Re: prompting

["spencer" <spencer@inu.net>]

Technology has certainly developed and become more cost effective.  BUT
many of us are still not able to take advantage of all of it.  In the
beginning, AERC rules for endurance were basic.  Now there will be more
complicated ones.  I haven't been into the heavy competition.  Don't have a
heart monitor.  Use common sense, etc.  I appears that in order to compete
now, one needs to go hi tech.  Everything else in the horse sports is
expensive enough, now this.  I am ambivalent about it.  Can see some
advantage.  BUT if it makes it so that any rider with any horse can no
longer compete on level playing field, then I am not for it.  This sport
has been going for years without it.  Once again those with the BIG bucks
and BIG mouths will make the rules!!  It makes it harder and harder for new
people to start and contimue.  With out those new ones, there will not be
the trails, etc for you rich one to ride in the first place.  I prefer to
keep this low tech.  The NATRC rides have 'drag' riders to take care of
those problems.  Perhaps that would make the nervous nellies feel better. 
On one ride I was told I couldn't put betadyne on my horses scratch, so if
that is a rule, a radio communication system for rider and pit crew should
also be disallowed.  I can see an emergency radio/ walkie talked, but not
the rest.  Lets keep this sport a genuine sport, not a computerized game on
horseback.  Mary Ann, Tx

----------
From: SSR <SSR@aol.com>
To: ridecamp@endurance.net
Subject: Re: prompting
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 12:08 PM

Concerning radio comm and level playing fields, the implications of this
discussion are troubling.  I wire both my rider and her horse with tracking
transmitters when they compete.  The  AERC says that the horse's 
welfare is the rider's responsibility.  I can use technology to enhance 
both horse and rider safety, and I do.

Concerning a previous post.

<< I personally think it ... can give those with access to the technology
an
 unfair advantage, as on most rides in my area there is NOT crew
accessibility
 to a lot of the trail.>>

First, the technology is available to anyone, and isn't expensive.  It's
not
my fault other people would rather spend the money on other things.  
Second, if the trail is inaccessible, all the more reason that every 
possible way be used to increase rider/horse safety.  

<< I find it equally offensive when crew members go to great lengths to
meet
riders on course when there is ample water provided, etc., etc.  
As a ride manager I work hard to ensure as level a playing field as
possible.
>>  

When I'm meeting my rider at every possible point along the trail, I have
with
me a vet crash kit.  Does a level playing field mean my rider (or anyone
else 
who'd need it) has to accept higher risks.  If that one bucket of water
between
watering holes helps prevent a metabolic crash, how can that be a bad
thing?

<<As much as I think FEI is sometimes cluttered with rules, I
 think their outlawing of such communication is in keeping with the spirit
of
 the sport.  I do like Ramey's idea of having the cell phone in a sealed
pack;
 you have it in case of emergency, but once you break the seal, you are out
of
 the competition. >>

Concerning other organization's rules, equity comes at a price.  With my
available technology and a full tank of gas, her safety is enhanced
compared
to my standing in some designated pit area.  Thus "the level playing field"

is more dangerous thanks to these rules.  I'm not sure that's the "spirit"
the AERC wants to promote.  

As for the cell phone, you know, I've tried to teach my horse to dial 911
if 
my rider's knocked unconscious on the trail, but he keeps crushing the
phone... 

Scott Rickard