 |
Re: [RC] 2006 Big Horn 100 - Laney HumphreyJoe Long wrote: Ok, I stand corrected re having drag riders. But, I stand on my point that if RM says there are going to be drag riders, by golly, there better be drag riders!On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:34:23 -0700, Laney Humphrey <laneyhh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I still contend that people have a right to expect the rider to be as it is described - the mileage should be within only a few miles of what's stated, the trail should be as described, and whatever help is to be availabe (if any) should be clearly described and available as stated. In other words, if the ride is designed as a city slickers ride, describe it as one; if it's an extreme ride under extreme conditions, make sure entrants understand that so they can take precautionary measures.
There's that qualifying "if" again! What's wrong with just saying that a ride is appropriate for only experienced riders? Being honest in describing a ride is nothing more than playing fair in my book. RMs do neither their riders non themselves any favors by downplaying the difficulty of a ride. When riders feel cheated and dishonored by failing to complete a ride that they understood to be within their capabilities, Trial by Media starts in earnest right here on Ridecamp. Isn't it much better for everyone to have RC full of positive feedback and inspiring ride stories than bitching and moaning and tales of horse injuries and deaths?
Oh, so it's ok for a ride to be unexpectedly hard for horses and riders but not ok for it to be hard for RM? I admit that I wasn't at Big Horn but I've read Cindy Collin's and others posts over the years about how few people actually turn out to run the ride. Going back to what riders have a right to expect at a ride, as a rider, I expect that there will be enough people available to cover all contingencies throughout the ride course. I know managing a ride is not easy; I honor and respect those who take on the task. No management position is easy, especially because people being managed (or for whom the task - ride - is being managed) are rarely if ever grateful. So, no one should take on the task of managing a ride because they expect gratitude from riders. A job well done should be the sole reward. If riders do remember to say "thank you" that is a real plus. Unfortunately, I dumped my "trash" just the other day so I can't go back & find the results either. Low completion rates are common on 100s; my only argument with this ride is that it appears to have been unfairly stacked against the riders, making it impossible for otherwise competent riders on fit horses to complete. Earlier this year there was a long discussion here in RC about the need for more 100s and more riders to enter them. All I'm trying to say here is that rides with as many issues as this one appears to have had, do not enhance the reputation of 100 mile rides or inspire riders to attempt their first 100.
I'm speaking of the present, Joe, not 20+ years ago when many AERC members were still riding their first ponies. No offense meant, but I for one, do not want endurance as a sport to stand still. Nor do I want it to try to replicate rides of years ago. I will persist in calling the 2006 Big Horn ride an "extreme" ride - by today's standards. As I said before, I don't think that a reason to do away with the ride. I do think it's a reason to examine the ride and it's management with the purpose of either changing how things are done to make it doable to a sufficient number of *today's* riders to make it financially feasible, or turning it into some sort of non-sanctioned event open only to those who want to undertake it almost totally on their own.
And the same back at you. I feel definitely "meddled with" when I've paid good money for entry fees plus huge amounts for fuel to get me and my horse to a ride that turns out to be way different from the publicly available ride description! And I don't think AERC wants to have to have a Welfare of the Horse committee. That committee came about because of concern that the number of horse fatalities has not dropped over the years. And, just to restate my position again, I want AERC to continue to sanction all types of rides but I also want rides to be accurately described and safely managed. If AERC has instituted the Welfare of the Horse committee, maybe it also needs to develop a Ride Management Oversight committee to study how ride management can be improved. Here's another suggestion for a long range direction for the sports: AERC continues as the overall sanctioning body but endurance as a sport is divided into different divisions, each with it's own rules & regs. There could be Limited Distance (or whatever that group chooses to call its sport), Endurance (which could include both 50s and 100s or not as the division sees fit), Multi-Day and there could then be another division to cover minimally managed events. Each division could develop its own event specific rules & regs but would have to comply with AERC's overall requirements. Just a thought. Laney =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|