Re: [RC] Fw: from PNER list with author's permission - Barbara McCrary
Dot's last sentence: Bingo! Right on
the nailhead. So AERC needs to decide whether LD is to be a race or a
venue for training, introduction, and recovery. I can't see how it can be
both. That is, if BC is to be awarded via the top ten, then it becomes a
race. LD was not originally set up to be a race, but it that's what the
majority wants, then that's probably what it is going to become.
Subject: [RC] Fw: from PNER list with
author's permission
I think this is another view of an ongoing
debate. Some useful thoughts and observations.
As a RM (not doing it now) I have to agree with
Pam. I was reluctant to pay the AERC rider fees for LDs when they
first started. Most 25 milers were not members and there was no reason
for them to join. As I got requests I did sanction the LD rides.
There are more LD riders now and they sure help pay the bill sand boost
AERC income and members.
I've done Endurance and LD, like both, and feel
they are a good blend of challenges for all AERC members.
As to LD BC----How can you do a valid
evaluation between horses when one finishes in 4 hrs and another in 6
hrs. The time factor needs to be considered, the work/stress
factor is not the same.
Subject: Re: [PNER] FORWARD WITH PERMISSION OF WRITER
Merryben,
Please feel free to forward my post to anyone who might be
interested. This is directed specifically to Becky Hart, since it was
her post you re-posted on the PNER list.
Becky,
The LD BC topic seems to be a very hot one indeed and it isn't going to
go away no matter what AERC does or doesn't do.
I very much respect your endurance "resume." I can't lay claim to
anything even remotely spectacular, less than 3000 endurance miles,
only one of them a 75, and dozens and dozens of LD rides since about 1988, on
a variety of horses and breeds, back when AERC didn't even sanction LD.
I do have a pretty high completion rate at all distances. I truly
believe in "To Finish Is To Win." I have only managed rides for seven
years.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no perfect solution for LD
rides. They seem to be the unwanted bastard child of endurance,
with some regions wanting them more than others, but most a little embarrassed
about them in general and not sure how to legitimize them. AERC
continues to foster confusing and conflicting rules for the LD rides.
All you have to do is attempt to follow the rules changes from year to year as
they mire them more and more deeply in progressively deeper levels of
strata, and pretty soon after a few years, you're beating your head on the
trailer door in frustration.
I think the first thing we need to do is to quit worrying about why
people do LD and whether or not they are "true" endurance rides. There
is no crime in being a career LD rider. From a ride manager point of
view, the LD riders can make or break my financial bottom line, as do the
trail riders (in our area, we offer a novice trail ride of 8-12 miles; it is
how many who now do endurance rides <including me> got started).
Your comment about AERC encouraging career LD riders troubles me.
You can define "endurance" all you want, but the meaning isn't going to change
for people who for whatever the reason choose to do LD instead
of 50+ mile distances.
It is true that in the West and Pacific South regions, the trend towards
racing on the LD is overwhelming. Fortunately, in our local area of
Southwest Idaho, that is not really much of a problem, and any hot shot
wannabees are carefully monitored by vets. This is not to say we don't
have problems from time to time, but last year I had a complete
novice enter my 75. She had absolutely no business being there but
I can't deny entry based on stupidity or lack of experience.
I have tried a variety of BC judging methods on my LD and I finally came
to the conclusion that yes, I would reward speed and judge only the top 10
using the AERC scoring system, because I was tired of penalizing the majority
of good, conscientious riders for the mentality of the
minority.
This year at Purple Passion (May 1), winning 25 time was
3:15, winning 50 time was a little over 4:30 and winning 75 time was
under 9 hours. We had no metabolic treatments, only two lameness pulls
(one on the 25, one on the 50) and 100% completion of 15 riders on the
75. In looking purely at the times, it is clear that the racing is being
done at the longer distances, at least on this day.
Some rides such as the Oregon 100 have become so disgusted with LD
riders, they quit offering LD. I think that is a shame but I completely
understand their reasons.
Perhaps we need to go back to square one with limited distance, wipe the
slate clean and come up with a completely new definition and a new set of
SIMPLIFIED rules. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but this is
a subject (like barefoot horses and helmets) that is NOT going to go
away. I am more than willing to listen to all sides of the arguments and
hopefully my input and opinions are reasoned and thoughtful, and not
passionate and inflexible.
I doubt very much if my opinion will change anyone else's opinion, but
that is part of the problem, so many people are so darned inflexible with
their ideas. Perhaps it's time for a little mediation. As I said
above, I just don't know what the answer is, but in true endurance rider
fashion, we all have opinions and we're not afraid to express them!
