Seems to me, then, that we're talking out of
both sides of our organizational mouth when we say that horses must be fit
to continue at the finish. In other kinds of races, animal or human, there
is no pretext of such a requirement, so the comparison really doesn't fit.
Or shouldn't fit...if we mean what we say.
Cindy
----- Original Message -----
I just
covered this to some extent in another post. There are
significant differences between a vet check on the trail, and the finish
line.
If you watch any long-distance race, human or animal,
those competing for place run aerobically most of the way, but anaerobic on
a sprint to the finish. This creates oxygen defecits and toxin loads
that take longer to recover. This is not harmful, and does not
mean that the person or horse is not fit to continue (back at an aerobic
pace).
We are more conservative at vet checks on the trail than
at the finish also because the horses at vet checks are going back out,
having additional stress, and going far from vet help if they get into
trouble. None of this is true at the finish line. It's a matter
of safety. To put it another way, a horse that takes 50 minutes to
recover is not necessarily "unfit" to continue (at a reduced pace), but it
would clearly be unwise to risk his continuing.
