Re: AERC completion time rule - feedback wanted

["Pat Fredrickson" <patfred@snowcrest.net>]

Steph,

I feel that the completion time rule you are proposing is a good idea.

Don't think that you can spell out the extenuating circumstances though.
Possible the wording could be similar to this.  Extenuating circumstances
would include,( but not be limited to the following): The final decision
should  be at Ride Managers descretion.  If specific things are named, there
is always some strange thing that breaks the rule.

We need to remember why most of us do this sport.  It is an Endurance Riders
(we are a strange breed!)  idea of fun.  We call it relaxation?  We also
enjoy the socialization with other, down to earth, horse people.  The
endurance people always give me a sense of extended family.

We are not out there to improve ourselves, per se, or to build character, at
least I'm not.

Hope to see a lot of you at Convention in Kentucky.  Stop & say hello.

Pat Fredrickson
Natural Horse Handling Rope Halters
http://www.catechnologies.com/patfred

-----Original Message-----
From: Steph Teeter <step@fsr.com>
To: 'ridecamp@endurance.net' <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Date: Monday, January 12, 1998 12:47 PM
Subject: AERC completion time rule - feedback wanted


>I'd like some feedback from AERC members - and ride managers,
>on the existing completion time rule, and the desirability of an
>exception to it.
>
>The current rule (5) states (briefly) that competitors are allowed
>12 hours for 50 miles, 24 hours for 100, and so on according
>to the time/mileage chart. This includes all hold time.
>
>I am *considering* proposing an exception to this rule, and would like
>pro & con feedback from the membership. The proposed exception
>would provide an 'escape clause' for ride managers to use when
>extenuating circumstances prevent a rider, or riders from finishing
>in the alloted time. Something like: >
>"Ride managers may, at their discretion, grant _completion only_
>(no points or placing) to riders who complete the course, but do
>not finish within the allowed time, due to extenuating circumstances."

>Extenuating circumstances would include
>1. weather and 'acts of God' - snow, rain, ice, earthquake :)
>2. emergency relief acts - rider A spends 2 hrs helping rider B who is
injured, and
>rider A goes on to finish the course overtime.
>4. unforseen trail conditions - sabotage, downed trees, landslides,
wash-outs
>
>The reason I feel that an escape clause is desirable is
>that the existing rule is -in reality- not strictly adhered to. It puts
>ride managers in bad situation. Their options are to
>1. Not give completion under any circumstances if a rider finishes over the
>allowed time.
>2. Resanction the ride, (rule 1.3.1) after the fact, as a longer course.
This is allowed if
>last minute changes to the trail were made, and the result is a longer
>course.
>3. Fabricate the results, so that those riders who managment feels 'should'
have
>credit, finish on time.
>
>The latter recourse is often chosen - and condoned. And I personally
>have chosen it and condoned it in some circumstances.
>
>...so doesn't that make it a 'bad' rule? If it's frequently broken, but
>most feel that breaking it might be the right thing to do?
>
>I'm not really fanatic about this, but the situation has been
>bothering me a little bit for a long time. Both managers and
>riders may suffer under the existing rule, but probably the ones
>who are harmed the most are the managers.
>
>The bottom line (IMO) is that without volunteer ride managers, AERC doesn't
>have rides, and without rides, there is no AERC. The organization
>currently does very little, (other than giving info and guidelines
>and advertising through EN)  to support ride managers. If we can
>give managers a little more power and flexibilty by giving them a
>'legal' option to an uncomfortable and fairly prevalent situation,
>then we benefit as an organization.
>
>Of course this exception could be abused, but then so can most
>aspects of an endurance ride (mileage accuracy, course marking,
>leniency in granting 'fit to continue'  completion, etc). We have to
>assume that the ride manager will 'do the right thing' in all
>other aspects of managing a ride, and therefore should
>assume that the manager will 'do the right thing'
>regarding overtime exceptions, and not grant completion if it was
>not warranted.
>
>whew!
>
>lemme know if any of you have strong opinions one way or the other..
>
>Steph
>