Re: LD Intentions and 49 miles

[flemmerl@rcbhsc.wvu.edu (Flemmer, Linda)]

EAMULE@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I am going to have to interject here.  If AERC was trying to protect the sport
> and horses from the "Yahoo Riders" who think an LD is a 'race', why did the
> AERC increase LD's up to 49 miles? 

Ellen,

This discussion did rage on after that bylaws change.  Personally, I
felt as though it opened up a can of worms and was poorly thought out. 
HOWEVER - the MEMBERSHIP approved the change.  AERC isn't a body of
executives removed from the sport...  The old definition left mileage
from (I believe) 35-49 miles and 0-25 miles in limbo.  Evidently some
ride managers in some regions were taking "advantage" of this & running
non-sanctioned fun rides outside of the two defined distances (50+ and
25-35).  Whether this was good or bad was open to much debate.

You're right - not too many of the weekend warriors would sign up for a
49 mile ride and how much difference is there between 49 & 50 mile
rides?  On the other hand, I think that instituting another set of rules
for these "limbo" miles would be difficult.  And ultimately, AERC
defines "endurance" as more than 50 miles.  49 miles just doesn't meet
that definition.

If you have some ideas to go to the rules committee, have at it!  The
bylaws change has opened unforseen problems (aka opportunities for
change).

(tongue in cheek) I'm waiting for the first set of sanctioned 1 & 2 mile
LD rides!  (The definition <is> 0-49 miles now, isn't?)  Maybe the flat
race tracks could get sanctioning for some of their Arab races...improve
entries and start a future endurance horse towards earning that lifetime
LD mileage, no matter how slowly!

Linda Flemmer


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=