Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Rather than abolishing AERC-International committee, perhaps AERC can give them a mandate to study the International scene and try to improve it.


Steph,
   The AERC board can mandate all they want.  The reality is that when it comes down to "rules and policy" it is the USEF committees that are calling the shots for International Endurance.  As I have learned in previous discussions and experiences with the US WEC nomination requirements, these USEF board members/committee members may be AERC International members but they have absolutely NO obligation to make policy that reflects what AERC or the  AERC International member wants.  So if AERC and AERC International has no real input other then to make recommendations, I really don't see what good a "mandate" is going to do.  Even if AERC I were to study the international scene and come up with recommendations, USEF and the USEF committees do not have to follow them.  And as you are well aware, it is USEF that is the recognized US endurance organization NOT AERC.  

   Also, I disagree with you that if FEI did away with cash prizes it would help enormously.  Yes, it would help but the underlying  issues I see in high level international racing are not cash prizes. There is an attitude out there that speed is everything.  Fast courses not technical courses are the trend.   (This has even trickled down into our US FEI rides.  Take a look at the ranking rides for 2008, not many technical rides on there.)   Finding ways to end races early after a percentage of riders cross the finish line,  FEI not finding ways to recognize horse/rider teams and ranking only "riders" in their FEI standings.   These are just a few of the things that I see that make FEI racing very different then AERC riding.  Notice I have not even mentioned any rules.  

When you start taking away the strategy and emphasis of a "technical" ride you put automatically put more emphasis on speed.  This upsets the whole structure of the sport.  Then add in the fact the FEI has absolutely no recognition type program for horse/rider teams other than the "individual win" and you add another layer that makes these two sports very different.  There is also nothing in FEI that recognizes longevity.

What I see is that the UAE has learned to play the FEI game really, really, well.  They have the money and resources to do so.  What I also see is a lot of other nations and individuals involved in FEI that are or have benefited from UAE involvement.   Some of it good - some of it not so good.  But the reality is that the "structure" of FEI endurance was in place before UAE came on the scene.  They took advantage of what was in place and now have the power to influence it.
 
   At this point,  the US program (USEF) is definitely being influenced by this trend from FEI.  In the US,  we now need 100 mile rides that are "fast".   Most ranking rides (other than Tevis) are fast courses with little technical trail.  The US FEI ranking list is based on "rider" accomplishment not a horse/rider team.  In other words you can ride as many horses as you want to rank and be chosen for the US training team.  In recent years the competition age for the US WEC horses was LOWERED from 8 years old to 7 years old.   There are definitely practical reasons for these "new" policies I realize.   BUT this is definitely a reflection of the influence from high level FEI racing.  I just don't see how your suggestion that AERC I do a study and look for improvements when it is AERC I members through USEF are making policy that mirrors trends in high level FEI racing.  

Again, the differences I see are not rules, prize money, etc.  It is what the "organizers and organizations" deem important and putting emphasis there.  In FEI, there is no question that "speed" and "winning" are really out of balanced with some of the other features of endurance like technical courses,  horse/rider team recognition, completion, longevity, etc.  All of these other features really take a back seat and the way  high level FEI is structured makes this very clear.  This is what makes racing and riding a different sport even if both award completions to finishers and both award a first place and even have many of the same rules.

Steph, I  think what you are doing through your rider exchange program will do much more to improve and promote "international" endurance than mandating studies.  I think it is OK to have two distance sports that are not under the same umbrella organization.  Individuals are free to race and ride between organizations just like they are able to compete in CTR and Ride and Tie with no conflict.  My own personal feeling is both USEF racing and AERC riding would benefit if they were distinct and separate organizations.  USEF could develop programs to "race" and not have to compromise to accommodate "riders".  The US is trying to develop a program geared towards racing at the professional level from an organization that geared towards the amateur and puts more emphasis on finishing not winning.  Is is any wonder there is a rift that is developing as FEI racing becomes more specialized and professional and the differences between these two sports becomes more distinct.  I don't think that AERC will ever allow US FEI riding to go it's own way.  But, USEF racing will never have the most effective racing program and produce greatest success because of it's dependence on AERC.  The real question will be how long USEF will continue to fund endurance as one of it's disciplines if the US is unable to be competitive against the rest of the world.
   

Kim





**************
The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. Go to AOL Music.
      (http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)