Re: Newbie query: why required weight?

["Thomas, Barb" <thomas@amgen.com>]

OK, I'm gonna jump right in here... not a lightweight or a heavyweight
but God forbid, a featherweight!!  (Hi, Teddy!!)  BTW, it seems that
more rides are top tenned by light and middle weight riders and not
those of us on each end of the weight spectrums.
It would take me at least 30 lbs to make the 165 minimum but I have no
qualms with the 165 minimum.  It's just with the fact that the officials
have the option of requiring extra weight to be carried on the saddle
and thus stay on the horse when the rider gets off that bugs me.  If the
heavyweight rider can remove all his/her weight (except equipment) from
the horse and run, why can't I always have that option too?  I think the
idea of having the weight on the saddle comes from eventing where the
riders stay (or attempt to stay!) on their horses throughout the
competition.  Endurance is another story because we can get off and run
if we choose.  If we are really talking about an attempt to "level the
field" even somewhat, wouldn't the fair way to do that be to allow the
lighter rider the option to carry the extra weight on themselves?  After
all, with all the light equipment around, the biggest difference in
weight carried is the rider's body weight, not dead weight on the horse.
As far as the minimum weight rating being removed for eventing, the work
done to show how the horse was endangered was done over cross-country
obstacles.  The danger was from the impact of jumping such a large
obstacle carrying dead weight, not from the roads and tracks phase which
is closer to endurance.  I agree with Teddy that the two probably aren't
related.  If the endurance community felt strongly enough that the 165
lb. minimum (with dead weight on the horse) was detrimental to the
horse, we'd have to do our own studies and videography to prove it.
Regards,
Barb Thomas