Your post will have me do a lot more
thinking in terms of the horse/mileage relationship. The one thing that I
will mention is that when an organization like like FEI concentrates only on
winning and does not have a counter program that rewards longevity, it means
that only a small number of horses will be "worth" putting time, money, and
energy into. The negatives of this approach is that a lot of horses do get
rejected because they do not have the potential to win. In terms of a
program that is developing world champions, this is the way to go. So it
really doesn't matter how excellent the riders are, how good the horsemanship
is, how wonderful the care is. The bottom line is when winning is the most
important thing every thing else including 2nd place is losing. A
serious competitor is not going to "waste" time on a horse only capable of 10th
place. I am not judging but calling it as I see it. If this were my
goal in distance riding, I wouldn't waste my time on a horse that couldn't
"win". The positives of this approach are that you are getting the
"best" in terms of speed and distance. That is what the FEI Championship
rides are about.
AERC has room for mediocre horses and for horses
that are not the best in both speed and distance. I don't see where FEI
does. Perhaps this is why some AERC horses can only can compete for a 1000
miles. It may not always be because of ignorance or poor horsemanship
on the riders part but just the limitations of that horse. 1000
miles is all they are physically and genetically capable of. Some
horses are not capable of more than 25 mile distances or more
than 50 mile distances. Yet, they too
can be part of the AERC program. The positives are that a rider can take
his back yard horse and can probably do some type of AERC riding and shoot
for some goal whether regional/ national awards, distance awards, or
speed. The negatives to this is that focus must be more varied to
accomodate everyone. It's harder to develop an olympic level
racing program when it is based on a program geared to the amateur and
horses that can be at the low end of the spectrum.
My focus is not on the micro, or what individuals
do or how they ride or what they value. There is no reason that some
riders can't go from goals to just complete in AERC to International level
competition to flat track racing for all I care. I am much more concerned
about the macro or the big picture. By this I am concerned with what
organizations believe in and what they value, and what they promote.
In this sense, I see more differences than similarities when it comes to AERC
and USEF values and trends. I don't see the gap becoming more narrow but
growing wider. Why does AERC need to affiliate or have a closer
relationship with USEF when the organizations' vision and focus is so
different? Is this really about providing a platform (which isn't
proving very successful) for a small percentage of AERC members so we can say
everyone is included in the Big Tent? Or is this more about an
organization trying to retain or gain more influence in the Endurance Racing
scene? Honestly, I don't know but I am pretty sure that AERC riders could
easily move from AERC to International endurance just like AERC riders move from
AERC to RAT to CTR.
