|
|
 |
|
#29
08-14-2008, 04:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Obviously some sports have markedly more physical danger than others, riding horses certainly is one of them. But - many parents haven't got a clue what's going on. Susie is 10, and this week after watching equestrian on TV, tells Mom and Dad she loves horses, and wants to, "grow up to be an Olympic rider". Dad has lots of money, so next week Susie is at her first riding lesson, two months from now Susie owns a horse, and three years from now Susie is competing with two very fancy new horses at a level that she really has been rushed to. If her first trainer was sensible and old school - and doesn't let Susie ride over her head or her horses abilities - the parents yank the kid from that trainer, complain they've wasted $500,000, and go to another trainer willing to say, "No problem! We'll put you on the national scene and Susie will win!" That's an accident certainly waiting to happen. No letting Susie's natural "talent" and years of practice as a rider dictate if she's top caliber - you can buy your way into it. It's not just the essential inherent nature of the sport, to which yes, danger is a concern - it's also the people participating, and perhaps to a far greater extent, as they control the rules of the sport. What happened to roads and tracks? Steeplechase? Why won't they pass more restrictive qualifying initiatives? Because people want it now, and they feel they "deserve" to compete at certain levels, whether they or their horse are fully prepared for it or not. Not earn it by ability and years of work. And no matter how many safety initiatives happen in the sport (helmets, vests, vet checks, changing jumps, etc) humans will still be there.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts 
|
Threaded Mode