Leasing and others riding your horse

[guest@endurance.net]

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO GUEST@ENDURANCE.NET!!!
You must post replies to the actual sender listed below.

From: anon@noreturn.com 
Email: ridecamp@endurance.net.

Their indeed is cause for concern when anyone mounts any horse and attempts to traverse distance against the clock. We rely on the common sense and ever growing experience of the rider, and a crack veterinarian staff, to help prevent situations which otherwise could develop.
Personally I generally only attempt these types of competitions aboard a horse I have trained on and also own.
I had first hand experience with the other end of the spectrum of the owner not exhibiting the same level of concern for the horse as the non-owning rider. In my case I attribute this to an ignorant owner/trainer and a level of overconfidence regarding the horses capacity mixed with a desire to see the horse cross the finish.
I was asked to "jockey" a horse at the last minute at a ride which will remain nameless, never having ridden another's horse I was apprehensive. I was informed the history of the animal was suitable for the attempt and agreed. At the start of the event I quickly realized the animal was far from prepared mentally for this type of competition. I chose to allow the animal to lead the pack for the first 10 miles rather than add to the stress of passing riders.
From 10 to 30 miles things became controllable but stress levels were high enough that the horse refused to drink and instead desired to keep up with the competition.
By 30 miles the horse had an irregular heart beat, some entertained that this may have been caused by lack of water and high doses of potassium laden electrolytes. 
The vets ok'd his continuation if I would take it easy. I chose to continue at a walk for a completion and just have a nice ride, hoping the animal would take water. By mile 40 the horse drank a hundred gallons of water just prior to entering the vet check. 
The heart rate was around 72 and refused to settle although the rythym was now regular. I was amazed as a number of well intentioned individuals attempted to "aid" the horse in passing the vet check, the owner was insistent the animal could continue.
Noting the finish between this check and the finish was 10 miles away, required one more check, and required an elapsed time of 70 minutes I decided it would be fool hardy to expose this horse I knew little about to the dangers that could develop if I continued for a buckle and some AERC mileage.
The owners were miffed but the horse appeared to appreciate it. 
Everyone has opinions regarding whether awards, cash, leasing and even the sport of endurance riding itself is an appropriate risk exposure for the horse, the rider or the environment.
I think the listserve indicates that their are more questions than answers regarding all of these issues.
Since no one answer is right or wrong, only review and rule adoption and policing will help reduce (not solve) these issues. 
We know that if we jump from a high enough altitude the sudden force of the impact with terrain will probably be fatal, no real rules is required to prevent us from atempting this as common sense and experience dictates we will get hurt/die.
Enter the parachute, now we are faced with a decision that not all are experienced or sensible enough to execute without some controlled exposure, although there are always those that will make the attempt on their own thereby increasing the risk. Some will succeed and some will fail. Undoubtedly those that fail will recieve the most press due to the splendour of the splotch the produce.
The dilema, do we attempt to regulate this newly identified risk, or wait and see what results those courageous (foolhardy) few attain on their own and then make a more educated determination of what if any regulation is required? The pro to waiting is the liberty of those that would make the attempt is not infringed, the con is they may be transformed into spoon pudding.
Or do we jump on the reactionary band wagon with a slew of prejudicial judgement and enact protectionary regulation to protect the masses ? The pro here is the reduction of multi-colored sidewalk art suddenly appearing across our land, the con is the possibility of advancement and new path choices are reduced, eliminated or forestalled.
The point here is that there is no right answer, but there is a wrong answer and that is usually provided by those taking the hardline stance on either of the two sides of an issue.
Is leasing right or wrong, should it be allowed or not, is it risky or not? The answer to all of these is YES, and NO. It all depends on numerous variables that will ALWAYS vary from one specific case to another. The object is not to stay at the 30,000 foot level and say this is right or this is wrong, but to identify the variables that make something right or wrong and identofy the methods or procedures that are required to identify when these variables are right or wrong on a case by case basis to help reduce the risk and promote the questionable process.
Point in fact, endurance riding itself, many could make a case against it from a high level, but experience has identified certain variables which can be identified and or monitored to reduce the risk such as the CRI index, tempurate, pulse rate, dehydration levels etc. This has resulted in the risk being mitigated to a more acceptable level. 

In reviewing some of the posts we have identified some of the experiences that have been learned. 
1- A horse leased to a rider from a foriegn country might be at a higher risk of being over ridden or not monitored correctly
2- A horse leased to a rider from a foriegn country might be at a lower risk due to the more intensive scrutiny of the animal excersized by the rider

From this we can determine that their is a concern that the manner in which the animal is cared for may differ when a foreign (or non-owning)rider is placed upon the leased horse. And that this can be either good or bad. So what's the answer? Remove all risk and not allow foriegn riders atop leases horses ? That certainly would reduce the risk to zero and solve the problem. However, a better solution may be to identify the factors which contributed to the case in which the animal was exposed to a higher degree of risk and attempt to reduce/eliminate it.

What if riders of horses they did not own were identified as a possible risk slightly higher than that exhibited by those that own their mounts. We could then scrutinize these competitors more closely for the other factors that contributed to the problem, such as unfamiliarity to the animal and its capabilities/history, and the concern the animal will be knowingly or unknowingly pushed beyond its limits.

What if a rule were adopted wherein the rider of a horse they didn't own which subsequently incurred veterinary costs were the responsibility of the rider, and the rider were not allowed access to future rides until these costs were satisfied ?