So what is stopping those in the US to develop a program to identify "young" horses with potential? Really how much money would have to be invested for those in USEF to have a program that would overlay what is in existence right now. A program would not have to be identical to those in other countries but could take some of the best ideas that work and adapt them to what is in existence here. The basic problem I see here in the US (besides government funding) is that the pool of horses/riders are coming from a philosophy and a program that is based on amateur competition. Then at the International level we expect those riders/horses to be able to be "competitive" in a field where other national programs are set up to groom all potential horses for international level competition from the time those horses are started. My guess is only the best or most competitive horses are allowed to compete in the longer distances because they had to qualify to get to the next distance. These horses and riders have to "prove themselves" to move up. It isn't like here where tomorrow I can enter my unproven horse in a 75 mile ride.
Now do not get me wrong, I do NOT want to change AERC. I just feel that when we are talking "racing" the French system of qualification to move up in distance is superior for choosing the best athletes for an international event. At the longest distances you only have the cream of the crop competing against each other. This is pretty obvious when you look at completion times and when you look at how close in time the first 20+ horses finish at some of the French races. The spread in races between the first and last place horse with more than 70 completers is sometimes less then what we commonly see between our 1st place and 10-th place horse.
I am repeating, I do not want AERC to change. But, what I do not see is USEF or those interested in US international endurance racing taking an interest in grooming young horses (not their own) and potential riders for endurance racing. Even if there is not a formal program like what is funded in France there are not even published guidelines in this country to help riders prepare their horses for this type of competition. All that is given are "qualifications" to nominate for high profile events which can change from event to event. It is expected that riders get their horses up to the 100 mile level and nomination qualifications on their own and any way they can through AERC and AERC philosophy (which does not promote "racing") and then it is expected that riders take advice, be team players, and turn over control to whomever happens to be in charge when it comes time for a big competition. I remember reading in one of Steph's posts on the Eurpean Championships which quoted a USEF official stating something to the effect that US riders need to realize that they don't know everything and need to listen to advice more. (Don't quote me but something like that) Why should they be more open when they have been doing it on their own to get to the nomination process. Where were guidlines or a program from USEF when they started their 4 or 5 year olds? Where is the trust developed between the rider and the organization?
At least if there was more investment of TIME and money in developing potential horses here in the US for endurance racing there might be some improvement. For me, there is such a distinct differnce between International Endurance racing and AERC Endurance riding that it makes absolutely no sense to expect horses and riders to prepare for a WEC with no real input until the horse is ready to nominate. It would be one thing if AERC was an organization that was set up to groom horses towards high level competition and racing but it is not and it should not be. There is a gap that is not being filled either by USEF or by AERC I and I think that is part of the problem.
