History’s truths largely depend on the person telling the “truth”. Weren’t the “established order” somebody else’s different thinkers ?
LOL I just wondered if Robert Gibbs has a thing for endurance riding 
[QUOTE=mp;4288360]
Corollary to Godwin’s law, anyone?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. :yes:
For The Sake of the Horse
I am new to this forum. I have not been to the Tevis, but I know many people and horses who have been and many other people who dream of it.
It’s obvious that everyone on this thread cares about horses and has war stories. We all know horses that have been injured running in pasture and even standing in stalls–this is not that situation.
In response to the suggestion below that “no one is forced” to compete, actually the horses are. They may enjoy it, they may even love it, but they don’t have a choice. When we put horses in situations we create, we owe them due care.
The Tevis website should acknowledge this accident as it would if there had been a human death (not on a “Google Group” page linked to the site), and the investigation should be an open, outside investigation on the same level. The horse and owner deserve it and so does the reputation of the Tevis.
I think we can all agree there is a difference between an organized ride and a weekend ride with friends. No one who rides a horse wants to live a “risk-free” life (even if it were possible), but when things go wrong, the responsible thing is to look at what happened.
[QUOTE=Alec;4292560]
I am new to this forum. I have not been to the Tevis, but I know many people and horses who have been and many other people who dream of it.
It’s obvious that everyone on this thread cares about horses and has war stories. We all know horses that have been injured running in pasture and even standing in stalls–this is not that situation.
In response to the suggestion below that “no one is forced” to compete, actually the horses are. They may enjoy it, they may even love it, but they don’t have a choice. When we put horses in situations we create, we owe them due care.
The Tevis website should acknowledge this accident as it would if there had been a human death (not on a “Google Group” page linked to the site), and the investigation should be an open, outside investigation on the same level. The horse and owner deserve it and so does the reputation of the Tevis.
I think we can all agree there is a difference between an organized ride and a weekend ride with friends. No one who rides a horse wants to live a “risk-free” life (even if it were possible), but when things go wrong, the responsible thing is to look at what happened.[/QUOTE]
Tevis has acknowledged this incident. ( I call it an incident so far, because I don’t think it’s been decided it was an accident or there was a causal factor that could have been avoided- as of yet since that will come in due course during the AERC inquiry) I believe somewhere in this thread, the Tevis’s managements letter is posted in fact.
Most of the communication about rides/events/happenings/incidents etc is conducted on the Ridecamp email chat. If you are interested in seeing active commentaries etc, you may wish to sign up for it, it can be found at www.endurance.net and it is a very active endurance rider community.
The AERC also investigates all deaths, so that will be posted at some point on the AERC site- they all are, but as all investigations, in any organization, they take time to get through the due process >publication.
I understand your statement that horses don’t choose to do endurance. They don’t choose to do any horse discipline. That is purely an emotional statement, either for or against the sport of endurance.
I have gone so far as to say, this horse is mentally & physically suited/unsuited to do endurance. But whether they ‘like’ or ‘choose’ to do endurance isn’t a valid point.
I also doubt AERC would even have the manpower to inspect all trails before a competition. The costs would be enormous, as well as the logistics to do so. Could it be something we as a community would like to put forth as a welcome thing that we want as ride managers and riders. It’s worth a thought, and in fact might be possible, if we went so far as to have a regional AERC rep in every region who could be capable or responsible for this.
But then such an inspection becomes ‘subjective’ or could be. What one AERC rep might consider a valid acceptable trail, another might not. As trails are very regional. The trails I compete on, might give someone from another part of the country a heart attack.
No, NO, NO!!!
In endurance riding, just like any other equine sport, there are levels of difficultly. Tevis is a VERY “technical” trail. If the AERC ever gets around to rating the difficulty of their rides, Tevis will be one of the MOST difficult, and largely because of the terrain.
As many others have pointed out, a trail laid out on land NOT owned by the AERC or ride management (which would be 95%+ of the AERC rides) is not under RM/AERC control.
And yes, almost anything that is “tough” can be dangerous. It’s a flip of the coin.
Now, I don’t have this year’s numbers, but it’s not unusual for Tevis to have 200 starters. About 100 of them finish. So that means 100 horse & rider teams traversed that very same spot , but only one fell. To me that pretty much tells me the trail is NOT out of control dangerous. Again, look over the history of the ride. Fifty+ years, so some 4000 +/- horse/rider pairs have completed the ride. How many have died from falling? 2? 3?
I would be willing to bet that somewhere in the USA every year there is at least ONE horse/mule that dies from a fall in the mtns what with all the packers, hunters & such out there.
Maybe we should just ban mountains?
Just last year, the Tevis ride Board of Governors decided to cancel the ride due to the California fires. Here is the statement from the Board president explaining the decision:
“It was a difficult decision,” reported Western States Trail Foundation (WSTF) President Tom Christofk. “But after in-depth discussion with the U.S. Forest Service, we have decided that any level of risk was not appropriate. The Forest Service has graciously offered us some options for re-routing around the now-closed Foresthill Road, but with that factor, coupled with current air-quality issues and the ongoing fire situation, we opted to make the conservative decision of cancelling the ride. Protecting the safety and health of the horses and people involved with this historic event takes precedence over everything else.”
So, the Board, in discussion with the Forest Service, considered re-routing the ride around a road that was closed due to fire. The Board, in its wisdom, decided that “any level of risk was not appropriate” under the circumstances" because the “safety and health of the horses and people involved” trumped all other considerations.
In that case, “tough” was judged too risky.
[QUOTE=rainechyldes;4286692]
The mare stumbled, backed up to recover, and fell.
I have an email from Ashley over the incident, (Skip’s daughter- who was there) as well as one from Skip- both of which I don’t wish to put up, since they are very emotional emails, and I don’t think it’s right to put them here. (they were not sent to not just me alone, but to a group of several mutual friends,)As well as the segment I posted very early in the thread from one of our club riders who was right behind Skip.
I’m unsure how much more eyewitness one can get.[/QUOTE]
I keep thinking of an episode of Monsterquest (History Channel), I once saw. In part of the episode, where they were looking for Sasquatch in Washington State are, two experienced riders were taking their horses up a steep slope and the rear horse tripped. It was a trip that any horse could do anywhere - like twisting an ankle randomly. The difference was the rocky terrain. Well, that simple trip sent the horse rolling part of the way down the slope. The horse got up fine (rider fell off/ejected himself when the horse started going down) and both men decided not to continue up the hill.
This is an experienced rider (I don’t think he was a park ranger, but they spent a lot of time in that forest) and an experienced horse to the area. These things happen, unfortunately they do.
I was initially shocked at how little someone needs to do to ‘qualify’ (I use the term loosely since it appears it is Vet recommendations, not actual requirements-judging from a previous post) for the Tevis. I could do two 50M races a year for three years, over here on the East Coast where it is cooler and the terrain is much more forgiving, and be ‘qualified’ for the Tevis. Then I looked at the death statistics. VERY few (two out of seven one year, three out of eight another year) on 100M races and most deaths are due to colic (rider/owner error in not paying attention to horse).
I do think this is a tragedy and I also think this was probably an unfortunate accident. It should be investigated to be sure that something can be done to make sure that trail is as safe as possible.
I do not think this is the case here, but my thoughts on the ‘qualifications’ are that while people are generally going to do what’s best for their horse, you are going to get the idiots out there that will give the sport a bad name and stricter requirements are a good idea. You can bring a fit thoroughbred, fresh from short distance racing and say he’s endurance sound - all the vet can see is a fit horse, standing infront of him, not necessarily a horse with stamina to finish an endurance race, so yeah…I am sure vets do the best they can, but they are not omniscient.
[QUOTE=Ajierene;4299756]
I keep thinking of an episode of Monsterquest (History Channel), I once saw. In part of the episode, where they were looking for Sasquatch in Washington State are, two experienced riders were taking their horses up a steep slope and the rear horse tripped. It was a trip that any horse could do anywhere - like twisting an ankle randomly. The difference was the rocky terrain. Well, that simple trip sent the horse rolling part of the way down the slope. The horse got up fine (rider fell off/ejected himself when the horse started going down) and both men decided not to continue up the hill.
This is an experienced rider (I don’t think he was a park ranger, but they spent a lot of time in that forest) and an experienced horse to the area. These things happen, unfortunately they do.[/QUOTE]
I know that horse and rider, and I can tell you, that is his best horse. That horse has been all over the country in some rough terrain, and is known for being incredibly sure-footed and sane. Proof that s*&# happens even to the best, and little accidents can turn into big accidents when the terrain allows no margin for error. Luckily he and the horse are both fine.
Anyway, I’m not an endurance rider, but as a horseperson I see this as a tragic accident. It should be investigated as per the policies of the organization, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason for wailing and gnashing of teeth and calling for an overhaul of the sport.
I agree with Sithly; investigate this tragedy and move on. Unfortunately, horses have a way of getting themselves hurt at even the best of times. Every rider who enters the Tevis Cup ride is well aware of the dangers involved for both themself and their horse; it’s the risk you take, plain and simple. Would we like for there to be happy endings for everyone on the ride? Absolutely. But in real life, stuff happens through no one’s fault except maybe one tiny slip of a hoof.
[QUOTE=Alec;4299215]
Just last year, the Tevis ride Board of Governors decided to cancel the ride due to the California fires. Here is the statement from the Board president explaining the decision:
So, the Board, in discussion with the Forest Service, considered re-routing the ride around a road that was closed due to fire. The Board, in its wisdom, decided that “any level of risk was not appropriate” under the circumstances" because the “safety and health of the horses and people involved” trumped all other considerations.
In that case, “tough” was judged too risky.[/QUOTE]
You are taking this out of context, and trying to make an argument for trail safety. Not even close. The ‘too risky’ part was that they didn’t wish to reroute due to fire and fire hazards. It was not due to the trail itself, but other external conditions. This had no bearing whatsoever on the trail itself. We have an 8000 hectare fire in this city right now, I haven’t been riding too far out on my normal trails because of FIRE issues, too risky. The trails themselves are fine.
[QUOTE=Ajierene;4299756]
I was initially shocked at how little someone needs to do to ‘qualify’ (I use the term loosely since it appears it is Vet recommendations, not actual requirements-judging from a previous post) for the Tevis. I could do two 50M races a year for three years, over here on the East Coast where it is cooler and the terrain is much more forgiving, and be ‘qualified’ for the Tevis. Then I looked at the death statistics. VERY few (two out of seven one year, three out of eight another year) on 100M races and most deaths are due to colic (rider/owner error in not paying attention to horse).
I do think this is a tragedy and I also think this was probably an unfortunate accident. It should be investigated to be sure that something can be done to make sure that trail is as safe as possible.
I do not think this is the case here, but my thoughts on the ‘qualifications’ are that while people are generally going to do what’s best for their horse, you are going to get the idiots out there that will give the sport a bad name and stricter requirements are a good idea. You can bring a fit thoroughbred, fresh from short distance racing and say he’s endurance sound - all the vet can see is a fit horse, standing infront of him, not necessarily a horse with stamina to finish an endurance race, so yeah…I am sure vets do the best they can, but they are not omniscient.[/QUOTE]
Well :
The Tevis has some level of qualification, when speaking of this,(the ride itself in fact, it’s also worth noting that very few endurance rides that are not FEI level have any qualifications to do them, just sign up and go. Tevis management is actually ahead of the curve in fact, in requesting qualification, as it is not an international level ride.
I can’t think of any competing endurance rider who thinks Tevis is a cake walk. Most think pretty seriously about entering that level of trail and competition. So to make judgements that the any Bob , Joe and Harry all just decide one day 'Hey I 'll do Tevis!" without any type of true consideration I feel is probably doing the majority of endurance riders an injustice.
The AERC always investigates endurance injuries/deaths/protests - that is what we pay our dues for.
Trail safety is not something we as riders/ or managers slough off and shrug away. It is imperative. But things do happen. I can even present my own example.
Several years ago, doing a 50, riding one of my backup horses. Narrow trail, but perfectly flat. Good trail conditions(early in the race- bout mile 12, he was not even fatigued, this is a good solid trail horse- this horse out of nowhere lost his back end (extended trot) stumbled, I flew off over his shoulder and rolled down a 5 ft incline through some rose bushes. He somehow managed to fall, recover and tumbled down the same slope after me, jumping over me as I rolled. In twisting for all he was worth to avoid me, he fell again, and broke his sesamoid bone in his left fore.
Now the trail was perfectly ‘safe’ it was a horse/rider crackup that had nothing to do with the trail in of itself.
I’m not defending that ‘accidents happen’ so we should just shrug and say ‘so what’- I’m merely presenting that even in the best circumstances sh*t can happen.
As for vets, endurance vets are usually mentored and trained by other endurance vets before they beginning ‘head vetting’ rides. There are specific criteria and things they look at. I’m not going to explain them all, they can be found in the AERC handbooks.
Also you’ll find most endurance riders will have a fairly open communication with the vets about issues, what they are seeing/feeling on the horse. Vets are not perfect, but they do a damn good job gauging horses on rides. They know what to look for, and what to expect.
you might get a fit racehorse past the vet check before the ride, but I’d be surprised to see it get past an endurance vet on the next vet checks during/post ride without some serious questions being asked of the rider. I’ve seen experienced 100 miler endurance horses get pulled at the first vet check in Tevis after only the first section of trail. Just saying.
