Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Truman wrote:  >My view is quite simple, a dead horse in any equine sanctioned event - swans an investigation into the reasons why by a minimum the sanctioning body. If it is found that there is an unacceptable level of risk to the equines that was a contributing factor in the death, then actions should be taken to mitigate the risk in future events. In my opinion to not do so is irresponsible.

I don't see how anyone can anyone argue with this statement, but I am sure some of you will figure out a way to.  I think this is just a simple, smart, non-arguable statement.  We love, work, and should be protecting our horses.  This is what draws many of us to endurance and CTR ... the protection we get from vet checks. We want our horses to be happy and safe.  Many people do need someone standing over their shoulders to make sure they do not get caught up in the fever of win-win-win.   Many people are just starting out and need help gaining the proper knowledge to take care of their horses in this event.  I myself appreciate any oversight that might help me know and protect my horse.  When I bought my horse I did not ask it if it wanted to do endurance , be a show horse or an eventer and it did not whisper back to me it's choice.  Therefore we choose for our horses mostly based on our wants,  and they sometimes need protection from our choices.   Investigations help prevent similar problems from happening in the future.  Investigations are safeguards and I am sure if our horses could speak they would be all for them.

When we make decisions, we make them based on the consequences.  Investigations are not the consequences, but are there to shed light on the consequences.  They are tools or you could say they are lamps that shed light so that we can see what is happening.

- Mary