Re: heart rates & recovery

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/22/98 1:33:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
grs@TheNetEffect.com writes:

<< Maybe I shouldn't have jumped in on a discussion that was already ongoing
 <g>, but are you suggesting that methods like these be used for
 determining "fitness to continue" at each vet check?  Isn't that a bit
 impractical, not to mention prohibitively expensive?  Or are you just
 theorizing on what could be done in the future?  Do you believe that
 any one of these indicators is definitive, or are you proposing additional
 criteria that should be considered as a body of evidence used for making
 the determination?
 
 Glenda & Lakota >>

Yes I think some of them would be definitive, and a couple would be relatively
easy to achieve. What the paper said was that heartrate recovery was not
definitive--not close, as far as actual recovery and readiness to go on is
concerned. So, if that's a primary criteria, then why not substitute something
else, rather than passing a horse that can't go on or holding a horse that can
go on?

ti