Although it is an interesting concept, there are two things about this that I don't like:
1. Most riders need to gear up for a distance. If I am riding a 50 mile ride, I mentally try to be ready for that distance. By the end of most 50s, I am convinced that I couldn't go another mile that day. Same is true for a 25. If I am psyched for a 25, there is no way I could imagine being out for another 25 miles. The same holds true for a 100. One needs to be mentally prepared to do the entire distance. Not sure if that is possible if I have an out at 50 or 75 miles and still get some sort "credit" or "completion". There are highs and lows in a 100 mile ride, or I should say most 100 mile rides. I don't want to have an out if I hit a low period. It just makes it easier to quit if I can get a finish with a lower mileage completion.
I think there is way, way, WAY too much emphasis as it is on the "completion" in all distances. Adding a de-elevator only will emphasize the importance of some kind of completion in our sport. A pull on a horse or rider's record is NOT a failure. I would rather see riders look at a DNF as an opportunity to learn more about their horse or more about their riding/racing strategy or even more about themselves. A ride or race is just a test on one particular day to see if what you are doing at home in training, conditioning, feeding, and horse management is working. Regardless of the cost of the ride, where else are you really going to learn where your horse or yourself is at as far as fitness and horse management? It's hard to replicate ride conditions at home. Are we really at the point in this sport where riders are not willing to take risk (like of bad luck) to try to reach a SET goal. There are no guarantees. Do we really want to create the mentality that if you don't reach your 100 mile goal we will give you insurance to guarantee a 50 mile completion or even a 25 mile completion if you happen to pass that mileage on your quest to the 100 mile goal. For some reason, that doesn't sit right with me. It should be OK in this sport to know that DNFs are a possibility and that doesn't equal failure.
One of my best rides ever was a pull years ago at Tevis. Yes, there is a pull on that horse's record and on my record but so what..... I was disappointed that day but I learned so much about that horse and myself that this experience meant more then some of my 100 amd 50 mile completions.
I am all for brainstorming to find innovative ways to increase riders at the 100 mile distance. I just don't want unforeseen consequences to come if a Pandora's box happens to be opened in the process. I will never forget how excited I was when the "frill" rides started becoming more popular in my region. I thought this was the greatest thing....food for the horses, food for the riders, extra aid stations on the trail with snacks for both horses and riders. I didn't have to worry about anything. Then a few years later at one of these rides, I saw one of those unforeseen consequences.....a rider was asking ride volunteers where the "horse electrolytes" were..... This rider really expected RM to supply electrolytes. And why wouldn't he?.....ride management was supplying everything else to make the rider's experience pleasant and easy. I was shocked but it got me thinking that maybe this kind of expectation by riders was being created by the atmosphere created at some of the rides. Some of the newer riders probably didn't know any different if they were only attending "frill" rides.
