we can, and the
selection committees pick the best rider/teams.

The 140% is a darkness/time trap.  Most winners of 100s finish just before
or just after dark.  They have the best benefit of daylight, so as the clock
starts running for the 140% as the rider incrementally starts slowing down
for the safety of the horse and the ability to see your footing.  140% would
probably work if we had 20 hours of daylight.  It also makes an unlevel
playing field for those people that try qualifying in February vs. June or
July.  The winning times would be about the same, but the # 140% finishers
could be greatly different.

There are many of the US International riders that feel they were not
consulted prior to the recommendations from the US went to FEI and they were
not aware the CoC was going to change substantially.  And the late change
was very punitive.  The information that was being released was
substantially different than the final results.

I still strongly believe the 50% rule should be changed to FEI finishers
instead of FEI starters.  I think it would level the playing field for all
rides, it would give riders an incentive to preserve their horses at pivotal
times in the ride and would give the individual team selectors a broader
quality experienced based pool to select riders from.

This CoC is a waiver for PAC only and should more reflect what AERC and US
riders want and the CoC should give the selectors a broader experienced
based pool to select riders from.

I have many other thoughts and would be happy to share individually.

I am an AERC Member first and foremost.  And I strongly believe in the horse
first philosophy of AERC.  I hope this topic is discussed at the AERC
convention and with the end result being that AERC would use its influence
to have FEI relook at this CoC,

For those that are going, have a great convention.

Thanks

Tom Dean


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=