> What a great subject for controversy!
> First of all I think general trail etiquette needs to be followed a
> little more closely on endurance rides. 15 year ago when I first started
> riding endurance it was common practice to call out to rideres ahead
> that you wanted to pass. Now I am frequently blasted off the trail by
> people hurrying by without a word from them. "TRAIL PLEASE" the commonly
> used phrase.
I still call out to people "passing on right or passing on left", that is
how I was taught and that is how I taught my husband and children. Maybe
ride managers should go over this with the new people and even the old
people who forget that it is still suppose to be fun even though it is a
competition. I have had people blast right by me on a small skinny trail
and my horse supports a large red bandanna on her tail. When I see
someone comming by I get off the trail as much as possible and turn her
head towards the trail. She does not kick but she did once and I don't
want to take a chance of another horse or rider getting hurt so I do take
a lot of precautions.
> So in your question about gates, it is common courtesy to hold a
> gate for approaching riders. It is also common courtesy to wait for the
> rider holding the gate to mount up before riding off. This helps prevent
> the horse from getting excited about being left behind abd running off
> before the rider is fully mounted.
> Again this is an area where riders have gotten too involved in "the
> race" instead of remembering this sport is mostly for fun and very
> little glory. Being in 17th place and racing to attempt to catch up to
> the 10th rider is against the basic principals of endurance riding, "to
> finish is to win", and probably would not serve any good for the horse
> since it would probably be a lot more tired from having to race hard for
> a silly 10th place finish. I cannot recall any horse that
> finished 10th and received BC.
> Remember there is only one first place award.
> I watched a rider do this very thing at the Fireworks ride. He had
> trouble getting the horse down in the last vet check. Then came racing
> past me because he was in 11th place and just had to catch number 10.
> well he came in 10th all right but his horse was exhausted, and "tied
> up" at the finish. Needless to say he didn't even get a completion award
> let alone be judged for BC! so was it worth it to hurry? You be the
> judge!
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>