Just from what I have read here (and I don't
have an opinion one way or the other), I think the champions of de-elevating are
not talking about when a horse has a reason to be pulled, like if it is lame or
in trouble. That would be a pull just like any other. I think they
are saying that you would have to meet the fit to continue criteria, just like
you would to finish any distance, before you would receive credit. In my
mind, its kinda like rider option. The horse is OK, could go on, but
for whatever reason, the rider decides today is just not the day.
Barb McGann
-----Original Message----- From:
ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
KimFue@xxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:01
AM To: ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [RC] [RC]
De-Elevate
Although I don't agree with
those that would like to see a de elevator ride, I have to say that this has
been one of the most civil controversial discussions on ridecamp. I have
learned a lot from reading the comments on the pro side of the
discussion. But one of the flaws I see in the de elvator concept is that
if a horse is pulled after a certain point because of a lameness or a
metabolic problem the rider is still rewarded with some type of
completion. The rider either made a judgement error in how he/she rode
the race or he/she ran into a bit of bad luck. A de
elevator actually takes away the safety net for the horse because the
rider has the added confidence that he will get credit just in case he makes a
judgement error in his horse's ability. When a rider chooses to continue
on an elevator ride he is saying my horse is fit to continue to the next
distance and I am so sure that I am willing to give up "credit" for what I
have already completed to take this horse longer. In a de elevator - the
rider wants a do over. He is basically saying I bet my horse could go
100 but for whatever reason he was only able to go 50 even though I thought he
could go longer and I took him further then his capabilities that day so
let me pretend I never left the last vet check because now I know he can't do
a 100 today. Are you sure you want to start rewarding this?
I know that the suggestions being made by members promoting a de elevator are
only thinking about a rider that wants to try a longer distance, rides a smart
and strategic ride, and for whatever reason has a bit of bad luck that
day. His horse hits a rock and comes up lame....or the horse
inadvertantly hits the wall and won't recover. But where is the
horse's safeguard in a de elevator for the rider who decides it is worth
the gamble or risk to run the *hit out of his horse that day because even if
he can't make the 75 or 100 mile goal he can get miles or credit for what ever
is completed. What about a rider who knows his horse isn't quite right
at 50 miles but decides to go to the next vet check and then pull so he can
get credit for the miles completed. If you don't buy the arguement that
it is philosophically wrong to get credit for something that isn't completed
successfully perhaps you might be able to recognize that this may not be
in the horse's best interest. As I have said before, there are no
guarantees in this sport that one will be successful at a particular ride or
race at any distance. Riders need to be able to accept that concept
without a carrot like mileage credit for miles ridden when a horse is pulled
from that particular event and the distance entered is not completed
successfully.
From: Ridecamp Guest
<guest-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [RC] De-Elevate
Please Reply to: Karen Nelson knelson4299@xxxxxxxxxxx
or=
ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==========================================
Karen,
My understanding of the current Elevator rule is if
you decide to elevate you are riding for completion
only, you are not eligible for Top 10 or points.
Wouldn't your concerns be alleviated if the de-elevate
was for completion only?
Best Regards, Pete in TX
