Ray Santana
University of California at Davis
Medical Center
----------------------------- Note follows -----------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 10:40:55 -0700
Message-Id: <199508101740.KAA21593@ix9.ix.netcom.com>
From: PRoach@ix.netcom.com (paul roach)
Subject: race etiquette
To: endurance@moscow.com
Sender: owner-endurance@moscow.com
Precedence: list
Greetings!
I'm a southern California endurance rider relatively new to the List.
This is my first contribution; although its a lengthy one, I suspect
that many of you will find the subject of some interest.
The subject is etiquette. My question has to do with gates. I raise
the issue because I was involved in an incident during the Bridgeport
ride which got at least one person steamed up. As I had never before
been in a ride in which gates had to be openned and closed by the
riders, I was not at all sure how I ought to think about it. So just
for fun I thought that I'd let all of you think about it too.
Here's the context: First, at the pre-ride meeting Jackie B. lets us
know that there will be some gates, and that we need to close them after
passing through. Second, the incident I'll describe happens just after
the third (and last) vet-check. It involves four riders who are in
something like 14th to 18th place, and who are all looking to make a
strong move toward the top ten. In other words, at this point it is
indeed a race.
Here is what happened: two riders, riding together, (group A) passes
another two (Group B) about half a mile out of the vet-check and
attempts to put distance between themselves and these two other riders.
Maybe a minute or so after passing, Group A comes to a gate, stops,
opens the gate. As the horses of group A move through the gate, Group B
comes around the bend in the road and approaches the gate, arriving at
the gate while it is still open. Group A riders figure that, since they
took to time to open the gate, Group B can take the time to close it,
and they take off at a canter to catch some horses. Group B moves
through the gate and closes it, but feels that that was Group A's
responsibility, since it openned the gate in the first place.
Here's my thinking: If group A is required to stick around and close the
gate it is at a clear disadvantage; it had maybe a 30 second advantge
over group B when it got to the gate. Should it be required to give up
that advantage by allowing a following group to close the gap while it
is busy dealing with the gate and then allowing the following group
through before closing the gate? Surely it would not be thought of two
kindly if group A had closed the gate in the faces of group B, although
that would seem the fairest thing to do (each group would have had to
both open and close the same gate). On the other hand, group B is at a
bit of a disadvantage in this case, because the gate in question can be
openned, but not closed, from horseback. Consequently, it could take a
bit more time to close the gate than to open it. So, the way I see it
you give a minimal break to the leading riders, if you let them leave
the open gate to the group behind, or you give a bigger break to the
folling group if you require the first group to stay and close the gate.
Or you give no-one an advantage by requiring the first group to slam the
door, as it were, in the faces to the following group.
Anyway, I'd like to see your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps there is a
consensus on the subject which I have not found yet.
Paul Roach