I can appreciate the challenges that individual riders foresee when
they imagine coping with this, or any, new rule. But when we are
evaluating whether a rule would be effective *when applied across the
board* I think we have to relinquish the luxury of regretting how a
rule might impact our particular, individual preferences. This may
sound harsh, but in a rules system that affects literally thousands of
riders, there has to be some ground given by each individual if the
group as a whole is going to succeed and prosper. If we as individuals
are too concerned about whether we have time to get to our trailer for
that coveted beer, or some of us don't have a crew, or we won't feel
like we can gallop across the finish line, or the long walk to the
trailer, or any one of a myriad of personal concerns, we become
shackled in our attempts to create meaningful measures that protect the
horse. There is no way each individual concern and preference can be
accounted for. No one wants more rules for the sake of more rules. I
agree that our vets know far more about our horses' metabolic
capabilities and the most reliable early signs of unexpected metabolic
trouble. The vet committee is very much in support of this rule, as I
understand it. I think a vet who has evaluated a thousand horses at
endurance rides knows far more about the prevention and detection of
metabolic trouble than someone who has ridden the same horse for a
thousand miles.
I have also been guilty of using the terms "recovery" and "pulse
down" as interchangeable. They are not. A horse can be in the early
stages of colic and still have a pulse that is at or below criteria. So
a horse in trouble can have a normal pulse. On the other hand, a horse
with a prolonged elevated pulse probably isn't problem free, either.
Although many horses have indeed pulsed down and then continued to
recover metabolically in the 60 minute period we have used for years,
there is evidence and sentiment amongst our vets and many of us riders
that the opportunity may be missed to catch horses in early potential
trouble if we continue to promote the idea that a horse that takes 60
minutes to pulse down is more than likely okay, because he has met the
"standard." And it's parodoxical, but the new rule will possibly help
the horses being ridden more slowly, but still too fast for their level
of preparation. Many of the horse deaths that have occurred do not
correlate with the horse's speed. It simply was that horse's turn to
colic, for whatever reason, and his elevated pulse due to pain may be
the first indicator that something is wrong. Especially if it doesn't
come down in 30 minutes. I think Ed's quote was very revealing: " last fall when I PR'd, I found that it was not
the leaders who took a long time to come down it was those at the back
of the pack."
It seems to me that the debate may be boiled down to this question,
and I would be interested in other folks' thoughts here: Which horse
are we more likely to be fooled into thinking he's okay, and finding
out we were wrong--The horse that pulses down quickly or the horse that
takes 45-60 minutes to pulse down? This has been an excellent
discussion, by the way. Virtually free of personal attacks and
character assassinations. Let's keep up the good work. Dr Q
