Re: Protective Boots

[flemmerl@rcbhsc.wvu.edu (Flemmer, Linda)]

Teddy Lancaster wrote:
> 
> That is an ECTRA rule and applies to ALL sanctioned ECTRA rides.

Yes, the rides in question that banned leg protection for BC
consideration were ECTRA sanctioned.  I haven't belonged to ECTRA in a
couple of years, however.... Back then, when ECTRA sanctioned AERC
rides, it specifically said that the ride was run under AERC rules.  I
don't remember them saying that it was AERC rules except no leg
protection.  It was my impression that this rule was set up by ride
management.  Do you know if this has changed since I dropped my
membership with ECTRA?

I know that ride managers have some leeway to add rules to the minimum
that AERC requires.  As long as it is on the entry form (must have
helmets, etc.) or it is announced before the start of the ride, I have
no problem with that.  If a ride routinely has conditions that I find
abhorrent, I just don't go back.  One RM rule I see quite a bit of is a
10 minute penalty hold if you fail your first attempt at a P&R.  (ie.  I
enter for P&R (parameters 60) and horse is 64.  I must wait 10 minutes
to present for a re-check.  Since there is only 30 minutes to get P&R's
done after arrival, two failed attempts could knock you out after only
21 minutes.)

Potato seems to object to this rule about leg protection.  When I asked
ride management the "why's and wherefores", I was told that a horse may
interfere as he tires.  Protective boots would diguise this interferance
and the horse would not show this change in his condition.  I disagree
with the rule and rationale (let your horse hurt himself so we can see
who is most tired), but I agreed to the rules of the ride <as stated> at
the beginning.  If they had pulled this on me as I walked up to be
judged for BC, it would be a whole 'nuther story.

Of course, that brings up the question of how often I ever get to stand
for BC.  (Don't hold your breath, folks.)

Linda Flemmer