"GO, TELL THE SPARTANS"
Prepared for: The USA Endurance Representatives
February, 2003

Diversity

The U.S.A. is big, as geographically diverse as Australia, and as culturally diverse as the world at large. A quarter century ago, U.S. schools described that diversity as a melting pot. Now it is more accurately defined as a mixed salad where each ingredient is allowed to retain its uniqueness and is appreciated for its traditions.

Our U.S. endurance community is similarly diverse. Divided into five national zones for continental/hemispheric/Pan-Am Championships, diversity within each zone exists geographically and in the style of riding itself. However, one thing unites us as American endurance riders and that is this: We win by completing an endurance track on a healthy horse. In truth, that is the standard for everyone, or should be.

History and Tradition

In 1996, at the WEC in Kansas, the President of our national federation walked through the Boy Scout camp and trailer park, which served as the village for the championship, and christened us "horsemen without homes". She was right, and we were honored by her observation.

Our endurance tradition of living with our horses began with the U.S. Calvary. Now ride sites in the U.S.A. are villages of 30 to 100 horse trailers, springing up for a weekend with barbecues and potluck/pitch-in family style feasts book-ending timber wolf fierce competition over 50 and 100 miles, or multi -day rides of 250 miles over 5 days.

The original U. S. Cavalry trials of the late 1800's sent horsemen out on 100 mile clover leafs with two to four remote checks (of sorts) and one central check point. The rider and horse were given 24 hours to complete and were required to carry a minimum of 100 kilos, rider and tack. They were required to present for inspection the following day at noon in full gear. They had to present "fit to continue" for another 20 or so miles, or they were failed. More recently, by 1954, the first Western States Trail Ride (Tevis) was following the traditions of the U.S. Cavalry. This was the beginning of endurance as we know it today. Veterinarians were included in this event to monitor the welfare of the horses. The organizers realized that it was not only morally right, but that society demanded that the welfare of the horse be paramount. It is from these early principles that the modern endurance rules were founded. We must never lose sight of that.

Even today, the ability of a rider to safely compete a horse, event after event and year after year, is how both great riders and great horses are judged in the U.S.A. Unfortunately, in international competition, those priorities seem to have been lost. Success is too often focused on the result of a single effort, an effort which may have been unfair to the horse, no matter the result.

While we know that no one wanted horses to die in Spain, we all stand indicted by their deaths. Unfortunately, these two deaths do not stand alone. They now draw increased attention to failures within our sport for which we are all responsible. These failures arise from acts of omission as well as commission. They also provide us an opportunity to recognize where we have strayed and to step up to do the "right" thing to repair the damage, even if it is not the easiest thing. All of our international endurance "salad" ingredients can and must contribute.

While each of us may believe we know the one true answer, it is unlikely we do, alone. However, let us begin to discuss what needs to be done, together.

I. F.E.I. QUALIFICATIONS & STANDARDS TO COMPETE

A. Experience

While experience predicts success, it must be enough experience, the right kind of experience, and the right combination of experience. The proposed criteria requiring completion of two championship distance events, only one of which as a rider-horse team, is not enough.

In order to nominate in the U.S.A. for an endurance championship, the rider must have completed five one-day 100-mile rides and 1,000 miles total. The horse must have completed two one-day 100-mile rides and 500 miles total. As a combination, they must have completed 1 one-day 100-mile ride together and 200 miles in combination. Remember, this is just to nominate. We established this criteria after deciding what we felt was the minimum experience necessary for a rider, horse, and horse/rider combination to safely compete at a championship level event. Other nations, with a long and current endurance tradition, have similar experience requirements.

We simply believe a rider's prior opportunities to experience what can go both right and wrong is a better predictor of future success than the most recent FEI proposed qualification criteria. We believe the FEI qualification criteria is based on too few miles and reliant upon the achievement of a speed standard once or twice. This formula allows for qualifications under conditions that potentially include optimal terrain and favorable environment, and will not necessarily predict success at a high profile event. Also, it allows no flexibility for the vast experience horses or riders may have gained in their national events run under the same standards as at FEI competitions.

Additionally, while HH Sheikh Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Maktoum as 2002 World Champion and Meg Wade as the leader of the Bronze Medal 2002 Team and 4th place individual can be applauded for their results in Spain, their results represent the exception not the general standard to be followed. Such results are unintentionally detrimental if they encourage others with less support or experience to do the same. The failure of a horse carrying a rider who does not know them well enough to recognize the signs of deterioration in time is grotesque and even criminal. (And, no one has to look back very far to see an example.)

One recommendation would be the following: Over the next 4 years (effective January 1, 2006) the FEI implement an experience standard for Championships, Series events and 4-Star events which will require horses and riders to demonstrate experience by earning 9 Stars in 2-3-4-Star events over the prior 4 years, of which 6 Stars must be earned in Championship distance events in the 24 months preceding the last date for nominated entries for the event for which eligibility is sought. During that same 24 month period, the horse and rider, as a combination, must earn six stars of which three stars must be at the championship distance. Stars would be earned according to the level of the events completed. Until that time, we need to discuss a graduated plan for qualifications..

This is one proposal. Even within the U.S.A., other views and proposals exist. This is far too important of an issue to only have a single view point considered. We must together discuss these issues. The Australians have created a graduation system that requires their riders to gain experience. The United States requires that many miles be completed in national rides before they can even nominate to compete at a championship event. Many other countries feel that meeting a certain speed standard once or twice is adequate. We need to discuss this and find common ground.

We also maintain that some consideration needs to be given national rides. FEI has not grown to a point in all countries such that a significant level of experience can be gained only at FEI events. It is better to grow FEI through inclusion of outside experience rather than setting policies that will hinder the growth of FEI competitions. We believe that more experience should be required in order for horses and riders to compete in FEI championships. We would like find a way to temper this with recognition of national experience in conjunction with FEI experience.

B. Automatic Sanctions Affecting Qualifications

Some consideration should also be given to mandating an automatic sanction in the event of any metabolic failure at a 4-Star event. (Consideration should be given to imposing penalties such as a 180 day suspension or, alternatively, a requirement of increased experience at 2 and 3-Star events without further failures before competing at another championship or 4-Star opportunity for the rider and the owner.) Sanctions must be flexibly increased as a hearing may warrant.

C. Leased Horses

In regard to leased horses, stricter sanctions and experience requirements would be useful in eliminating riders from high profile events who do not have the skills commensurate with the duty they are assuming. If that means fewer starters, so be it. (The alternative is to define the horse as a disposable good to be used for purposes of economic or personal greed, and that is not acceptable.) The FEI Endurance Code of Conduct mandates in all 10 of its rules that the well-being of the horse is the prime directive and focus of the discipline. It is time we implemented that code into the leasing of horses.

D. Access to FEI Events

Finally, the FEI should continue to urge its national federation members to make hosting national FEI rides easier, rather than so much more difficult or expensive than national discipline club sanctioned events. For the USA, and possibly Australia and others, this does create hardship in obtaining FEI experience despite the strength and traditions of our national discipline clubs whose rules are mirrored by the FEI. As well, with a tradition that goes back over a century and rules going back 50+ years, it is difficult to explain at home why all of our rides do not count.

Presently, FEI events in the USA are conducted over varying and technical terrain and in varying climatic conditions. Temperatures can change by 60 or more degrees (F) during a single event, and back again. Events are often conducted in humidity and temperatures of over 95 percent and 95+ degrees. Terrain changes can require climbs of over 7,500 feet and back down again. As well, our FEI events nationally are usually run in conjunction with regular AERC events. Only riders taking the next step to international competition register into the FEI event.

As a result of the above, a 12kph pace can be unfair in the USA, as often a winning ride may not meet qualifications. Further, while we are grateful for the 50% of finishers' exception, it excludes consideration of the fact that the lower 50% 0f FEI finishers may still be in the top 50% of overall event finishers. (Example: 40 finishers, of which only 8 are in the FEI event, but all of whom finished in the top 50% overall. Should only 4 qualify, assuming no one completed at 12 kph?) We suggest an additional qualification of 140% of the winning FEI time. This is being tested for the 2003 Pan American Championships (Considering the WEG speed requirement was waived due to weather, no such flexibility would have been granted outside the WEG. This only serves to make this proposal more compelling.)

Any proposals for greater experience or altered qualification standards also must be graduated into the rules, possibly over a 4 year period.

II. PACE, STAGES and HOLDS

However, we also understand how frustrating it can be to face or observe uneven officiating and the misapplication of rules and standards, or the appearance of it. It is bad enough to have it happen at home. It is embarrassing, or worse, at the international championship level. This is not an accusation of intentional wrongdoing or favoritism. It is a simple matter of courage, competence and eventual trust.

Vets cannot be hamstrung by rules requiring or attempting to require the objectification of every standard for judging a horse. Ultimately, that leads even the best vet to let horses go on when they should not, because they do not fit within a narrow objective criteria. That means we need more endurance educated and endurance experienced vets. They must be given time and opportunity to become familiar with each other, other officials, team staffs and riders and horses. More time on the grounds for all.

Further, like all of the officials, the technical delegate and the OC must not be rigid or threatened by input from others. (You are all invited to the 2003 PAC to see a demonstration.)

A. Longer Holds

Longer holds give vets the opportunity to thoroughly discuss the welfare of the horse. It also gives the horse a longer time to rest and to replenish itself. Too often, vet checks are simply a mad dash to get through the gate because of limited hold time (ie.time for the vet exam, time to walk to team box and to the exit gate, time for eating and drinking, time to saddle, time to electrolyte, time used for an exit check, etc.). . All of us know the math for a 30 or 40 minute hold. It provides little opportunity for rest for the horse. There should be one or two full hour holds in every 160 km race regardless of the media or the desire for some officials to go home. This is a welfare of the horse issue.

B. Shorter Stages

Criticism is leveled at shorter stages, resulting in more checks, for several reasons.

First, the more often you see the vet the greater your chance of retirement. That is a trust issue. However, it is also wrong. When a horse is being seen more often, the vet knows it has more rest opportunities to recover from early mistakes or bad luck (ie.: not eating early due to excitement or adverse weather impact are just two examples). The vet knows there are more opportunities to observe the horse and rider and give them the benefit of the doubt that the rules require be given. When the checks are fewer and spread farther, the vet has little choice but to become more arbitrary and rigid in the application of his or her evaluation.

Second, riders will simply sprint check to check. As it stands now, they do so anyway on these generally flat and non-technical courses. The way to vary pace and require more "riding" is to: implement a standard for more technical course design with changes in terrain and elevation, footing, and trail conditions, forcing a more varied pace. This would reduce some of the repetitive concussion and use injuries. It also would establish a ride rhythm which would allow the horses to recover at slower paces.

Thirdly, shorter stages and longer holds are seen as giving an advantage to teams or riders with larger crews. In theory, this is true. In practice, the number of hands in the kettle can often be more of a hindrance. However, it also can be managed by limiting access to the gate and immediate recovery areas to the rider, one crew per horse, one vet per horse and the chef and assistant chef. Shorter stages would also decrease reliance on "road crews" which can be difficult to police or control. Let us make this sport more in the fashion of horse and rider against the trail versus the pit stop derby the sport has become.

As persons responsible (riders, owners, chefs, team vets, and federations) we are obligated to act first to ensure the health and welfare of our equine partner. The goal is the horse's future ability to perform athletically. We should seek more, not less, vet and ride official involvement. We should require more of ourselves as riders and staffs. We should design a sport that helps us manage those responsibilities.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In the beginning, we suggested how it was important to clearly define what we considered "success" in international endurance competition. The FEI rules continue the goals of the original US Cavalry trials: successful completion of a healthy and fit rider and horse.

Additionally, there is a desire and dream for our sport to be considered as an Olympic discipline. Unfortunately, despite our many advantages, today we are not ready. However, certainly we can be, but not for the Olympic dream alone. Instead, we should be dreaming it for the good of our horses and horses everywhere. We should be dreaming it for the lessons endurance can pass on to others, whether they ride or not.

No other international sport offers the democratic opportunity of endurance. The number of countries participating is truly overwhelming. No other sport pits women against men where the women may hold a numerical advantage.

Endurance combines exactly what audiences seek when well-presented, the ability of seemingly normal athletes to combine their determination and technical and thoughtful skill with the grace and athletic beauty of 1,000 pound athletes with competitive hearts as large as the great outdoors. Their reliance upon us to do right by them is unmatched in other disciplines. It is natural and it is timeless. All of our histories abound with stories of the link to horses, which demonstrate our humanity, and their spirit.

We have an opportunity to build that endurance sport, treating our horses as partners and not as disposable commodities. We must never forget that the welfare of horses is first. Now we have that opportunity.

Thank You from ALL of US,

Tony Benedetti: Co-Chair of the USA-Eq Endurance, Chair of the USA-Eq High Performance Committees, FEI Ride Official, and Rider;

Nancy Elliot, DVM: Chair of the Joint USA-Eq/USET Credential Committee and FEI Vet, and Rider;

Valerie Kanavy: Co-Chair of the USA-Eq Endurance Committee and Vice Chair of the USET Active Competitors' Committee, and 2-time World Endurance Champion;

Mary Lutz: Director of Endurance for the USET;

Sue Phillips: Event Manager, FEI Ride Official, and Rider; and,

Edited by: A. Priesz, Jr., Esq.: VP of Endurance for the USET, Chair of the USET Endurance Committee and 2001-2 USA Endurance Chef d' Equipe.