 |
Re: [RC] Rule Change-Who is it for? - Truman PrevattBruce Weary DC wrote:IMO all this huge amount of empirical experience supports is no better that focused speculation. It is good enough to develop a hypothesis (that such a rule will be in the best interest of the horse) and test said hypothesis. If the hypothesis can be accepted to a reasonable confidence - they IMO you have sufficient valid reason for proposing such a rule change. If not you do not. As of now the question has not even been asked much less answered. A lot of good scientist has empirical experience and empirical evidence to propose the concept of aether for the prorogation of light. They were not only wrong - they were dead wrong. If you can support this proposal with facts not jargon - then do it. Around the world, standards are tightening.Irreverent. The AERC is an independent organization. It is not bound by what anyone else is doing. 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?Where are you coming with your "last five pulse reductions?" Ever since I've been riding the AERC rules have said a maximum of 68 (rule 6.2.1.2). In the SE - it has been 64 since as long as I've been around (1989) - except maybe for the spring Biltmore which was probably more because of the co-sanctioning. The only exception is 60 finish line for LD and that has been in effect in SERA for about 20 years. If you are looking at five pulse reductions you must be looking a different rule book than the one on the AERC web site. ow 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?So you are saying that just because one rule was passed based solely on political reasons - that's a reason to slide this proposal through? The is the thing that bothers me mos about this proposal - getting a reason for this akin to trying to pick up a bouncing football. Every time you try to get the handle the subject is changed. Every time it issue of why and how are pressed, a new justification is put forth that even farther from addressing the original questions. You press harder and someone's feeling get hurt. That's no way to run an organization. A long standing rule (Bob Morris says over two decades) that has worked and one that has become an integral part of the sport should not be messed with unless there is overwhelming evidence to justify it. There is not anything close to overwhelming evidence. In fact as far as I can see - there is none. If it is there - lets see it. Truman -- “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|