 |
Re: [RC] MY Mistake - Don HustonJoe,You are not remembering what Kat said the penalty was for. It was not as you stated "an automatic penalty (beyond not finishing) for a horse being not able to complete a ride". I have copied Kat's paragraph from 8:11PM Sunday and bolded her qualification for the penalty. Kat wrote: "You didn't read what I said carefully enough. _I_ said that riders who present their horses to the vet asking for permission to continue on their horse and the vets determine that the horse is not fit to continue should have their COC for championship rides revoked. I.e. it is only those riders who don't know that the horse they have been riding for the past X number of miles is not fit to continue that have the COC revoked. That is not, as you stated "arbitrary or capricious". I think that that would be a very good start toward making the world class riders actually responsible for their world class horses. I also know that you, Joe, did not establish and maintain your great horse Kalil (sp?) by riding him so poorly that you could only finish 60% of your rides. Why are you defending such poor results from those world class riders? At 10:24 PM 11/20/2006 Monday, you wrote: As Truman pointed out in his response, the rider is always responsible for his horse. That does not mean that a rider can protect his horse 100% from the hazards of the trail, no matter how smart and carefully he rides. All distance rides involve some level of risk just to ride them at all, including LD rides. Some involve more than others. IMO an automatic penalty (beyond not finishing) for a horse being not able to complete a ride would be arbitrary, capricious and counterproductive.
|