I can't argue with your opinion and I guess we will agree to disagree. My experiences in the last few years is that pull codes are abused. I have seen it. We don't go to the same rides. No conspiracy just different experiences. Go ahead and put more on RMs and Vets but I still think it would be simpler to eliminate the "reason" why riders want a particular pull code. The data would still be available in a data base for use in the future whether the information was published or not.
As far as a being part of the horse's ride history, I suppose that you would have no problem having individual vet cards available on the horse's ride record to peruse also. It is part of the horse's ride history. I suppose that any treatment a horse receives during a ride should also be part of the horse's public record as that also is part of the individual horse ride history.
Kim
In a message dated 09/22/2005 7:02:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> 1. I have no problem with the pull codes and believe they could be of some > benefit in the future if records were kept in a data base. AERC needs to find a > way to insure that the data collected is correct and not skewed.
The best way to ensure that the data are not skewed is to educate RMs and vets. It never ceases to amaze me how many RMs and vets do not understand the pull codes.
> 2. Why is RO data skewed??? I believe that one possible reason is the pull > codes are public record and published in Endurance News. I believe that some > riders do not want a L or M on their horse's public record. I for the life of > me can't figure out why there is such opposition to listing the individual > pulls as DNF in EN. If the membership wants to know how many L, M and RO pulls > there are at a particular ride that could be listed as a general stat. For > example 50 horses starting - 40 finishing 10 pulls (3 M 6 L 1 RO). Can someone > please give me a reasonable explanation why it is AERC's job to list the reason > an individual rider is pulled in EN?? Why wouldn't a general statistic as > listed above be enough for the membership? If this information was not listed as > part of the ride results there would be absolutely no reason why an > individual would try to get an RO. Once we eliminate the reason the individual riders > are skewing numbers it will be much easier to educate the RMs and Vets on > using the correct pull codes.
Individual riders are not the ones who turn in the pull codes, so they cannot skew them, no matter what their "comfort level" is. If the RM and vets understand the system, then a rider cannot "try" to get a particular pull code--it simply "is."
I've heard on e-lists about how riders try to do this, and about how they don't want pull codes next to their names or next to their horses' names, but I've never seen it play out in real life. I've never had a rider argue about a pull code. Maybe I am dense, and there is some big conspiracy going on out there where pull codes are bought and sold on the black market, but how on earth can a rider "punish" a horse for a pull code? If the vet pulls the horse, the horse is pulled. Period. And the vet determines the pull code. Likewise, if a rider comes up and says, "I'm pulling," the vet is SUPPOSED to examine the horse to determine whether the horse is truly fit to continue, or not. Is the rider going out behind the trailer and whipping the horse because he went lame? I don't think so. The pull code system is a no-brainer, IMO.
As for public listing of the pulls, I've heard some blather, but I've yet to hear a convincing reason why NOT to list them. They are a part of the "public" record that can be looked up under horse history and rider history, and should be. So why the rub about them in EN? Sorry, I don't get it. And I've yet to see a horse "punished" over a pull code....
Heidi (so far this year, two genuine RO pulls and a genuine L pull, and not afraid to admit it)
