Re: AERC completion time rule - feedback wanted

["Robert J. Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

To all concerned:

Heidi wrote:
<<<< Interestingly enough, my Dad rode until he was 68.  He had a horse
with "iffy"
> metabolics that could only go about so fast or he would have problems. 
Dad
> had to get off every few miles and "find a tree" himself.  He frequently
took
> longer at checks because of his own health.  He always finished "in time"
and
> I think the most angry I have ever seen him was after a multi-day at
which
> Trilby was  allowed completion after the 12 hours were up.  He said it
> defeated his entire purpose for being there--if they were not going to
enforce
> a time limit that was a little tough to meet, then what was the point of
> paying an entry fee?  As he put it, he can go out and ride fifty miles
any old
> time, with no clock running, and do it for free, so why pay his money to
come
> to a ride?  His completion should be proof that he met a standard that he
is
> not held to if he is just "out riding".  I agree.>>>>>

Well, Arlene is 66, I am 70, we are both still riding and competitive (top
ten riders) and we must agree with Don's philosophy (Heidi's father). If
the younger set needs special treatment and a VERY level field then let
them go to Competitive Trail Riding. If the majority of riders can do the
ride in the prescribed time, and the overwhelming majority do, then let's
go on to more interesting topics. 

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID

----------
> From: CMKSAGEHIL <CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com>
> To: step@fsr.com; ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: Re: AERC completion time rule - feedback wanted
> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 9:26 AM
> 
> Steph and others:
> 
> Many people have suggested that there is a trade-off between hold times
and
> trail time.  After vetting nearly 250 rides, I find this NOT TO BE THE
CASE AT
> ALL!  As one would realize if one gives the matter some thought, horses
that
> have sufficient rest time at appropriate spots on the course can proceed
more
> rapidly down the trail than horses that have been ridden too far without
> sufficient holds.  I have found that by throwing in an extra hold on the
last
> loop of 100-milers, the participants often return to base camp at a much
> quicker pace than they did in previous years when that last checkpoint
was a
> stop-and-go.  Holds are necessary for horses to maintain
performance--both in
> regards to rest and refueling.  The horse without the hold time goes
slower
> and slower.  With well-planned hold times, you should be able to get
healthy
> horses to the finish line about as quickly as you would get fatigued,
hungry
> ones there without the holds.  Just my perspective from a lot of years of
> experience watching lots of different horses, managers, trails, etc.  I
still
> stick by the elapsed time rule.
> 
> Interestingly enough, my Dad rode until he was 68.  He had a horse with
"iffy"


> metabolics that could only go about so fast or he would have problems. 
Dad
> had to get off every few miles and "find a tree" himself.  He frequently
took
> longer at checks because of his own health.  He always finished "in time"
and
> I think the most angry I have ever seen him was after a multi-day at
which
> Trilby was  allowed completion after the 12 hours were up.  He said it
> defeated his entire purpose for being there--if they were not going to
enforce
> a time limit that was a little tough to meet, then what was the point of
> paying an entry fee?  As he put it, he can go out and ride fifty miles
any old
> time, with no clock running, and do it for free, so why pay his money to
come
> to a ride?  His completion should be proof that he met a standard that he
is
> not held to if he is just "out riding".  I agree.
> 
> Heidi Smith, DVM--Sagehill Arabians (Oregon)
>