 |
[RC] Rule Change-Who is it for? - Bruce Weary DCFirst let me say that I think Diane's suggestion of the pulse down in 30 minutes and the vet check to be completed by 60 minutes is a more reasonable and workable application of the principle that horses should pulse down at the end of a ride in the same time frame that they have all day. Some folks object on the basis that the current rule is long-standing, and has been working. Another way to look at it is that it is the last venue that allows a horse to recover for 60 minutes anywhere in the endurance world. Early detection of an abnormally high pulse rate is a very useful tool for attracting more than routine attention to any given horse in an endurance ride, wherever in the ride it occurs. If we presuppose that a horse needing a 60 minute window has "met the standard" of fitness in this most stressful of equine sports, it may cause the loss of opportunity to turn a skeptical eye on a horse on his way to trouble, but not obviously there yet. Most vets I know and have seen post here feel that a horse that doesn't pulse down in 30 minutes isn't just "tired." He's compromised. To what extent, and to what short or long term harm, is yet to be determined. If your child has a fever of 101 degrees, you'll probably take care of her at home. If it climbs, each added degree will increase your concern level. At a certain predetermined standard, say 104, you're off to the doctor, and at 106 she's in an ice bath at the hospital. What I think I hear our vets saying is we don't want the horse to be at a level of metabolic compromise that is potentially dangerous, but not noticed, because there is general agreement that 60 minutes is a "safe zone." Some will argue that they know better and would present their horse to the vet if their recovery was longer than they know it should be. But some beginners, or those who would prefer to conceal an overridden horse, could camp out at their trailer for up to an hour before a vet must look at the horse. That can be when trouble starts brewing. The rule change is more designed to catch any horse that finds itself developing metabolic trouble, regardless of how fast or hard he was ridden. I mentioned before that most horse deaths are not related to riding speed. Any horse developing trouble would be potentially be caught sooner and attended to. The same way they were when pulse criteria were lowered from 78, 72,68, 64 and so on. Additionally, there have been concerns expressed that there is no "hard data", "statistical evidence" or "supported rationale" for suggesting such a change. This recommendation is supported by the HWC, and the Vet Committee, based on huge amounts of empirical experience from our vets, and is a logical extension of historical trends in standard-setting for evaluation of the horse during and after an endurance ride. Around the world, standards are tightening. For those who feel changes ought not be allowed to be made in the absence of hard statistical data, could someone please provide us with a proper historical perspective by showing us the tabulated information that was used to make the last five pulse reductions? How about the stats used to determine that sound at a trot was appropriate? Or the research papers that indicated that weight makes a difference, and led to the formation of weight divisions? Or the lab experiment that indicates all AERC head vets should be certified?Yada, Yada, Yada. Bob or Joe--you were both around in those early years. Exactly how were those decisions ground out? I'm thinking it was after considerable debate amongst the board members, based on their conscience and experience, not largely statistical data. If you didn't have the data back then, how did you feel compelled to move forward and make policy you felt would be in the best interest of the horses and riders? It would be lovely if we had a greater volume of neatly packaged, boiled down numbers, but just because that doesn't exist in great quantity, doesn't mean there isn't good reason to move in this direction. It certainly isn't an ipso facto argument for things to remain the same. It reminds me of the old "Did you stop beating your wife, yet?" question. A yes or no answer is inadequate to explain the entire rationale for the proposal. Let's take the horse out of the race. You do a 20 mile brisk workout at home, and he's pulsed down in 15 minutes. No problem. What if he's not down in 30 minutes? Still pounding away at 45? Do you relax and have a beer knowing he's still within the 60 minute standard that says he would be fit to continue? Or would you get the stethoscope and start monitoring him? Maybe even the idea of calling the vet flashes across your mind, if things don't improve? And, maybe he's about to colic, for reasons entirely unrelated to his workout. Is it possible our concerns are different in different settings? Are we concerned at home, but at a ride more apt to say, "Oh, he'll be all right, he's just tired," because now a completion is at stake? Lastly, I welcome the chance to declare here on Ridecamp, for all to see, that there is absolutely no truth to the rumors, as many have suggested here, that any member of the HWC has ever, or will ever, make a recommendation that is "by the seat of our pants," "so that we can feel good," or "so that we feel like we're doing something." I appreciate the opportunity to clear that up. I'm thinking of a card in a deck of cards. If you can't tell me what it is, it's really fruitless to say you know what else I may be thinking, unless of course I actually tell you. And now, I have. Bruce Weary =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|