I agree with Crysta. ?RO-L and RO-M can be translated as "not really lame/sick, but I wanted to be careful". ?So in the example, if 75% of the pulls were for RO-L, that really is a pertinent piece of information. ?It says that while these horses weren't actually lame (lameness pulls), these riders had a high enough level of concern to pull their horses. ?(Sounds like a really rocky, tough trail to me!)
Same with RO-M -- if the day is really hot and humid, and riders are worried about their horses, you might see a lot of RO-M pull codes. ?It indicates that the horses were not actually in difficulties, but conditions were prompting the riders to call it a day.
So - I don't think these codes are deceptive, at all. ?:) ?JMO.
On Jan 15, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Crysta Turnage wrote:
?
Unfortunately it seems that L and M pull codes have somewhat of a stigma attached with them so people are reluctant to use RO-L and RO-M as well, prefering a simple RO.?
And this is too bad, because if you are worried about your horse due to the trail conditions, or the weather conditions, or whatever, it is important to add that L or M to the RO code, seems to me. ?
But for reporting purposes and "making the sport better" as Lisa mentions below, then really RO-L and RO-M are MORE accurate, not less.? In your example of 75% pulls for RO-L, yes, that is correct because 75% of the riders pulled their horse due to lameness concerns, even if they weren't truely lame.
?
~ Crysta
?
?
If a ride of 100 horses shows a completion rate of 25 percent with the other 75 percent being RO-L? but really most of the RO-L were horses that lost a shoe or wore a boot and it was assumed they might go lame and therefore were pulled by the rider, that is not accurate reporting. Is it? While the 25 percent completion is still the same, the numbers of pulls for lameness are deceptive at best. They weren't really lame, but they might have been?
