RE: [RC] Here is to hoping it is not (was AERC/FEI) - ll cole
“…how many rides would all of you be able to attend if it cost you $500 each ride? can I see a show of hands?:)”
Shoot..Maryben said we just need to sacrifice more. I figure I'll have to do without the pesky graduation fees for my kids, some food, and all my electric...that oughta do it. But now, mud wrestling.....hey, hey, hey.......!!!
From: endurogal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To: sandydsa@xxxxxxx; ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [RC] Here is to hoping it is not (was AERC/FEI) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:38:24 -0500
“…how many rides would all of you be able to attend if it cost you $500 each ride? can I see a show of hands?:)”
I’ll definitely take up competitive knitting. … Or maybe even mud wrestling…I hear there’s money to be made there! ;-))
From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sandy Adams Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:27 AM To: Ridecamp Alexandria Subject: Re: [RC] Here is to hoping it is not (was AERC/FEI)
Just curious - what is the percentage of riders - members and non-members - who actually compete in international-level endurance? To grow this kind of event by necessity HAS to come at the expense of a similar number of AERC-"only" events. Is AERC willing to remove those events and opportunities for what has to be a significantly higher percentage of riders in order to provide a competition platform for dual sanctioned riders? If they are, they can prepare to lose a huge % of their funding as well. Simple math. If elimination of even 50% of it ridership (and I would think it would be more - Bruce, any approximations?) results, the $$ coming in to AERC in both renewals, drug fees and rider fees would PROBABLY drop dramatically. Someone with figures check this - I don't know - just an assumption based on %. Not sure which email but one comment was that it is perhaps timely for FEI now to separate itself from AERC, promote its own ridership and events under the auspices of USEF - much more logical than AERC, which is after all a USA organization formed to promote distance riding, not necessarily international racing.
The fact is that the fee of this ride alone eliminates effectively a HUGE percentage of "AERC ONLY" riders. If at some point AERC allows most AERC events to be dual sanctioned and set this kind of fee, I would extrapolate that at those events, ridership would also drop considerably. At the very least, more riders would attend fewer rides - FAR fewer rides. The indication below that this is "one of the smartest things AERC.... has done... to address.... few riders who want to do the FEI thing" in clear indication that the NEED for "FEI only competition" is a small minority. So my question for its proponents would be - then why would it be good to commit more events to this format? If I want a girl's chorus, it makes no sense to audition boys. If I want a mixed CHORUS, I STILL would be auditioning girls, in fact, more of them to balance the chorus. If I don't I don't have a mixed chorus. By effectively reducing the availability to the rank and file - or as someone else said - bread and butter - riders, aERC income drops - and we end up with a boys chorus:). Nothing wrong with a boys chorus - unless the intend was a mixed chorus - or a girls' chorus.
In the end, most rider, while glad that FEI riders get to do their thing too, are not interested in losing riding opportunities to provide this. If, as Kat promotes, it would be good if more rides went this way, a huge number of us are priced right out of the sport. I know where WE stand - but how many rides would all of you be able to attend if it cost you $500 each ride? can I see a show of hands?:)
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:22 PM, k s swigart wrote:
Sandy Adams said about the GRD "special" in January:
The reality is that this one event, though "just this once"
for the first time creates a scenario where the AERC riders
- if they could afford it - would be subsidizing FEI riders.
That is not an opinion but fact. The CONCERN here is that
this WON'T be "just this once".
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I am actually of the opinion that it would be a good thing for both FEI riders and "AERC only" riders it this weren't a "just this once." So I hope that is not "just this once" but instead becomes a common practice.
It seems to me that this particular format is a win/win situation for everybody. If more ride managers to whom it is important were to be willing to go to the immense trouble of putting on rides that appeal (for whatever reason) to FEI riders but not the regular run of the mill AERC rider where those riders intersted in FEI and its qualification process can get through the levels of the FEI star system without having to travel long distances, then existing ride managers can focus on putting on rides for the AERC "only" riders and just let the FEI people do their own thing.
I think this is one of the smartest things that the AERC, AERC International, international hopeful riders, and existing ride managers who have no interest in hosting a dual sanctioned ride, have ever done to address the fact that there are few but not no riders who want to do the FEI thing.
I HOPE that there are more rides like this one, a place for FEI riders to go to do the rides required to qualify where they will have no impact on the rest of the AERC community who isn't interested in FEI. And this isn't because I want to go to these rides (I have no interest in FEI riding), but rather because I would be only too happy if the rides I do want to go to were not FEI dual sanctioned. The last thing in the world that I want is for regular AERC ride managers to feel pressured into dual sanctioning their event because they want to help FEI riders get their qualifications.
Now, if the GRD Special had had a cheapy fee (like, say $50) for "AERC only" riders in an attempt to get these riders to help underwrite the cost of putting on the FEI ride (as most of the costs are fixed costs), then other local ride managers who aren't going to price discriminate in this way might justifiably be peeved, but certainly pricing it in such a way that nobody but FEI riders is going to come isn't a way to get "AERC only" riders to help subsidize the cost.
All of the "anti" FEI people who are complaining about this ride are shooting themselves in the foot. If you are anti FEI, it seems to me that that you should be PLEASED about this ride. A ride of their own is the best place for all those evil FEI riders and all those evil FEI requirements that you don't want to have anything to do with.
I think that this is an excellent way to address the dichotomy that exists within the AERC between FEI riders and those that are not. In fact, personally, I can't think of a better way.
kat Orange County, Calif. :)
p.s. It would be cheaper for me to go to this ride and enter the 100 than it would be for me to go to and enter Tevis, but I haven't seen any complaints here from anybody saying how abominable it is that Tevis is cost prohibitive for many riders....but it is (and that is one of the things that has kept me from going), or that because Tevis is cost prohibitive for many riders that the AERC shouldn't sanction it.
