In a message dated 96-12-15 21:56:20 EST, you write:
< First, let me note with amusement your request to send only positive
< responses to AERC and negative ones to yourself! I hope the membership at
< large is critical enough to catch that implicit bias in response. Rest
< assured AERC will get my negative response also.
I think you are confusing the terms positive-negative responses with
support-non support with regards to an issue. If you'll note it states
"negative responses or requests for further information". Although possibly
not well drafted, the attempt was to elicit comments that my be negative in
nature concerning our event from the membership IN ADDITION TO ANY RESPONSES
THAT THEY SEND TO AERC. To imply any attempt by the VTC to "skew" the results
is ridiculous as the VTC is indentified in the mailing as a principle with
regards to the questions at hand and to imply that the membership is being
"duped" into sending comments favoring our position to AERC and those not in
favor to us is, in my personal opinion, a disservice to the intelligence of
the members of AERC. Additionally, ALL responses to the message you recieved
are CC'd to AERC anyhow, so there is no need to discuss this point any
further.
>Secondly, let me list our qualifications for response. My family has
>participated successfully in this sport for over 20 years. Our collective
>completion rate in the last 10 years is over 90%. That includes several
>Tevis rides, several ROCs, and over 20 Old Dominion completions among the
>four of us. So we know what we're talking about.
There is absolutely no need for anyone to "qualify" their responses regarding
the message you recieved. We will gratefully accept any responses from anyone
with the same zeal and interest we have extended to you, from seasoned
competitor to those newly involved. In our camp everyone's opinion counts, no
matter who they think they are.
Congratulations on your success over the years, its' nice to know another
family has been involved in this wonderful sport almost as long as ours.
>Personally, I will never support your efforts because of this statement you
>made: "This event is being put on by endurance RACERS for endurance
>RACERS." This sport was never meant to be a race. It is a competition
>between you and your horse against that trail on that day. But too many
>people are competing against each other, and the greed that this type of
>competition instills will kill this sport (and possibly some horses), as it
>seems to already be doing. Wendell Robie rode 100 miles in one day just
for
>the challenging of accomplishing the feat on a horse he believed in. It is
>a shame that our society today cannot be self-satisfied with
>accomplishment--we must have trinkets instead. But we will spend our
$5,000
>trinkets and our prize trailers will rust, and then where will we be?
We'll
>shoot ol' lame Dobbin and pull a youngster out of the field to run for more
>transient things that won't last. Shame on us. Shame on you.
Sorry you take issue with this, I have never been ashamed to describe
"Endurance Racing" to others unfamiliar with the sport. I have been both and
endurance "rider" and an endurance "racer". I will continue to be both
depending on, the horse I'm using, the event I have entered and how we both
feel that day. Sometimes I ride, sometimes I race, sometimes the trail,
occasionally previous times, and, on occasion, another party(s).
I would expect anyone who felt strongly that this is an incorrect way to
approach or promote this sport would have the ethics to refuse acceptance of
trinkets such as top-ten buckles, etc... that place emphasis of completion as
compared to the field of competitors, or attend any endurance "ride" which
promotes itself as a "race", such as the Race of Champions.
As for how competitors spend their winnings, I would encourage them to take
the deduction and donate it to the wonderful works of the Virginia Trail
Conservatory, Inc.
> Dr. Brenda Ratcliff Baird
> We understand you are trying to promote and bring commercial
>recogniton and support money into the sport. Who wouldn't want to have the
>money and media recognition of grand prix jumping or thoroughbred racing,
>but take a look at the consequences of those sports: broken down, drugged
>horses covered up and hauled away so that the spectators will not get
upset,
>and deadly insurance scams to make money on unprofitable jumpers. Do you
>REALLY believe the endurance population is immune to these problems?
>Remember the old saying "money corrupts". Your letter is little more than
a
>propaganda ploy to curb the assault that the "technologically literate" are
>inflicting upon your scheme. We are the silent majority, but I believe you
>will hear us.
I will hear anything you desire to communicate. Your point is well taken and
I would counter that money is already being given, and will continue to be
given. I would suggest we extrapolate from the experience of persons such as
yourself and identify the shortcomings you have pointed out in other equine
sports and work to prevent their appearance in ours. As for your inference as
to the purpose of our letter being a "propaganda ploy to curb the assault..."
and I thought we were trying to elicit member opinion regarding the issues
published in our message, but imagine, I had loftier goals and was involved
in a "scheme". I am very impressed with myself.
I think you read too much into things.
>Kevin B. Baird
Note: over 1200 were e-mailed, kevin and one other party took issue with the
negative responses/ positive responses statement. Evidently the other 1198
have as yet to agree that we were attempting to "control" the direction with
which they sent their responses.
Tracy Ingram