RE: [RC] Reply to Risk Question & Mileage - Bob Morris
Title: Message
I do believe that exposure equates to risk,
therefore the shorter the distance the less risk. Conversely, you could state
the longer the distance the more risk. That factor of risk/exposure is not a
linear progression, more likely logarithmical. A fifty exposes more than double
the risk to a horse than a twenty-five and likewise the one hundred mile
distance even more. The conglomerate of distance, time, trail hazards, equine
energy expenditure and the rest of the equation, all factor into the
risk.
But then life with out risk would be
extremely dull. In all reality there is no worthwhile value to such a discussion
as many of the factors that enter into the risk are uncontrollable. Life exists
and goes on, things will happen and life still goes on. Accept it and have fun
with your equine companions
Bob
Bob Morris Morris Endurance Enterprises Boise, ID
-----Original Message----- From:
ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of DVeritas@xxxxxxx Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005
10:50 AM To: dabneyesq@xxxxxxxxxxx Cc:
ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [RC] Reply to Risk Question
& Mileage
In a message dated 12/5/2005 10:29:31 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
dabneyesq@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
If by "risk" you mean "risk
of harm to the horse," then I don't agree higher mileage increases
that.
Okay, Dabney, not to be Clinton-esque, but could you now define "harm"?
(and how does that relate, in your opinion, to higher mileage increases,
though I am fully aware of degradation in any bio-system resulting from
repetitive movements).
