Re: BC scores

["Visions of the Wind" <wind@visionsofthewind.com>]

I'm guessing that there may have been a mistake in calculating the BC winner's vet score. Don't forget that she would also have 'lost' points according to how far behind the 'winner' she was. I would definitely think that there should be a minimum vet score for a horse to be considered for BC though!

 

Stephanie McCray

Golden, CO

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenda R. Snodgrass <grs@TheNetEffect.com>
To: Angela C. McGhee <rides2far@juno.com>
Cc: Ridecamp <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: BC scores

> >This reminds me of a pet peeve I have long held:  I think the
> >penalties for
> >time scoring on the BC form are inappropriate for 100 mile rides.  
<SNIP>
>That would mean that BC's total vet score was 270?
<SNIP>

Hmmm, okay, I'm still new at all this stuff, but this particular situation
has me a bit bamboozled.  Am I to understand that a horse looking not very
good at all (a vet score of 270 is really low, right?) won BC on a 100
because it carried extra weight and came in nearly 4 hours ahead of lots
of other horses that completed in good physical condition?

Isn't there some "minimum vet score" that a horse must reach to receive
the BC award, regardless of time or weight carried or any other mitigating
circumstances?  Seems to me that a horse finishing first but not looking
that great should get the First to Finish award ... but to get BC too,
when the horse doesn't look very good?  Can someone please explain this to
me?

Glenda & Lakota
Mobile, AL
AERC # M18819 & H27310
SE Region