Know Thyself

Know Thyself

I do understand the facts and sentiment driving Patti Stedman’s recent essay “Enough is Enough” as well as the many similar statements and calls to action. There are some subtle but very important distinctions that are consistently being missed in this kind of perspective.   There is important background that keeps getting swept under the rug during the distraction of such rhetoric.
I have long been critical of the way AERC submitted to FEI/USET(USEF) demands in the very beginning. The AERC was once an organization with a boarder-blind, multi-national(continental) identity and a global outlook. Its influence expanded rapidly from its origins in California because of the broad demand for a standardized set of rules and record keeping, as many different events inspired by the integrated veterinary control system of Western States (Tevis Cup) began to propagate across North America.
In the early expansion of the discipline it was recognized that standardized rule and recording of performance, applied over as wide an area as possible, was a vital foundation for equestrian sciences and particularly of maintaining a vibrant and healthy gene pool. This consistency in competition also enhanced the disciplines appeal as a sport with global potential. This in turn promoted greater interest in quality breeding and research, so to this extent the economic development of the competitive sport and supporting industries was also in the best long-term interest of equines. We had a very healthy form of globalization underway, and the AERC was the principal supplier of rules and recording standards behind it all.
Then after some initial resistance, the AERC submitted to FEI/USET assertion that the AERC should be a single nation governing body, thus subordinate in the FEI’s INTERNATIONAL system. In complying with this externally imposed definition of itself, the AERC disrespected its non-USA members by forming only one committee to interface with one national federation, creating unequal representation among its membership. “International” is not the same as “global”. International competition is mock wars between sovereigns. In this environment the athletes, and especially their mounts, are inherently little more than solder pawns of a sovereign power.
Those sovereign powers may be autocracies seeking to popularize and secure the power of it’s nobles, or they may be a democratic representation of a million couch potatoes looking to see a new type a sensational sports drama, like watching NASCAR to see the wrecks.  Either way, the populist influence is not good for horses.  For each person that is excited by the drama of the “thrill of victory and the agony of defeat”, there many more that are appalled at having horses involved in such human follies.  Since the most vocal are only equipped with reference that is supplied to them in the form of the anthropomorphizing caricatures of popular media, they really can’t be expected to clamor for any solution more complex than an empathy driven demand for complete shutdown of the sport. Empathy is not the same as compassion (1), so in the end, horses will suffer more in this outcome too.
However big a juggernaut FEI is globally today, there is good reason to question how much longer the world will continue support any animal sports business model that must leverage nationality as the core of its power structure. If the FEI doesn’t undertake major efforts toward a very fundamental change soon it will be to late for this Titanic of an organization of maneuver sustainably into the future. We should all hope that the FEI will have an epiphany soon, but we should do more than just complain about the FEI or withdraw from interaction altogether and wait for it. There is much that can be done to create positive change with or without FEI cooperation. We all need to prepare for the void that will eventually be created if the FEI does not wake up, and in doing to so we create the strongest incentive of all for FEI to awaken from its nostalgic slumber and change.
Our horses can benefit immensely by global standards in endurance tests, but they have suffered enough in the quirky wars and political games of man. In learning how to support horses more globally, without dragging them into our petty tribal rivalries and politically stacked bureaucracies, we will exercise wisdom that is important for our own welfare.
It’s impossible to accomplish anything globally without paying basic respects to the various legal structures of the nations that quilt the planet. However, it is not essential that the business models be based on license to economic monopolies in each sovereign, or against governance entities that are represented in several sovereigns.
In summary, standardization and globalization of practices in sports is of vital importance to the welfare of equines, but we should be critical about the degree to which nationalism needs to be a part of globalization.
Whenever the AERC posts new proclamations about what it dislikes about the FEI or International competition, what it “cannot tolerate” the FEI is allowing to happen, that it should not ratify the terms the FEI has drafted for it, that it will stop diplomatic relations and withdraw into its own more limited domain; the AERC is effectively defining itself in subordinate relation to the FEI and international competition.
It is unfortunate that this FEI-reactive definition of its own identity has also resulted in other unhealthy changes in the AERC community. In the absence of popular understanding of details behind the issues in international competition, there arose a popular rejection of many aspects of the pursuit of excellence itself.  Notable exceptions to this popular dismissal of achievement in the AERC have largely centered around the completion of mileage and the softening of reward standards that enhance the enlistment of new entry level membership.   It is no coincidence that this pattern aligns with AERC’s own limited business model and its most immediate avenues of cash flow.
In its own way, the AERC has created its own unhealthy bias toward a very constrained scope in the pursuit of excellence. This has also depressed its support of the economy of associated industries and endeavors. While the U.S. economy has been blamed for the recession of participation and the withering of our major breeders,  the same activities have been expanding in other nations with weaker economies.   This economically oppressive and short-sighted outlook has impacted the character of the new applications for membership, disenchanting youth with aspirations toward long range, full time commitment to the discipline; and attracting older, recreationally oriented participants who shared in the limited view of excellence.   Thus, the AERC fell into a classic self-fulfillment feed-back loop of populism, complete with its oppression of creativity and achievement,  and the declining spiral dynamics of a pursuit of mediocrity.
There is a better way. There is a way for the AERC to become more honorable and resolute in its mission, and to respectfully allow other organizations the opportunity to decide if they would like to interact on AERC’s terms. I will point out how the AERC can re-secure and even expand its own identity, independent of what is going on in the world elsewhere, and still be diplomatically open for contact, ready to cooperate with change for good.
The world needs examples governance organization that endeavors to EXCEED what is available today. We need governance that has the capacity to be objective, self-examining and creative, such that it never stops looking to improve itself. We need to continuously refine best practices. We need to support the pursuit of excellence in our systems of governing and the definitions we doctrines we base them upon, just as we support the broad pursuit of excellence in horses and horsemanship.
To do this the AERC needs to begin by becoming precise in its understanding of itself, and more explicit in its projection of its mission.  We must learn to do better than to quote oxymoron and other rhetoric that is in abject conflict with the written word of the AERC’s own by-laws and rules.
The AERC needs to resolve many conflicts of logic in its policies. We need to ask questions of ourselves such as: Why does the AERC continue to maintain by-laws that prohibit it from sponsoring anything but races when so many of its participants do not want to race? If we really take this thought exercise seriously and contemplate how we might correct this conflict, it unravels a long string of non-sensical affronts of logic.      (I’ll save further expansion in this area for another time)



Say what you mean, mean what you say

Would not a rose by any other name…….
We shouldn’t depend on creating our own definitions of words in defiance of Webster’s dictionary to explain ourselves. This only make us appear less credible in the end. It doesn’t need to be this way. We can fix this and be better off for it.
As I just indicated, many of the changes that need to be undertaken must begin with a formal revision of AERC by-laws. For the most part, the by-laws have been a useful document, but many clauses that seemed appropriate or harmless in 1972 don’t accurately reflect the long term best interest or values of the membership; and the environment of the distance riding discipline today.
We came into the quirky rhetoric of defining the races that AERC was formed to promote as “Endurance Rides” because of the nature of competition for market share with competitive trail ride organizations that once dominated the distance riding scene in America.   The win the most new members AERC needed to capitalize on its races potential for excitement and yet appear as temperate as competitive trail rides when needed.  The AERC adopted a somewhat disingenuous approach for playing both sides at once to the market, attracting potential members away from competitive trail riding and in into its projection that its all-race catalog was a complete entry level to elite program for a distance riding discipline.   It exclusively offered more entertaining and exciting races but also promoted the use of language to describe those races by more general terms which rhetorically avoided explicit association with the history and potential hedonism of “jackpot racing”.  People then could actively support racing by their participation dollars, and simultaneously distance their egos from association with any heinous behavior with their rhetoric.   How convenient!   Thus trite, misdirecting and inaccurate statements became the norm.   The practice was an immediate marketing success for the AERC, but it has left us with a deeply embedded conflict that tortures the soul of the discipline everywhere to this day.
Take a moment to look at the AERC by-laws at 4.01(a).
Let’s examine the language more honestly for what it is, and more precisely according to commonly accepted definitions of the words of English language. A race is an event where the winner is the fastest to complete the course. It is an indication of the self-fooling disingenuity of the day that the by-laws went to the bother of attempting to redefine the more general term “Endurance Ride” to be the most commonly applied one to the AERC’s exclusively race events.   An “Endurance Race” is a type of “Endurance Ride”.  There was no need to attempt to make a specific definition of the common words “Endurance Ride” in the by-laws except to play rhetoric games and discourage use of the more precise and accurately transparent description of AERC Endurance Races.
The AERC should change its by-laws to accommodate the support of other distance riding formats in which the winner is not necessarily the fastest to complete the course. We should especially be sure to support events were there is no “winner” at all, just academic grades. The by-laws currently regulate that the only type of endurance ride the AERC sanctions is a race. This makes the mantras “to finish is to win” and “it’s a ride not a race” just non-sensical and deceptive statements in conflict with the facts of the organization’s legal definitions.
If the AERC will free itself of this counterproductive, self-imposed, limitation of only sponsoring races, we open the possibly of creating entry classes at AERC events with rules and scorings that are more specifically tailored to those that want to ride in a structured event but are not interested in participating in race.   This would allow us to honor the integrity of the competitive result of races as a guide for better breeding and a measure of equestrian skill, while providing non-racing participants a more productive experience as well. Most particularly, this can allow is to construct more effective platforms for young horses and neophyte riders to learn and grow. We can create event formats were the resulting scoring is more of academic in nature.
There are times when a race, performed in the proper reverence and for the pursuit of knowledge, is the ultimate format to discriminate and rank the most advanced participants. This knowledge is of vital importance to the equine species. It is our best opportunity to return a long-range positive contribution.
Other non-race formats have better potential to carefully nurture the early development of that reverence and respect for knowledge, and the respect for the individual equines we partner with in that quest. Trainers with this experience and insight will realize that the same academic formats are also the best tools for careful development of potential endurance race athletes.
We should support many formats of distance riding. Each will have a place and proportion in the most effective distance riding and endurance testing program. The discipline cannot reach its full potential without unified governance of the whole.
This unification concept will result in overlap with the domains of other distance riding organizations, particularly those which the AERC has previously competed with for memberships and participations. There may be opportunities for merger that would resolve this unnecessary and counterproductive competition between distance riding organizations.

How could good people let this Happen?

While we are “under the hood” and going through the process of editing the by-laws, we should also consider other past due updates. Most notably is the glaring conflict with the nature of human interaction in civic groups. The AERC’s highest order body, its Board of Directors, is unwieldy and dysfunctional large.   This is at the core of how otherwise intelligent people make the kind of collective miss-steps I just described and why we have such a hard time correcting our errors.
Humans perform their most efficient and creative work in smaller groups. In groups of 5-7 we tend to have enough minds to field and develop new ideas efficiently, and the group is broad-based enough democratically to keep the wildest schemes in check. Larger groups become more democratic still, but also more creatively constrictive, as there is more propensity to form coalition against an innovative or complex proposal. By the time a decision-making body gets to be larger than 13 it becomes much more likely that a sophisticated proposal can’t be adequately conveyed to enough people to survive rebuttal. It is much easier to kill a good idea than to present one.  The resulting intellectual constipation proves the axiom that “none of us is as dumb as all of us”.
The AERC board of directors, its ultimate decision body according to by-law, is 26 voting members.   If we could populate it with 26 Einstein’s we would still have trouble getting the most mindful and creative thinking to pass through this gauntlet.
It’s also a common tendency of a primary authority group this large to have trouble delegating and respecting advisements from committees.  There is always at least one person on a 26-member board with enough personal interest in a matter to pull its detailed discussion into the board of directors, thus usurping any charter a committee might have been authorized to carry. I’ve watched many hard-working Presidents do their best to exercise the full potential of committees, but it is difficult to keep committees populated at all when the wind is so often taken from their sails.
The decision-making body is then so large and so democratic that decisions are seldom different from what could be more efficiently resulted by taking a poll on Facebook. This may seem like a triumph of public will, but groups acting with this much populist democracy always turn polarized, unstable in seeing through long term plans, unable to grasp innovation, and ultimately become self-defeating. Therefore, we must work to create and evolve appropriate structures of a representative republic, to keep this self-defeating tendency in balance. Times always change, successful evolution of institutional structure is the key. If this sounds like a familiar problem, it is.
The solution in this instance is to construct a new hierarchy of power, a power structure that breaks decision makers into smaller groups in a prescribed pattern. For example, this might be with a modest sized board of directors-at-large at the top of the structure, with several regional directorships under the primary group but with certain by-law prescribed powers that can’t be usurped by the upper body. This is just one example. I welcome all to think about this concept and make other proposals of structure.



Once we have completed such a re-invention of the AERC, when the organization has a less self-conflicted and more functional definition, the relationship pattern with other organizations like the FEI will inherently change. The root issues we have been witnessing in international endurance are the same ones we have been struggling with in America since before the FEI adopted endurance racing and continue to struggle with today.    The FEI simply absorbed the AERC’s flawed projection that a progression of increasing distances of racing constitutes a complete distance riding program and injected it with the steroid of the international circus’s pomp and prestige.   The AERC created the original dysfunctional concept, the FEI only amplified and broadcasted it.   It made the defects of our own creation glare back at us like never before.   That’s why we are so sensitive, so defensive.
Our “we are not like you” identity proclamations won’t be necessary when the AERC is freed from the present internal conflicts of identity and able to focus more on its own pursuit of excellence.   When the AERC’s mission can be clearly and accurately supported by its own by-laws and when its members can convey how they participate with accurate and intelligible statements, we won’t need to be so concerned about being mistaken in our interactions with other groups.   When the AERC’s own identity is clearer it will appear to all as distinct in and of itself, and we won’t need to be as paranoid about cross-contamination of public relations in any future attempts to cooperate with other organizations.
When the AERC has secured itself with by-laws that genuinely reflect its aspirations for integrity it may then choose to cooperate with the other organizations in a completely different manner. The AERC will be better able to author terms of inter-organizational relationships based on its own mission, and other organizations will be able to choose how they want to cooperate or not.
When the AERC finds the courage to acknowledge its errors and rectify its short-comings; its conflicts of logic, language and wisdom; it will be much easier for the rest of the world to follow.   If the AERC cannot undertake this rebirth soon, one where it can respect and dignify many forms of distance riding tests, including racing, it will eventually be overtaken by another organization that can meet those demands.   The AERC has been pointing fingers and fielding arrogant and irrelevantly specific directives after examining through a pipe from a distance.   Meanwhile the world has been looking back to the AERC, the originator of the modern endurance concepts, for inspiration toward fundamental solutions and seeing nothing but another form of infighting over blatantly false rhetoric.   The world needs a better example.
We were the first to screw this up.   We should be the first to fix it.
Our horses have waited long enough.   The world has waited long enough.
Enough is Enough.



For additional narrative about the related history of endurance riding and potential paths into the future please see my journal of essays, starting with The Rebirth of Endurance Tests (currently at the very bottom if the Journal page)

1. For more on this on this very important distinction between empathy and compassion I highly recommend Yale Professor Paul Blooms book Against Empathy
There is an excellent review of this book here

A Phoenix Rises from Ashes

A Phoenix Rises from Ashes


For decades of endurance racing, and even centuries of endurance testing by military programs and industrial interests, mankind has been examining equines unique ability to traverse distances across terrain and climate as diverse as the earth that first bore the species. In examining the horses on tests that adequately represent the full spectrum of natural challenges that formed them, we gain the most accurate insight to influence the overall health and integrity of the gene pool. The smallest errors in our concepts in this regard will have greater and more lasting impact on the welfare of the horse than anything happening in this moment in time. Examining equines in tests based on the physical abilities that afforded their species its original niche for survival is more then just humane, it is an essential element for the sustainability of a healthy gene pool as we have known.

Testing that effectively mimics this broad spectrum of natural challenges that were integral to the development of the equine species is not only humane treatment, it is an opportunity for us to develop and refine our very concepts of humane treatment for the equine species. What performs successfully in truly natural functional tests defines humane treatment of equines.

Endurance testing has the potential to afford us vital opportunity to enhance the overall level of happiness and quality of life for equines now and into the future, or it can lead us to the cruelest of unsustainable dead ends, all dependent on the wisdom of our governance of the discipline.

In endurance racing prior to FEI’s adoption of the sport, and continuing today in events outside of FEI rule, endurance riders have been proud to bear the primary responsibility of rating their willing horses according to the course ahead, and all the elements that nature-based tests present along the way. We embraced the full spectrum of terrain and weather because we understood adapting strategy to meet these flexuous challenges of nature to be a core element of the rider’s role. There are few conditions common to this earth that a horse cannot navigate safely and sustainably for long distances, it is largely a matter of guiding our mount at its own appropriate pace through the test event.

Assertions that the race of 12 September in Tryon had to be stopped due to “hot and humid” conditions are therefore deceptive. Such deflective statements only serve to distract from fundamental dysfunctions of our governance system that precipitated this tragedy. Nature is the inherent baseline of the test, and is as inherently blameless, always.

Certainly, it was a warm and humid day, and damp footing conditions on the clay loam soils added to the workload, but these were not extraordinary circumstances in the history of endurance racing. The weather parameters of the day were little more than typical of the Old Dominion 100 mile test, which has been held annually in the same region since 1973; on a significantly more arduous course as well. Furthermore, in the Tryon race several riders demonstrated their talents to be genuinely worthy of the title “elite” by navigating the course in a manner that was well within their mounts ability; a proof that there was nothing so challenging about the day that it could not be mastered with appropriate judgment.

So why then did such a large percentage of the field of competitors, all of which had completed FEI’s qualification system to the highest level, fail so distinctly that the race had to be cancelled to protect the welfare of the horses? We should be questioning the efficacy of this qualifying system, including the fundamental definitions of its levels. We should be questioning this system, and the entire supporting body of rules, for the ethos it nurtures.

During that day of mixed rain and strong sunshine, as international endurance racing fell hard on its face in mud, there was a rainbow. Perhaps this is sign that we have at long last muddied ourselves badly enough to acknowledge that we erred in the path we have taken some distance back. There are no quick shortcuts to the better road now, we’ve tried all those paths. There can be no more band-aid adjustments and augmentations of the current rules. More levels on a flawed foundation does not a create sturdy house. We have run false and incomplete philosophy to its end.

Already I am hearing encouraging realization at many levels that the restructuring of the CEI definitions and rules we need is problematic while we are locked into closely repeating cycles of qualifying for the next world championship. We may need to accept a suspension of world championships as we have known them for a period as we reconstruct our systems, more wisely and carefully this time. We first need to create an environment and a plan that allows us to take the few steps back required for us to put the discipline back on a healthier path.

A Qualification System is a form of Academic Institution

We need a thorough re-conception of international endurance’s hierarchy of performance levels. This must recognize that current definitions, based on completion of races at increasing distance, are a very incomplete and unreliable measure of genuine readiness to advance to greater challenges and responsibilities. Worst of all, advancing participants in such an overly simplistic system squanders vital opportunities to instill respect for thorough learning. It is very hard to convince a student to take skipped lessons once you have already handed him a doctorate degree.

This new set of definitions will need to support non-race qualifying events at the lower levels, such that they better serve as educational experiences for both horse and rider. This should particularly support the development of longer distance qualifiers, to ensure that horse and rider development in the future includes experience completing distances in a fixed pace environment before license to race such distances at freely chosen pace is granted.

We need to never again apply speed standards that are unreferenced to the technical difficulty of the course. There is no real possibility to re-integrate more technically challenging, natural and athletically diverse courses into international endurance racing unless we utilize performance standards that are referenced to the performance of peers on the same course. This is the primary conceptual flaw that effectively shut our most established, more technically diverse courses out of international endurance racing. This created bias toward participation in faster courses of monotonous athletic exercise; which focus physical stresses in the pattern of a single repetitive motion and cadence.


Protecting the Quality of Course Design from Ourselves

Great endurance courses seek to challenge the horses with many forms of natural challenge in the day, resulting in horses that are a little tired, all over. Lesser courses result in horses that are fresh in some respects, and yet are pressed to the breaking point in others.

We need to better shield the selection, design and certification of endurance courses from the pressure of other wants of the governing organization. It is a nuanced and challenging endeavor to create technical courses with a full spectrum of natural challenges worthy of international championships. Good organic course design requires a blend of fine art and science to create a test that provides clear resolution between skills of elite athletes while being free of unavoidable pit-falls and traps. This development process is easily foiled.

When the day of the race comes, quality of the course design is paramount to fair competition; to scientific measure of equine quality; to the measure of good equine husbandry; and ultimately to equine welfare. All other features of the event are only accessory details in comparison.

Ensuring Standards of Temperate Judgment in Pacing

We need finally, once and for all, to adopt rider completion rate standards that more effectively honor and support temperance and good judgment in pacing, genuinely recognizing that the rider is the primary one responsible for keeping a horse within its sustainable limits. For a long time in endurance racing peer pressure to perform honorably and consistently, pride in demonstrating preparedness and in completing a challenging task once started, was enough to ensure a sufficiently temperate judgment in pacing. In the high-stake environment of modern endurance racing this is no longer enough balance of incentive for temperance. A firm and effective system of demerit against consistently reckless performance by riders is required. Without this we place an excessive burden on the veterinary control system as the first and only line of the horse’s defense.

A moderate measure of restraint does not effectively reduce the pace all that  much. To use myself as an example, for many decades I maintained an 82-87% completion rate in both national and FEI sanctioned endurance races, while winning a respectable number of those races and setting some course records that stand to this day. My own completion rate fell considerably as I pursued more FEI races, and particularly major championships, as there is no chance to get on the scoreboard amongst a large field of all top-level competitors unless you are willing to push the risk envelope at least nearly as far as next competitor. So, when put against a large group of riders who are accustomed to riding at a very high-risk rate, such that their personal completion rate is only 25-30%, even the most careful riders who wish to see the results of the day accurately reflect the quality of the horses, will feel pressured to push the risk envelope a little harder than they normally would.

Without setting a minimum standard for rider completion rate the performance of the race as a fair and scientific test of equine quality is compromised. Instead we have fomented a larger and larger group of reckless pacers as even those riders who might otherwise pace more conservatively get sucked into the vortex. Appreciation for fine skills in reading the mount beneath us is diminished more and more as time goes.

The skilled and temperate riders we should support the most will have no trouble maintaining a 65% or better personal completion rate. This standard would force the more reckless riders to stop the practice of mindlessly pacing to an externally determined winning rate until the veterinary control system disqualifies them. They will be forced to practice skills in pacing more independently according to the ability of their equine partner.

When all riders exercise these skills of awareness and temperance, they will appreciate the more civil character of the field of competitors and will once again be afforded the presence of honor that comes hand in hand with accountability.


The Phoenix Rises

Once we have achieved all these improvements we will be in position to begin examining the performance of our endurance events with the same statistical evaluation methods a teacher or scientist would use to score the effectiveness of the tests they design. It is difficult to conceive this today in international endurance because the results of our tests are so randomized and skewed to one extreme that such detail analysis is fruitless. There is no need to sharpen a pencil to establish that few courses are well matched to aptitude of the field of participants. Good endurance courses, when supported by better rule structure and governance, can be statistically evaluated for their suitability to the skill level of the participants, which will improve the quality of endurance courses both as a test instrument of learning, and as a competitive sport.

A highly detailed “independent” analysis focused on the catastrophe at Tryon may not produce the information we need to focus on most. Endurance racing has been near the edge of such a break-down for a long time. For an equally long time we have had abundant evidence that issues with endurance racing precipitate from conflicting policy at the highest levels of the organization. We could attempt to correct specific middle and lower level dysfunctions a thousand times over with targeted corrections of rules and event organization policy, but new dysfunctions will continue to arise instead.

Most of the ideas I have just expressed have been promulgated by myself and others for decades now. What we need most of all is not just the specific implementation of such ideas, but the awareness that the formative concept behind the rule system needs to advance in its philosophy.

We need to explore why it is that FEI has been so unresponsive and dismissive of the contributions and philosophy of those with experience in endurance that predates the FEI’s involvement by decades. We need to better explore what is preventing FEI’s most fundamental philosophies from evolving. This is a matter that is important to all equine sports. Failure to evolve is recipe for extinction, and often for just reason. The public awareness and demand for humane treatment grows every day. Well managed endurance testing could be the best instrument we have to generate naturally grounded insight to educate and defend against naïve and misguided beliefs regarding equine welfare.

The FEI needs to recognize that it has an ethical a responsibility to do more than simply act on its awareness of the public perception of equine welfare. We need the FEI to reach beyond simply defending its economics by responding to a public that has received it definitions of humane treatment from the entertainment industry, which the FEI is a part of itself.  This is a vicious spiral of declining wisdom, a positive feedback loop into self-destruction.

There is no other organization with the position of FEI to champion public education in definitions of humane treatment based on natural sciences specific to equines. It is certainly much more profitable in the short term to avoid the cost and effort of public education, to play into and enable public perception wherever it drifts, but this will lead to equestrian sports eventual demise. If we want to have an environment that supports equestrian sports into the future, we need organizations like FEI to play an active role in guiding public awareness with knowledge grounded directly to natural sciences and the soundest of philosophies.

Though less evident on the surface today, other disciplines have their own growing issues of sustainability. There is an inherent conflict with laws of nature looming as horses in closely managed genetic lines, associated with highly specific athletic disciplines, exist more and more in their own isolated genetic selection bubble. They will eventually require more broadened natural references to sustain genetic soundness.

Endurance, current black sheep of international equestrian sport, will yet one day provide insight and reference that benefits the whole of equine sports, all of equines, and even mankind itself.


“Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.”

― Gustav Mahler

Summary points of this essay:

  • Challenges that are sufficiently based on the natural challenges that created a species delineate and define “humane treatment”
  • Testing in accordance with the above statement can provide us guidance toward a positive impact on the sustainability of health and welfare of equines
  • Nature is inherently blameless for failure in such tests
  • Regulations of sport inherently influence the participants direction and regard for learning
  • Honorability of role of the rider only comes with accountability
  • The evaluation of endurance races as scientific test of natural performance enhances their benefit to equine welfare, and the fairness of the competition
  • There are limits to the quality of solutions until fundamental shortcomings of knowledge and philosophy are fully addressed
  • Endurance testing could one day provide a vital reference and model for sustainability of all domestic equines
  • The FEI must fundamentally evolve to play a more mindful role in the sustainability and welfare of the equines its identity depends upon



We can throw stones, complain about them, stumble on them, climb over them, or build with them.—William Arthur Ward


By John Crandell

We’re high in the middle of yet another attention-grabbing season of endurance racing in U.A.E, and once again inflamed rhetoric is singeing the digital highways.   I’d like to offer some perspective that might help keep these exchanges as genuinely constructive as possible, and in doing so will point out some specific reasons why some addresses have been counterproductive to the best interest of equestrian sports, and the respect our horses deserve.

Many stones are being cast from afar with little awareness of their actual effect at the point of impact, or the full perception of the recipients.  There is an old Arabian proverb that translates something like:  “I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousins, my cousins and I against the world”.  In this is a reminder of the necessity of respecting social proximities when attempting to settle disputes and share challenging ideas.  There are always a few in every large group of people that will have an open mind to our own perspectives.   Those people are always the essential element of any lasting change.  Change brought by force from the outside is never heartfully and durably absorbed.  It’s nearly impossible to have an effective diplomatic discussion with someone while your associates are glaring through a pipe, overlooking their own vices, and throwing stones at his brother every time something offends them.

Those of us in the United States of America have the most to lose by continuing to act in this narrow field of vision.   Our minds been bombarded with a century of hyper-anthropomorphism, amplified and fed back to us by a commercial entertainment media all too willing to capitalize on the allure of animations and illusions of animals that have exactly the perceptions and values humans have.  Our own naivety and arrogance is fed back to us in volume, and our animals suffer for it as we cloud our ability to objectively learn their perceptions, their ethos, their needs for happiness.  Stan Eichelberger DVM, once pointed out to me in the lobbies of an American Endurance Ride Conference convention that “Walt Disney has been the cruelest thing that ever happened to animals.”

My neighbor here in Florida has kept a horse he loved as “his son” for over 35 years.  For most of the last 15 years the horse has been foundered in all four feet with extraordinary severity, to the point of gradual extreme degradation of the bones of his feet.  His feet don’t need to carry as much as most horses though, because in the same extended time the horse lost most of his teeth and can only eat small quantities of wet slop, bringing him to a state of extreme emaciation.   Don’t say “should have called the authorities”, that was done.  Without the resolve and enlightened consensus of the public, government authorities will do nothing.  Here in the U.S.A., an individual’s caring intent and the distorted perception of the collective always trumps the realities of suffering.  Most sadly, this sort of tragedy repeats itself all over the United States of America in varying degrees, by the tens of thousands.   It fills our pastures and stables with chronically depressed animals, who’s potential for happiness is ever declining, and taking with it the net balance of happiness vs. suffering in their overall lifetimes, and impacting the same balance in the population as a whole.  Horses in any natural environment, particularly a wild ecosystem complete with predators, would never have to endure the excruciatingly protracted end of life we put them through in the process of shielding our own selfish emotions just a day longer.

In the United States of America, our feral horse populations are now doomed for an even larger tragedy.  Living semi-wild but without significant natural predation, the populations expand at a rate that doubles every four years.  Even if the competition from the more regulatable cattle grazing were completely removed from the open ranges, the population would then just expand until it over-whelmed the range, crowded its borders into farmlands, and was ultimately check by only starvation and plague.   This only after displacing other native species in a discrete but suffering battle for place to exist.   By the fundamentally  and knowingly unsustainable management plan currently in operation there are now over 45,000 horses in government concentration camps, and the number grows by almost 10,000 per year.

Organizations like the American Endurance Ride Conference exchange sponsorships and alliances with the Bureau of Land Management in programs of mutual support.   Thus, the focus groups that should be at the vanguard of objective, critical analysis and public education have been also drawn into the feedback loop of propagating support for one unsustainable plan after another.  If our equestrian organizations cannot lead the public in reasoning and education toward a genuinely sustainable plan, one that achieves long term minimization of suffering, our feral horses are trapped into ongoing cycles of repeating mass tragedy.  We need equestrian organizations to post a detailed statement of plans they would support, with well defined, logical, and practical projections of how their proposals can be implemented expediently to end this burgeoning crisis.  We need brave public positions from equestrian organizations toward lasting sustainability.

At the same time, our misguided or directionless breeding selection processes have domestically bred horses spiraling into the same types of perverse genetic dysfunction and disarray as other pets of privileged societies.  Ultimately this is the most insidious and exponential issue, and thus the most looming of all aspects of equine suffering.

There is no cruelty more profuse, no torture more insidious, than that born of naive empathy.

To those looking back on us in U.S.A., this epidemic duplicity that emanates from here and effects the world is plainly evident, yet they have not returned as many stones.  Hypocrisy only undermines the credibility of any logic in the rhetorical exchanges needed to make progress.   Excuses and criticisms always look smaller from a distance looking either direction, while effective progress here or there eventually propagates.  If we really care to create change toward good, there are plenty of places within our own reach to resolve hypocrisies, however real or simply apparent.   We should at least endeavor to allocate objectively proportional attentions.

Elsewhere in the world, there has been a much better cultural retention of awareness that some degree of testing, some maintenance of performance pressure, and thus unavoidably a small measure of suffering, is an integral part of healthfully sustaining any developed life form in its place.  Without accepting this essential relationship, we begin a long-suffering path toward de-differentiation, the devils of entropy take hold.   Minimal suffering is not found by pretending that we can avoid the existence of death and suffering, but by wisely being efficient in gathering the most useful information possible from every ordeal of life.  In this case, that efficiency is achieved by the precision of standards in measurement and recording (including rule enforcement), and useful accuracy is achieved by the relevance of those constructs to natural heritage.  We all will find ourselves on one side or the other of optimum from time to time.

In the background of all the tragic incidences being broadcast out of the U.A.E are many stables that are making of fine art and science out of the health and happiness of equines.   After all, unhappy creatures cannot flourish, and thus do not perform well in any test.    Many of the stables in the United States could benefit immensely by sharing a little of the technical knowledge and general ethos of day to day horse husbandry there.

Of course, there is obviously also a miss-alignment of performance incentives that has many attempting to short-cut nature to ill effect.  There is way too much relative value placed on the chances within a single test event.  This is imbedded in the FEI concepts, and inflamed by the specific nature of the purse distributions.  If there was as much to be gained by successfully completing the same horse and rider through an extended series of tests, or of the healthy completion rate of a trainers stable, that’s what would happen more.  This issue is not lost on that community, and there are already many wise thinkers there building a new consensus in the population.  These things always take time, we have no better example of the time is takes to enlighten cultural perceptions than right in our own homeland.

Our failure to focus our energy on related elements of the issues in our own more effective proximity leads to frustration.  Our rhetoric then repeats the same ineffective statements that have been written many times before.  This achieves little more than to illuminate the lack of effective authority in the authors and the entities they address.  The opponents of change only get a sharper understanding of just how weak those channels of action really are.  It is counter-productive to the welfare results we seek to spend our time and attention barking at the same empty tree.

We need little more than the facts of the last many years to realize the FEI has very little independent power or creative insight to bring about change.  It logically must have a lot of deeply embedded encumbrances on its ability to act effectively, or we would have seen much more result by now.

The nature of the developing awareness in animal welfare is a general issue that will increasing challenge FEI’s traditional approach to horse sports in the years ahead.  Our activities with horses will come under ever increasing scrutiny toward welfare, not just of the immediate animals engaged, but of its ability to sustain welfare for the species by enhancing our understanding of healthy genetic management.

All that is happening in endurance is just the vanguard of a profound change in horse sports that will eventual force the FEI to completely change is traditional concepts if it is to survive.   Eventually the rules of its tests, as well as the interrelationship of different disciplines, will need to adapt significantly.  If the FEI is not able to begin immediate and comprehensive evolution of even its most traditional constructs it will soon be too little too late, and its death by a thousand cuts will not be contained to just endurance.  If horse sports are not supportive of our very best practices in genetic health, then they will become recognized as against the welfare of the species.  Of course, supporting the genetic health of equines will be essential to the long-term interest of FEI anyway, but it will have huge short and medium term economic dependency conflicts with its current business model to overcome.   There is little sign of significant action on this awareness in place now.

Within endurance racing, the CEI definitions, qualification system, and rules FEI once created specifically to steer international racing away from the naturally grounded challenges of the previous half century, and into the simple speed fest it has become, have been little changed.   Instead of acknowledging that fundamental constructs of FEI system create inherent incentive in the wrong direction, the FEI continues to attempt to solve its issues with more layers of micro-management of training practices.  FEI has never been able to competently enforce the rules it has made in the past, adding more will not improve this.  Going further in this manner is only going to result in an impossible unwieldy system long before we achieve the results we seek.  No wait, it IS impossibly unwieldy, and thus insidiously supportive of corruption already, that’s the problem.  The foundational constructs of FEI endurance are a design of an era of compromised wisdom.

To make matters worse for FEI’s ability to genuinely demonstrate integrity and unbiased logic in its guidance, the FEI is now a Swiss based entity, as is its most notable corporate sponsors.  The Swiss banking law keeps this business environment listed at the top of Tax Justice Network Secrecy Index.  The few mechanisms to break through vails of accounting are particularly weak without the tax centric agreements between nations of the recent decade being applicable.  Swiss based corporations are afforded the fullest measure of this protection of secrecy.   Thus, funds flowing through and between entities in this environment can enjoy considerable protection from disclosure of their true intent and influence.  This environment of discretion is a double-edged sword; there may be limited ability to discover and prove unethical intent of transactions, but there is also no ability to unequivocally prove that there was no unethical intent anywhere in a twisted and layered financial chain.  No matter how much money FEI spends to project an aura of integrity, without verifiable transparency through every tentacle of its financial underpinnings there is none to be trusted.

The FEI’s purported largest source for finance, the Olympics, doesn’t support long range, fundamental aspects of equine welfare either.  Most of our equestrian disciplines were born of the noble desire to make a meaningful examination of what was originally understood to be just one facet of the horse and horsemanship spectrum.  In chasing Olympic style attention, there has been a powerful and short-sighted financial pressure to make each discipline more distinct, and more sensationally entertaining, to a general audience with ever decreasing background in the intricacies and connected nuances of animal nature.  This has resulted in the severe degradation in the effectiveness of equine sports in supporting the long-term health and welfare of equines.  Each discipline develops in isolation, with minimal interchange of insight and grounding to natural application.   Each discipline operates in its own financial and genetic bubble, breeding in an ever more intense obsession toward the functionalities of only one artificially narrow test, forsaking all natural breadth and balance.

The FEI has a lot of heavy battles ahead.  Cleaning up endurance is just the initial fight, and we have watched FEI pinned down in the sands of that beach-head for more than a decade now.  Even if there were to be a successful release from the tangles and compromises that tilted the game table awry years ago, even if there are ethical persons in charge at this moment, the most fundamental factors that allowed this debacle to develop are still there.  Not only do we have little of a long-range plan for change, we don’t even see much recognition of a need for a long range plan for such comprehensive change.

We desperately need global coordination, and I still genuinely believe it would be much more efficient to adapt organizations that currently exist rather than start anew.  The concern here is that the most influential existing organizations are now cocooned Mammoths, insular and too big to move quickly. Those that don’t wake a to a full realization of the scope of change required of them will be too late very soon, perhaps within the next year.  It just may be too late for some already.


What can we do then?

There is much those feeling detached and frustrated can do with that energy to lay new foundation for a better system.  As I have written before, the more academically rigorous distance riding formats, those that provided the fertile soil of endurance racings emergence as an acceptable equestrian discipline, were in a state of neglect and decline by the time FEI came on the scene.  They had been supplanted by a populist movement toward a more sensational “all racing” development pathway in endurance testing.   Thus, in the era FEI was exposed to as it began developing concepts for its CEI systems, the very best formats for developing skills and appreciation for more naturally diverse overland courses had all but disappeared.  They were practically out of limelight and seemingly irrelevant to endurance racing to all but the most tenured endurance enthusiasts at that time.

This is just the kind of philosophy that is being reborn at Boudhieb today.   We shouldn’t be just sitting by watching from a distance as the evolution of global endurance standards goes on without us.    If we care so much about what is going on in U.A.E., we should be doing our part to create more robust and academically rigorous programs in our own governing bodies, or entirely new organizations if need be.    We cannot be so arrogant as to think we are faultless, beyond improvement.   If we do not actively engage in development of new ideas, toward more academically effective systems that are the foundation of any pinnacle, we will have no one else to blame when the new ideas that emerge had little of our own regions individual perspective.

What’s happening at Boudhieb is commendable, but we need to realize that their perspective, and the solutions that develop there will understandably be constrained by the specific local conditions.   Boudhieb is in an area geographically like the other currently active courses in the United Arab Emirates. There are only two subtle variations of natural terrain and footing available; packable, mineralized dry lakebed sand; and deep, loose dune sand.  The attempt so far to re-engage even the modest natural range of footings they have available is already challenging the trainers and riders ability to adapt.   It takes time to re-acquire lost skills, and then some time to re-develop the equine athletes accordingly.  We should be prepared to accept ongoing imperfections in any results there at Boudhieb as necessary measures of progress.

Eventually, as the concept emerging at Boudhieb continues to develop, the need for integration of additional natural elements will become more evident.  This may be addressed by design and construction of artificial simulations of other terrains, or by expanding the areas in which tests are located.   The United Arab Emirates region has much more natural diversity of terrain than is available near any of the currently active venues.   There is potential there to develop courses that reflect much more of the full athletic heritage of equines.  Boudhieb is making progress that direction as fast as the human elements can safely adapt.

For the rest of us, let’s not just wait for FEI to send down directives and plans for change from its temple.  By the time that happens in truly adequate measure it may be way too late for many reasons.  We must not wait for FEI to wake up from its nostalgic slumber.  We must not remain shackled by FEI’s insistence on clinging to its ill-conceived institutions, with no offering of a plan for replacement or vision of where equine sports in general will evolve.  Be a part of the great experiment.  Try new concepts, and resurrect the best of the old.  Follow the Boudhieb example, start with your own backyard, but communicate your successes and failures far and wide.  For the sustainable welfare of our horses, and wisdom of mankind, be a part of a new global endurance testing standard!

Does a 2016 WEC Serve Anyones Best Interest?

Many of the worlds equestrian enthusiasts are heartened by the FEI’s recent withdrawal of its 2016 World Endurance Championship (WEC) from Dubai.  Before we emotionally declare a victory and hurry to re-organize a WEC in another location, some objective consideration of the current state of international endurance racing is in order.   There is a lot to be gained or lost for the discipline hinged on just how we proceed.

This is a moment of great opportunity.  It’s a chance to do much more than simply put the discipline back on the same tracks from which it has been derailed.  We have a delicate moment here to create a fundamental shift in the guidance of international endurance racing.   If we act with wise conviction now, we can ensure that the dysfunctions of the recent past cannot return, and secure an enduring future for the discipline.

It’s all too convenient to assign all the depravity of international endurance racing on a single region; to vilify a governance official or two; or a few powerful actors.  In doing so we errantly assume that these persons are so uniquely evil that putting them out of play somehow solves all our problems.   The reality is these people are not so far from ourselves. There will always be another just like them emerging somewhere on this earth if we cannot identify such issues as a frailty of our human nature, and find the courage to take very fundamental measures to better manage our compulsions in that regard.

Consider what can really be achieved as a valid world championship if we frantically  reorganized a conventional WEC within this same year.   Consider the security risks, the integrity challenges, and logistic inefficiencies of a hastily assembled international equestrian championship.   This can easily become little more than another kind of self-inflicted bruising for endurance racing.

Also consider the missed opportunity to institute any fundamental changes in the sports systems if we distract ourselves and exhaust resources in the production of a complete WEC as we have known.   So much of our inability to thoughtfully consider significant new concepts has stemmed from the self-perpetuating nature of the qualifying processes of each championship cycle.  As long as we are locked into the overlapping championship development cycles, the participants and prime decision makers in international endurance racing will be inherently biased against any significant changes in the process.  There’s just too much financial and emotional investment for everyone involved.   It doesn’t matter how dysfunctional the system might be,  too many otherwise intelligent and conscientious people will be blind to every elephant in the conference room.

The greatest promise for significant and intelligent change in international endurance racing awaits an interruption of the conventional WEC cycles.   I’m not suggesting that  there are no alternatives possible.  In fact, quite the opposite.

We are in a position were the prospect for a fully valid 2016 WEC as we all would like to imagine is a forgone conclusion.   This is an opportunity, more than a loss.   This is a chance to explore a new approach to high profile international endurance racing events.   A profound and eloquent solution has been right under our noses, present but underappreciated in international endurance racing all along.   We will never have a better opportunity to bring this alternative to the front and center of international endurance racing.   We need a TEAM ONLY INTERNATIONAL ENDURANCE EVENT in 2016!

The first WEC in 1988 introduced to the world a new fold in endurance racing in the form of team endurance riding.  Those not familiar with nuances of philosophy and strategy in endurance racing might not realize the potential the team concept has to precisely manipulate the character of endurance competitions.   This may be the most constructive feature to be introduced to the distance riding discipline through the FEI, and yet it has been largely overshadowed and underutilized.  There is fantastic potential here to create international endurance racing the entire world can respect if we bring this more to front and center of major international competitions.

By thoughtfully selecting ratio of team size and the number of allowed “drop” scores, we have the ability to specify a “target completion rate”, and thus directly influence the pacing judgment for an endurance race.  This is an eloquent technique for selecting an appropriate balance of competitive daring and sensitivity toward the welfare of the animal.  It gives us the ability to selectively reward  competitors with accurate and conservative judgment.

Every competent endurance trainer and rider develops a keen sense of the relationship between pace and risk that the horse might fall below accepted “fit to continue” health criterion.  It’s vitally important to the welfare of the horse that riders develop and exercise this skill.  Even the most effective veterinary control system imaginable cannot fully protect the horses without this sharing of responsibility.

In many regions of the world,  160 km endurance tests have a completion rate between 50%  to 70%.   Of the those that do not complete the distance, consider 1/3 (10-17% of starters) might be attributed to unavoidable consequences of attempting to negotiate such an extensive test over natural terrain, and roughly 2/3 (20-34% of starters) might have completed with better preparation or more conservative pacing.

Events with this kind of completion profile are effective competitions.  They yield beneficial critique about the genetic vitality of the horses and the effectiveness of our horsemanship skills with very low incidence of ill consequence to the horses.  A large proportion of horses regularly competing in events with this type of completion profile live out exceptionally fit and healthy lifespans.

An endurance team competition with four team members and one “drop” score (3 best of 4 scores considered) is very effectively specifying that riders will pace consistent with a 75% or higher  completion rate.  This is moderately more conservative than the profile I described above.

A competition for teams of five with two drop scores specifies a completion rate target of 60% or greater.  This is in the center of the completion profile illustrated above, and consistent with a pacing profile familiar to the most riders worldwide.

Any team size to drop score ratio in the 50-70% range suggested above results in pacing strategies that are consistent with 160 km events that yield results useful toward the health and welfare of equines at appropriate risk.  We then have the most valid sporting contest, quality information to support the health and welfare of equines, and a naturally low incidence of suffering on the part of our equine partners.

Events with lower completion ratio targets will often have compromised results value due the random consequences of reckless “all or nothing” philosophy, as well as high risk of pointless suffering on the part of the equines.

Conversely,  too high a completion ratio target, such as requiring 100% team completion to be scored is unrealistic. Even the most skilled and cautious rider cannot guide a horse through true and natural endurance tests with 100% completion certainty. The test result is again predominately random.  This will compromise the validity of sporting event, as well as the scientific value of the results by not accommodating the inherent incidence of non-completion in such long range tests.  The risk to the equines may be low, but so is the value of the information we seek on their behalf.  No one benefits, not even the horses, when entire teams are thrown out every time one horse randomly steps on a sharp stone and gets a temporary lameness.

The appropriate application of team competition is the most effective tool we have for generating the level of sporting sensation the FEI business model requires while suitably protecting the welfare of the horses.  It’s time to stop dismissing the thought of major championships with no individual competition and find a way to genuinely make the “welfare of the horse paramount” with exclusively team focused major competitions.

There’s no longer an point in being concerned about short term economic income differences when the discipline has been hemorrhaging financially for not taking such action sooner.  Where there is a will there is a way.  International endurance riding will continue it’s “death by a thousand cuts” until we find such resolve and leadership from the FEI.  Only events with secure protection of the horse are economically sustainable in any future.

An exclusively team endurance competition may not be everything everybody wishes for in an championship level event this year, but it may the most logical thing we can attempt to do at this time.  It affords us a level of control over the events risk to the welfare of horses that we absolutely  need to demonstrate at this time.

A team event can be so inherently conservative in its performance specifications that there might even be little concern if this kind of event were hosted in FEI region VII (other than Dubai). This may offer the best path to keep this region appropriately engaged and included in the international endurance community.

When fully applied, this approach can be so effective at protecting the welfare of the horses that it will allow us the latitude and confidence to relax and adjust the qualification criterion and CEI definitions.   These burgeoned, and over applied measures are now creating more damage to the discipline and the welfare of our horses than they help.   At this time, many conscious people  in international endurance racing are deeply dissatisfied with the effectiveness  of the current CEI definition/qualification system and yet are fearful to suggest anything else in the current environment.

Bringing team competition to the front and center of international championships is a idea who’s time has come.  It doesn’t really matter so much if the FEI chooses to call such and event a WEC or something else, such as a “test event”, at this time.  A rose by any name smells as sweet.   We cannot afford to miss this rare opportunity to break free of the dysfunctional patterns and philosophies that have crippled international endurance racing.   It’s time for some more creative and bold leadership.


Roadmap to the Future/Part 1

Roadmap to the Future/Part 1

Rebirth of Endurance Tests/ Roadmap to the Future/ Part 1: Endurance Testing Conceptual Chart


Thank you to the thousands who took the time to read the first nine segments of The Rebirth of Endurance Tests, and a very special thank you the many who made the additional contribution of sharing your comments, counterpoint and perspective.   This remains a very collective exploration in which I am honored to be gathering and transmitting the energy of many, past and present.

To better engage this interaction of so many readers, I am dividing what I had previously forecast to be a single chapter named Roadmap to the Future into two parts.  This first part will further a more specific conversation about where we ideally want to arrive, and soon to follow a second part will then describe specific steps to get from here to there.

Forwarded to guide conversation here is an Endurance Testing Program conceptual model in flowchart format.  This chart extends beyond the conventional boundaries of endurance racing to show relationship in the broader equestrian racing and distance riding communities. This is offered as a work platform for developing in the best possible compatibility with traditional ideas and institutions around the world, while allying this diversity for optimal effectiveness in supporting equine welfare.

The accuracy of projections, and the effectiveness of any action plan to bring about change can only be as good as our vision of where we intend to go.

The best path will reveal itself when we build a beacon that shines brightly together.

Interpretation and Use of the

Endurance Testing Conceptual Chart


To better express the most effective functional relationship between different classes of equine distance tests, the definitions and parameters of fields in the racing side (Right) of this graphic are different than current conventions.  What has lately been identified as “Limited Distance” racing in North America and by other monikers elsewhere is named here as equine Marathon, a term for racing in this range that pre-existed the more recent terminologies.  The category of Endurance Race in this conceptual exercise is more specifically reserved for tests in a physiologically distinct zone beyond the range of a primary metabolic surge of effort for equines.  The category Extended Marathon covers race events in the broad transition zone between Marathon and Endurance Race as defined in this conceptual exercise.

Gesturally depicted here is as expressed in earlier chapters of Rebirth of Endurance Tests ; Endurance Racing sits at the conceptual crossroads of sport and science.

Arrows indicate proposed developmental pathways.  This proposal is again quite different from conventional qualification procedures or development pathways of the either AERC or FEI.  It is more consistent with effective development processes in North America prior to the mid-1980’s, and with the more recent rules of events at Boudheib in Abu Dhabi.  Notice that by the specific direction of the pathway arrows, the Marathon races (orange blocks) that are so popular today are not even part of the proposed ideal development pathway toward Endurance Racing.  These Marathon classes are depicted here as a sport racing group (yellow/orange), which exists along the edge of the unethical, just as we have witnessed in vivo.  The intent here is not to condemn all races in these classes, for there is a lot of good science that can come out of tests in this area.  This does graphically express how tests in the Marathon and an Extended Marathon range can easily challenge the limits of veterinary control technologies and become unethical if we direct the test conditions to become too sensationally sporting.

The type of criterion for advancement varies according the type of test.   CTR events are capable of yielding academic performance grading (AG), and this is an ideal basis for advancement criterion when available.  For advancement through race classes, some variant of completion rate (CR) criterion might afford the best equine welfare protection.  Example: “< 65% completion rate finishing at least three races in the top 50% of the field of competition”.

With effective rule structure, some of the criterion elements shown here might not be essential for the welfare of the horse, and should be optional at the discretion of regional governance.   This might be particularly true of advancement between CTRs.  When the veterinary control systems are well developed and supported by conservative test conditions, unprepared horses are reliably identified and dismissed from test early without harm.  The potential for failure is then an eloquently adequate discourager of premature advancement.  In fact, the more a program can be self-regulating in this manner the better.  We should never use advancement criterion simply to inflate participation in events for the support of image and bureaucracy.

Heritage Trials is a label created for a less common class of endurance tests that extend beyond the time and distance range of Endurance Races.  At these very long ranges the distinction between racing and fixed pace tests becomes more muted, so for the purposes of this exercise I have denoted Heritage Trials as one class.  This might eventually be worthy of sub-class division of Heritage Racing (Right half) and Heritage CTR (Left).

The position of elements on this chart gesturally represent relationship in two dimensional ranges of test duration vs. functionality.   Even the size and position of the areas within in each colored shape represent the conceptual range specific events in each category might operate, depending of the rules of play engaged and other factors of the test environment.

Environmental factors can be indigenous social and political characteristics of a region, or geographic features; anything that effects the events performance as a more academic, or more recreational/sporting exercise.  This is why each region of the world needs to develop its own focus areas for improvement.  To do this we need clear and objective recognition of where we are in the big picture.  From there we can each lay out our own regionally optimized path to a common honorable goal.

Endurance Program Conceptual Chart Legend

Endurance Program Conceptual Chart


Placement of specific test examples on the Endurance Testing Conceptual Chart


In North America we have a modest number of CTR events operating to the right of the center of the respective CTR1A1, CTR2A2, and CTR3A3 domains.  I indicate “to the right of center” because many of these events have come to operate with more relaxed recreational/sporting intent and less academic rigor than in the past.  Endurance racing in North America most typically operates just left of center in in the MarathonA4 and Extended MarathonA5 domains, extending into the EnduranceA6 domain for some events.  “Left of center” placement is suggested because while the races here have had low incidence of equine welfare issues, they have also become less effective at supporting long visional scientific benefit.  These races aren’t rule structured so much differently than the races in UAE that are causing such public discontent, however a proclivity toward more diverse courses and social pressures have resulted in less on-course tragedy. Therefore, environmental conditions largely account for the difference in placement.

In North America we have a few events in the Heritage Trails class domainA7, recognized within AERC only by a special “Pioneer Ride” sanctioning process.  Notice that by the position of the Heritage Rides domain on this chart, rides of this length inherently have significant academic potential, whether they are structured as a race, CTR or otherwise.

Unfortunately, those attending CTR(A1-A4) and those attending races(A4-A7) are separate groups in North America, with relatively few participating in both types.  What remains of North Americas CTR systems is effectively disconnected from endurance racing.  CTR participants only occasionally progress into distance ranges that fully examine equine athletic potential, and endurance racing participants commonly short-cut into racing with minimal focus on horsemanship and equitation fundamentals.  To further institutionalize this separation, the USA equestrian federation (USEF) currently does not allow CTR events to credit toward FEI qualification, so horses starting the FEI qualification protocol are required to start in Marathon class races instead of CTR events that would be much more effective for developing young horses toward Endurance Racing.

The UAE equestrian federation wisely learned some time ago that operating racing events in this Marathon domain as qualifiers for Endurance Racing was inefficient, and instead now conducts fixed pace qualifiers(E1) located at the rightmost extreme of the CTR domains of this conceptual diagram.  I indicate “right-most extreme” because there is little attempt to scholastically critique equitation, or to score the horses beyond the basic intent of demonstrating that the horse has completed the distance in passable fitness.  Distinctly crossing over to the right side of this chart, longer distanced tests in the UAE with very fast sport oriented courses commonly operate in the center(E2) and the upper center(E3) of the Extended Marathon zone, putting the longer UAE events well into the ethical danger zone (red) depicted in this chart.

The recent Boudheib rules(B1) created longer distance fixed time (pace) events that include added attention given to the ranking of the best condition scoring, making them more academically effective, so these events might be located higher (more distance) and to the left (more academic) of the UAE qualifiers.  This is a groundbreaking move in the direction of best practices for UAE, and there’s plenty more that can be added to this foundation to build a more efficient development system for horse and riders alike.

This actually puts the UAE well on its way to having to a more ideally effective endurance program; one that encourages a more academic approach to training and development.  This is would be graphically represented by working sequentially right up the center of the CTR type events toward endurance racing on this chart.  All that remains is more academic optimization of pace standardized trials, and creation of more well-rounded, naturally diverse courses for both the set speed trials and races.  They certainly have more variety of terrain available to them in the UAE than is being utilized, and resources enough to recreate any terrain of the world if they should become so motivated.

If the Mongul Derby were to be placed on this chart, it would be split in its classification for horses and riders; because riders go the whole distance, while the equine partners are changed daily.   For riders it’s a test of Heritage Trial status, for horses it’s more like Marathon racing.


Thank you for taking the time to entertain this conceptual exercise.  Every new contributor helps create a new reality for endurance testing.


Where would traditional distance riding tests of your region fit in this chart?


What adjustments of your traditional tests, or new elements are needed, to create a more academic development sequence supporting Endurance Testing and Heritage Trials in your region?


I look forward to your comments, please use the COMMENT link at the bottom of this post.

If you’d like a copy of the above chart, or this entire document in another electronic format, or if  you’d simply like more private dialogue, please feel free to contact me



The Rebirth of Endurance Tests

The Rebirth of Endurance Tests

By John Crandell


  1. Prologue
  2. The Time Is Now
  3. The Genesis of Modern Endurance
  4. Expansion Across North America
  5. FEI Enters the Scene
  6. Back in the USA
  7. Our Issues are More Alike Than We Realize
  8. A Rebirth Begins
  9. Building Wise Endurance Testing Programs
  10. Roadmap to the Future: Part 1
  11. Creating Healthy Goalposts and Incentives (COMING SOON)


Endurance riding was once on the vanguard of equine welfare, generating new definition in the meaning of equine welfare itself.  Now that honorable position is obscured under a mountain of saddening imagery on the internet and a growing contempt from other equestrians over the level of equitation and horsemanship displayed at endurance races.

Who’s to blame?  We all are, and perhaps especially those of us that have been engaged in the discipline as long as myself.  I’ve been endurance racing for over forty years now; long enough to have won two Tevis and Haggin Cups, first to finish at six Old Dominion 100 mile Rides, and FEI championship medals as early as 1986 and as late as 2010.   I certainly should have known better, should have spoken out more at the right time way back when.  Well, no time like the present.

It’s impossible address the governance issues we’re now facing in a way that guarantees that they’ll never return if we can’t openly identify our collective mistakes that allowed this travesty to develop in the first place.  So please notice that as I dissect this calamity of errors, I offend people on both sides of highly polarized positions equally.  I have been party to both camps and am therefore as culpable as anyone.

I will show that the root issue here has been brooding for a long time, and goes back to a time before the involvement of the Federation Equestrian International (FEI) and well before the Persian Gulf countries participation in internationally sanctioned endurance racing.


The Time is Now


At this time the entire world, especially the equestrian community, is aware of the alarming spectacle of endurance racing activity in the United Arab Emirates.  This has devastated the already fragile reputation of the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI), which sanctions these races.  The FEI has been supplying the public years of image posturing and repeated announcements that is making “sweeping changes”, but the carnage has continued with its renewed sanctioning.

Meanwhile in the United States the endurance riding disciplines national governing body is in a different kind of downward spiral.   The economic demography of the U.S.A. has lured the American Endurance Ride Conference (AERC) into a dangerous trap.  When businesses and organizations here listen to their constituents too democratically what they will always hear most loudly is that “we want more quantity, less cost; and we enjoy being patronized gratuitously”.  Following this mandate usually creates economic growth initially, but it then leads to departure from the organizations original purpose, alienation of its original supporters, and declining standards until there is nowhere lower to go in order to acquire new members.

This is written as a warning to other regions with developing equestrian programs not to follow in our footsteps.  The following is chronical of the foolish choices we’ve made that led to this mess nationally and internationally.  Review this history to learn by  our mistakes as the modern endurance riding discipline begins an inevitable rebirth.

There is a great spark of hope in the initiatives demonstrated at the Bouthib racecourse in Abu Dhabi.  This is essentially a step back in the discipline’s history to the point in time before we began to let it go so far astray.    This is the place from where we need to start again, a little wiser this time.

Our goal needs to be much more than just a tolerable amount animal suffering for the benefit of our sporting amusement.  As worldwide awareness of the animal welfare sharpens, equine sports are under increasing pressure to evolve into exercises that genuinely benefit the animals.  Just to “do little harm” as the general public may see it, to have image managed by skillful public relations tactics, is no longer enough.   The modern world is demanding scientifically sound definitions and equitable practices of animal welfare.

Endurance riding has potential greater than any other equestrian discipline to have a positive impact in the future health and happiness of equines.  The disciplines ability to closely mimic the natural challenges that forged horses as we have come to know them makes it the ideal platform for maintaining vital knowledge in genealogy, and of naturally good husbandry of the animals.   This species that has carried mankind to prominence on earth desperately needs us to get this right, and we need to get this right for ourselves as well.

I’m going to point out how at time decades ago, when the world was looking to us in North America for concepts and inspiration, we had begun to make a pivotal error in the way we were allowing the distance riding discipline to be structured and governed.   That fundamental flaw became embedded into the very foundation of endurance racing as it developed into an international sport with utterly dysfunctional result.

What at first seemed small and tolerable deviation from the noble philosophies that spawned the first modern endurance races here in America half century ago as has become a fundamentally dysfunctional system.   In the most recent three decades it has become layered with additional distortions of best practices in order to better support the pomp and image of an international circus.

In North America that same error has had a nearly opposite effect as elsewhere, creating a loss of motivation to pursue equestrian excellence in all its aspects.   This has forfeited the disciplines potential to adequately support the best breeding practices, and caused a visible decline in basic horsemanship and equitation in the distance riding community.  The impact on equine welfare here has been more insidious, but it is no less tragic for horses in the end.  We have simply learned how not to see it in our midst.

Once we have built on a flawed foundation, we will always have structural problems no matter how much effort we apply to patches and repairs.  Now after decades of chasing unsound philosophy we have a lot of institutional undoing ahead, but this is an opportunity to rebuild from the ground up with more wisdom than ever before. The process has already begun.  The only thing to be decided is who will be the significant actors.


The Genesis of Modern Endurance Racing


Early long distance racing in North America, as in many other regions of the world, was little less wasteful and cruel than events that have been attracting so much ill attention in the Persian Gulf region in recent years.   We called these “Jackpot” races, as these sprung up almost any time and place there was someone willing to post a modest sum as prize.   If there was any potential to be of positive influence in the guidance of equine genetics it was often lost in the disorder and high attrition of such hedonistic events.  This kind of racing was becoming increasingly controversial in North America in the early 1900’s.

Also this era, the militaries of the world were shrinking down and closing their selective breeding and development programs.  All of our civilian commercial incentives that supported the production of broadly athletic, vigorous, easy keeping, and durably sound horses had withered as well.  Our ability to accurately evaluate and guide the breeding of horses in a continuance of their most fundamental abilities and our combined heritages was being lost.

Sure, we still had Thoroughbred racing and other sprint racing variants.   We had jumping and other horse show exhibitions.  There was also a growing halter showing industry expanded out of what had once been a simple necessity of evaluating young foals and brood stock by appearance, when they couldn’t be examined in performance.

All of these disciplines are popular because they compress the vast realm of the horse into an arena for convenient viewing; and because they operate within a sensationally short time frame to suit the attention span of the typical spectator.  When we allow ourselves to be driven by short-range economic potential of spectacle such as this we also create equally short-sighted selective pressure, focused on just a few aspects of equines at a time. These are entertaining endeavors, but they cannot independently direct a sustainable and humane genetic guidance.

To understand the concerns many horsemen held about sustainability of the genetic vitality in horses, we might reflect on what has happened within the breeding of dogs, a more genetically plastic species than horses.  Many dog breeds are now embedded with genetic traits that create proclivities for poor health and suffering.  When we obsess on promoting just a few features at the expense of regard for the millions of other genes that are essential for the production of wholly healthy animals the result is always tragic.

UNintelligent Desigon.png


Horses are very specifically evolved creatures in that their natural evolutionary path has taken them deeply into a survival niche that was highly dependent on exceptional locomotive efficiency and effectiveness.  That’s what has historically made us value them so.     That same specialization, makes them prone to suffer all the more by even the most modest genetic weakness.   Horses are obligate movers.  If they can’t stay very active everything about their health and happiness is in danger of collapse.  While horse genetics might not be run amuck as quickly as dogs, once it happens the result is even more devastating.

Feral  horses breeding in the open, sparsely developed places like the American west may seem to represent a solution for healthy genetic sustainability, but there really is no completely “natural” existence for horses in a world of fences, politically boundaries, predator control, land management and population issues are at play.  This is a species born of a time when entire groups of continents were open to them.  Their truly wild ancestors utilized the full expanse of what was available to them in carving out their survival niche; the temperate short grass steppes, the deserts, the lush alpine summer meadows and all the terrain in between.  The world of their ancestry has been lost by our hand.  At best feral horses are like whales in a lake.  There is no purely native environment remaining as far as horses are concerned.  Accept it or not, we have made ourselves the guardians of their genetic health.  We are obligated to undertake that responsibility seriously, and embrace the opportunity to learn, for their wellbeing and our own.

Conversations around this theme were commonplace among horseman by the middle 1900’s.  “Are our horses still as strong as those of our heritage?” was a common point of debate.  This was just the question that spawned a series of letters containing a mix of hypothesis, boasts and challenges between Wendell Robie of Auburn California and a gentleman from New York. This conversation represented such common interest that it was all publicly and chronicled in the editorial of the Western Horseman magazine in the time proceeding Robie’s first one-day ride of the Western States heritage trail from Lake Tahoe to Auburn California in the mid 1950’s.

This ride became an annual event.  An increasing number of horseman traveled from further and further seeking this opportunity to take measure of themselves and their horses in a test that is naturally referenced in our combined heritage.   It attracted experienced and devoted horsemen from all corners of the equestrian spectrum.  These were horsemen and horsewomen that understood the even though they had become accomplished in other disciplines or utilities of horses, such as racing, or jumping or stock work, that these skills alone were only partial examinations horsemanship.  Traveling roughly a hundred miles in a day, through a broad natural spectrum of climate zones and terrain, epitomized the essence of horse and horseman.   It was the real and natural application of all that was hallmark of the horse and taught of horsemanship. It was the missing feather in the cap of many devoted horsemen.

Among those that journeyed thousands of miles to participate in those early rides of the Western States trail was Alexander Mackay-Smith, already a key actor in the introduction of combined training tests (Eventing) to North America.   Mr. Mackay-Smith recognized the significance of performance records in sustaining a healthy genealogy in horses, and of quality horsemanship in our culture.   Keeping quality performance test data is the best way we can honor our horses; to support the welfare of future generations.    The results of this hundred mile ride across the American West would prove to be uniquely valuable. This was no singular quantitative measure of simply “how fast” of “how high” but qualitative study of the functional core of the equine.

If we guide a species only by very narrowly defined tests like speed on an unnaturally “perfect” track we only get the genetic outcome we asked for, and less of everything else.   We are then creating intensified selective pressure (suffering) to make the animal obsessively become something other than what it was before.  The further we push into this narrowing niche; the more selective pressure (suffering and attrition) is required to make increasingly smaller gains in that direction.   The genetic end result is an animal different from the one we first appreciated, enhanced in a small set of features and yet more fragile in all others; increasingly dependent on our synthetic support.   This creates an environment where high attrition is the norm, where the potential for suffering is extreme.   This is the genetic basis of the financial pissing contest we call a “ Sport of Kings”; an egomaniacal challenge to see who can support the highest level of consumption.

The course of the Western States Trail represented something very different.  Its goal was genealogic stasis, appreciating the animal as it has been for thousands of years.  It presented a broad spectrum of natural challenges, and a distance that went beyond the sporting sprint for a horses.   It reached into an inherent mode of performance, definitive in the horse’s heritage, yet overlooked by other modern equestrian disciplines.

Traveling through several types of natural terrain, pushing on through the long day and beyond awakens a remarkable physiological state in horses.  The horse becomes remarkably efficient, calm and focused.  More communicative than ever. The “cheap sweat” is long gone.   Nothing is wasted.  It’s as if there has been a special “herd is on migration” mode waiting to be activated within their epigenetics; Equine and equestrian nirvana.

This test qualitatively represented the same challenges equines had been dealing with for tens of thousands of years.  It highlighted the same abilities humans have valued horses for in the last six thousand years.   It provided us with natural reference to guide our very philosophy about horses.  To excel in other equine sports requires exceptional strength in a few aspects, to excel against the Western States trail requires no weakness in any aspect.

Emerging here was a new hybrid of concepts.   One with the objectivity and excitement of race, paired with sober scientific testing.  It was an evolving technical experiment where the tests themselves were to be evaluated and improved for validity as a natural reference.

This was the spirit that drove Endurance riding in those early years in North America.  Of course not everyone understood it’s unique genealogical merits in such detail as I just depicted, but enough did that the sense of great purpose spread epidemically.

Concern that the flood of riders racing to Auburn would eventually paint the event with the same brush as the “Jackpot” desert races inspired development of veterinary control systems as an integral part of the race.  This was a novel concept at the time, one that would become the platform for endurance racing to enter a future of growing animal welfare awareness.


Expansion Across North America


This endurance racing concept first spread across the North American continent as one day hundred mile rides.  For some time 100 mile (160 K) rides were all that was available for many of us.  100 mile rides were endurance racings only skill level.  Only challenges that could reach that distinctive physiological plateau, that fabled “second wind” of equines were considered Endurance Tests.

The Old Dominion One Day 100 Mile Test brought endurance riding to my region of the United States in 1973.    While this technically was a race, as participants were ranked on completion time, the word “Test” was engaged to remind us of the academic objective of the endeavor.  We were gathered to take a necessary measure of our horse’s ability, and our skills as equestrians, for the betterment of horses now and in the future.  It was a scientifically valid test of ability, and it just happened to be a lot of fun for those who respected the serious underpinnings of the endeavor.   Even with a rigorous focus on the academic and scientific value of the discipline it was growing at a healthy rate and the enthusiasm was electric.

Even without any “entry level” opportunities, the system was quite effective at yielding the valuable results we sought from the most elite athletes while protecting the welfare of all.   The courses we first developed remain today among the most arduous in the world.   There was plenty of opportunity to display raw speed ability in each course, but also a spectrum of other natural challenge elements that moderated the pace to a tone that facilitated the veterinary controls effectiveness.  We could reliably halt any horse that was physically unprepared to continue at any time, well before the animal sustained any irreparable strain.

Peer pressure emphasized that the primary skill and responsibility of the endurance racing rider was the careful awareness of his/her mount’s individual condition and sustainable pace.   In the team of horse and rider it was the rider’s role to anticipate the demands of the complex course ahead and to pace the horse strategically to the end.   We understood that completing a 100 mile day wasn’t unduly difficult for a horse, but that pacing inappropriate for the individual was extremely dangerous.  For riders in this new discipline, maintaining an above average completion rate was key to respectability.

Another reason we fared so well without any “entry level” or qualifying races is that we already had an effective developmental platform in competitive trail rides (CTR).   At this time in America, as in many other countries, we had inherited an abundance of CTR opportunities to practice distance riding.  These were more closely modeled after the kind of distance testing programs our cavalries had once employed.  Participants were released in small groups to complete a course within a predetermined window of time, a standardized pace.  Veterinary control was employed, but in CTR every notation of the veterinary judge was also part of a competitive score.  There were lay judges as well that scored horsemanship observations throughout the day and night as well.  Yes, safety and security of our overnight stabling arrangements was part of the critique.  We were critiqued on our equitation as we passed through technically challenging moments of the course.

We dismissed our critiques like students in school always do, but we learned well, and we came back to be tested in increasing difficulty again and again.  Well maybe not everybody came back; some people just couldn’t accept being tutored and moved on.  The discipline grew stronger by their absence.

These CTRs were also more supportive environments for developing horses, even the most experienced horsemen appreciated this. There was time and opportunity to address underlying training issues properly the moment they appeared, as it is best.  This applied to both behavioral and physical development.  There was time to notice, and time to take corrective action or abort the test in the interest of optimum development of the horses.  No one felt the need to move on until they could do it well.  Pursuit of excellence at each step along the way was the only objective.

This was particularly apparent as the horse progressed into the longer distanced multi-day CTR tests.   The modest daily increment of 25-40 miles (40-65 K) followed by a nights rest provided opportunity for the most careful assessment of the horses’ fitness to continue.  It was clearer than ever in the morning after a ride if the horse’s best developmental interest was to continue for the remainder of the test or not.  This is the kind of information skilled trainers seek, and CTRs provide the best environment to see it, and to learn HOW to see it.

Unfortunately, there was a brooding social division between our CTR and Endurance racing communities within the distance riding discipline.   Many CTR participants were concerned about being associated with endurance racing, which they still perceived to be too hedonistic, a little too much like those “Jackpot” races.   The CTR organizations that might have had a fleeting moment to step forward and embrace governance of this new form of distance test as it emerged let the opportunity pass.  Endurance racing enthusiasts formed a new association in North America exclusively for endurance racing.  Thus the distance testing community in North America became further divided with governance by separate business entities, with considerable competitive overlap for customers.   This would prove to be tragically ill fated.

The American Endurance Ride Conference (AERC) sanctioned endurance races as short as 50 miles (80K).  The thought was that any shorter races might be so fast paced that the veterinary control systems might not be responsive enough to protect the horses.   Many of us argued that this short distance was not truly reaching that special physiological range that defined an endurance test, and thus missed our most noble objective.   However, the shorter 50 mile races were popular, easier to organize, bringing in more members and revenue for the racing association.   This lowering of the “endurance racing” entry level competed effectively against CTR’s for customers.  50 mile endurance races were wildly more fun by comparison, and participants weren’t pestered by judges attempting to evaluate and educate them.

By the time the FEI showed interest in Endurance riding here in the mid-1980’s most of the veterinary control procedures we now take for granted in endurance racing where already in place; hammered out over the previous decades of very progressive experimentation and refinement.   We had also allowed ourselves to start down a slippery slope of eroding the rigorous educational platform that had fostered our best endurance riders in favor of “entry level racing” approach.


FEI enters the scene


I was active in the organization of that first FEI world championship hosted by the Old Dominion Ride club.  The first rule book the FEI had sent to us was one of the most  nonsensible documents we had ever witnessed.   It was far more voluminous than the national rules we had been building for over two decades, and nothing in it had anything to do with endurance riding as we knew it then or now.  It wasn’t just a bad translation from another language.   The document appeared to be compiled of cut and paste phrases from other FEI disciplines such as jumping and eventing.  There was plenty of verbiage about things such as penalties for taking alternate routes around obstacles, class (star) levels that had no definition in endurance yet, and other completely pointless text.   There was practically nothing in the entire overstuffed document that was relevant to the race we were about to host for them.

This was a harbinger of things to come.  It demonstrated a hasty compulsion to appear authoritative by creating rules, with little concern for becoming familiar with the subject matter first.   Other guidance from FEI specified extraordinary new levels of pomp and circumstance in the venue and presentations, with no suggestion about how this would be honorably funded.

“Authority is not a power, it is a responsibility.”
Amit Kalantri

There were several observers from Europe present at that first FEI world championship.  The rulebook was eventual improved to reflect endurance racing as we know it today.  There were now definitions behind CEI classes.  FEI had adopted the convention that 50 mile races would be the lowest level (CEI*) and that the progression would be a simple matter of distance through CEI*** at 100 miles.

It was understandable why they would see it this way, because that’s what was most observable at that moment in time, but I was concerned that they were in such a hurry to structure the sport on this basis.  They really seemed in a hurry to get the discipline jammed into the same kind of boxes they had packaged their other disciplines in.   Such things make bureaucrats look like their actually doing something.    Still, it was innocuous for a time, because the CEI classes weren’t applied in other rules or qualifications yet.  So, those of us that had big concerns about this muffled our voices, a lost opportunity.

When I first heard that some qualifying systems were being considered, myself and many others had been anticipating that we would eventually need some sort of governance structure to prevent riders from advancing beyond their level of skill and experience.  It had been almost universally understood that prudence, sensitivity and care for the mount beneath them was the paramount responsibility of the endurance rider, and the key to any screening systems genuinely designed to protect the horse.

Traveling a hundred miles or more is not inherently damaging or dangerous for a horse.  It may seem fantastic to human, but not for a horse.  If we dropped you or I into the middle of the Atlantic with instructions to swim home that would be cruel and inhumane for us, but not for a Blue Whale.   Horses are the whales of the landmasses. So ability to go a great distance is innate, and not really a safety issue for the horse.  Any basically conditioned and sound horse can attempt this safely over and over again.

Racing any distance with a horse is quite another thing.  Horses are epigenetically pre-wire to believe they can solve all their problems by moving forward.  Their ancestors were competitive with each other, racing to the best morsels of food ahead of their herd, and yet desperate not to left behind.  All of their wants and needs in the wild came to them by getting over the horizon.  Thirsty? Hungry? Cold?  It’s always better over the horizon. The life of their ancestors was one of moving forward or death.  This is also why there are so few safety checks built into their psychology and physiology; why they can shunt the last bit of energy they have away from other vital systems to keep moving forward.

So we considered it part of the art of being a distance rider to become keenly aware of our mounts status and limitations, to consider the challenge of a complex course ahead, to optimize the horse’s resources and complete the objective with a safe reserve remaining.  It was the sober responsibility of a competent endurance racer to demonstrate the horse’s ability, but never overestimate what the horse safely has to offer.

The FEI surprised many of us by first adopting a “pin it on the horse” qualification paradigm instead.  Suddenly it was each horses’ responsibility to prove that that it could safely race 50 miles, then 75 miles, then 100 miles; as if it should know how to pace itself properly.  Strict time limits were put into place to keep slow horses from embarrassing the events and finishing late in the evening in front of a crowd that might not understand how little consequence this was to a horse. Concern over the perception of viewers that hardly knew which end of the horse to feed had become more important than that of those with decades of experience with horses.

By the mid-1990’s there was also a completely different philosophy about the riders pacing responsibilities emanating from the Persian Gulf region.   Riders established a pace that was based more on previous course records than any real-time judgment of the horse’s status.  Commonly, a rider there will to simply go at pace with race-winning potential until the veterinary panel finds horse unfit to continue.  ALL of the responsibility for protecting the horse shifted to the veterinary panel.   If a rider hasn’t been mounted on a horse that can sustain the winning pace he can just quit and go home early.   There is common argument that it’s kinder to the horse to retire early after running it at a pace it couldn’t sustain. This is simply a shrewd defense of “caution to the wind”, “all or nothing” pacing philosophies.

This “qualifying” system might have been inspired by grading systems of the “Sport of Kings”. It certainly had some of the same ill effects. This has been of less consequence to well-funded large stables already patterned after Thoroughbred racing.  Elsewhere it has had a very different effect.

Around the world this qualification system has artificially inflated the number of FEI races offered as participants must now squeeze resources away from other investments in the development of their horses to patronize to FEI races for qualifiers.  Through their entry fees they are forced to fund the overheads of the standard FEI organizational protocol, designed to create an image of better integrity.  It’s all only wastefulness since no one will race all that ambitiously in the qualifying events anyway.  FEI riders often just course around with mundane conservativism, pacing only to the qualifying rule, effectively throwing the race because no one wants to be required make another attempt at each level.

It’s not just a matter of wasting financial resources.  The most precious and limited resource any trainer has to manage is the time and effort any individual horse has to offer toward training.  Trainers that have the skill and opportunity to develop better training techniques, and to tailor training programs to the individual horse are now constrained from doing so.   The horses development path is pre-ordained by the FEI.   The qualification system is just micromanagement of training practices in order to mandate support of a burgeoning bureaucratic system.   This has been an attempt to increase egg production by strangling chickens.  All it’s really done is suffocated the advancement of  the discipline.

“The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency.” Eugene McCarthy


The requirements for speed standards (COC) in qualifying have been an additional insult to this injury.  This has made it practically impossible to organize FEI endurance races anywhere but in the flattest, fastest, least technical terrain possible.  Could the authors believe the whole world was a flat, dry dessert lakebed?  As long as trainers are required to make an arbitrarily specified COC speed to qualify the horse they always patronize only the least difficult, fastest courses offered to them.  This rule turned FEI endurance into just another form of extended flat race overnight.   FEI officials publically recognized that there is need to move toward slower more arduous and technical courses in the interest of equine welfare, but then stubbornly kept this rule that guarantees the opposite in place.

This qualification system and COC speed has another effect too, now all FEI horses must be trained and prepared specifically for flat, non-technical racing worldwide.  A very convenient standardization of preparation for sales to race in the deserts of FEI Group 7 countries.

Sorry mountainous countries, you’re wise to just sit this one out.  So much for international equality in the FEI.

There eventually were rider qualifying rules added as well, but these have always been expressed in basic quantitative steps up the same irrelevant ladder.  Never is any standard of rider performance accountability, such as minimum completion rate, that would interfere with “caution to the wind pacing” allowed to come to reality.   We have never been supplied a rider “qualification” that can’t be worked through by even the most hedonistically reckless riders if they have enough money to throw at repeated attempts.  These aren’t qualifications at all, they’re quantifications.

The system works something like this:

If you enter in a CEI*, the shortest and thus inherently fastest paced of all endurance races and you survive you will be allowed to enter longer distanced CEI**, which will be a little slower paced and less demanding of equestrian skill.  If you survive that CEI** you will be allowed to enter for the relatively laid back pace of a CEI ***.

The system is not just ineffective, it’s backwards in terms of equitation skill required.

If this CEI scale really makes sense, then we should be able to extend it a little further.  We could be more conservative and require beginning endurance riders to start a little lower yet.  Why let’s make the first qualification step the successful completion of a one-mile race!   Wow!  I never realized that those riders in the Kentucky Derby were such rank beginners!

There is only a 49 mile (78 km) difference between the Kentucky Derby and a CEI*, and 50 miles (80 km) between a CEI* and CEI***.

My point here is that the optimal horse training approach and riding tactics for each distance or time of test duration is unique unto itself.  The skill set and training preparation required to excel at a CEI* isn’t “lower” than CEI** or CEI***, just different.  Each distance is its own game.  Racing any distance, going as fast as possible, is inherently an ultimate development level requirement.     This is not a relevant or effective skill level (CEI) definition or qualification sequence.

“Bureaucracies force us to practice nonsense. And if you rehearse nonsense, you may one day find yourself the victim of it.”
Laurence Gonzales, Everyday Survival: Why Smart People Do Stupid Things

The philosophy suggested by these CEI definitions and qualifications is having tragic consequences in regions attempting to start new FEI endurance programs.   I once met an enthusiastic Chinese gentleman who described how he was part of a club that was trying to develop endurance racing in his region.  He described how they had planned to be very careful, taking small steps at first, even more careful with their horses than the FEI required in qualification.    Accordingly, they organized a 3 mile race, then an 8 mile race, then a 15 mile race.  They were hoping to do a 25 mile race and then a 35 mile race someday.   I ask how that was working out, he said “Not so good, all our horses are lame”.  Then with tears in his eyes he showed me a picture of his precious mare, with a tendon bow you could see from a full body photo.   Sadly, not long before I had heard an almost identical story from another Asian gentleman.  These people were compassionate and intelligent, just naïve and easily misled by the implication that the FEI qualification system suggests a valid training protocol.  It doesn’t. It only wastes resources and interferes with best practices.

It’s time to put a stake through the heart of this diabolical CEI definition.  We don’t need to tweak it or just remove the ill-conceived COC standard.  We need to remove the entire concept.  Racing different distances is each a different game, worthy of its own development strategy,  there is very little sequential relevance.   Any sound horse is inherently qualified to attempt a great distance by heritage if it is paced sensibly.   Racing a horse only proves that it WAS sound.  Protection of the horse in racing primarily requires demonstration of consistent good judgment on the part of the rider.


Back in the USA


Meanwhile the AERC was making another miss-step itself.   The financial success of sanctioning shorter 50 mile races was clear.  So why not go further?  The AERC started the Limited Distance program for races as short as 20 miles.  Another huge financial windfall!  This successfully attracted the last potential customers they could ever extract from the wounded CTR organizations.   THIS WAS LIKE A PARTY SCHOOL HAD JUST OPENNED UP NEXT DOOR TO OXFORD!    The students couldn’t rush across the street any faster!   No picking on novice riders with their horses bouncing around in panic here!  Just get on and giggle.  Go as fast as your undisciplined horse chooses for itself and as long as it passes the vet check YOU’RE A WINNER!  To Finish Is To Win!

Now “winning” endurance tests  in the AERC includes riding a horse no further than many Nevada mustangs travel every single day of the year looking for food and water.   This was grade inflation on steroids.

AERC corporate bylaws acknowledge an academic responsibility.   The ongoing practice of winning students over by offering them the curriculum and test they think is more fun isn’t academically responsible.  It’s academic piracy.  We were looting our own educational institutions to provide more race opportunities.

We were also beginning to rely heavily on some insidiously dangerous phrases as well.

The AERC mantra “To Finish is To Win” became an increasing popular rally call as the endurance communities of the FEI and AERC became more polarized.   This started as harmless kudo to support riders who persevered to maintain an honorable completion rate.  It has now been applied well beyond its original intent and used as philosophic battle cry.  It’s a sign that something is terribly wrong when the best phrase we can rally behind is an oxymoron.

“To Finish Is To Win” is an expression of “EVERYBODY GETS A GOLD STAR” philosophy, a proven destructor of academic motivation.  Every time someone says this it ultimately proclaims that they aren’t fully supporting the pursuit of excellence in learning.

Also among the destructive chants that have become common in the AERC is during this time of increasing polarization is “It’s a ride not a race”.  I’m the biggest proponent of more rides, less races.  However, there is a huge problem with promoting the idea that we should enter races knowing that we don’t intend to give the test a genuine, well prepared effort to present the horse’s best.   If we aren’t prepared to race, then we shouldn’t be entering in races.  Any event which ranks is competitors on their completion time is a race.  The AERC only sanctions RACES.   Let’s stop playing silly rhetorical arguments in defiance of Webster’s dictionary.

FEI riders of horses in the early stages of the prescribed qualifying protocol are require to throw races to meet speed limit rules.  In most other sports participants get banned for displaying such a breach of integrity; the FEI requires it.  This is only conditioning participants to tolerate breaches of integrity.   A rule that requires us to enter a race but then demands that we ride to a speed limit is an oxymoron.  Again, oxymoron is indication that we must be fundamental going about things the wrong way.

The tragedy here is that every time we enter an event as a race competitor and don’t give it our best effort, we are deliberately degrading the quality of our disciplines statistics.   Those performance records are the cornerstone of this disciplines potential to benefit the health and welfare of the equines into the future.  Our records are a gift into infinite time affecting all horses to come.  Even the smallest positive impact on our judgment toward healthy genealogy can have more effect on the collective happiness of equines than anything that is happening only today.

The AERC has developed a fantastic online record keeping system for the races it sanctions.  It’s a pity that after years of promoting the “It’s a ride not a race” philosophy its data base has been stuffed full of race records that have compromised genealogical or academic value.   Did that horse really outperform 50 horses that day? Or was there really only 1 other horse honestly challenging?  There is no way to sort out how many people were actually racing, and how many entered for just a training exercise or a recreational trail ride.

We need LESS endurance RACES and MORE fixed pace RIDE opportunities so participants are not forced into this ethical conflict.

Our horses’ blood, sweat and years go into the creation of these records.  If we value and maintain the integrity of endurance test results they are resource that can make the contributions of past horses a precious gift to the future of their species. When we enter competitions without giving them our best effort, we desecrate this vital legacy of our horses.

When we forfeit opportunities to support a vigorous academic pursuit of excellence in horsemanship, horses now and in the future suffer.   When we compromise vital performance statistics, the next generation of horses, and all the generations of horses after them suffer.

Selfish hedonism lurks in many forms.


Our Issues are More Alike Than We Realize


One quantitative statistic that the AERC has been most obsessed with trumpeting is completion mileage.  It’s no small coincidence that this statistic closely correlates with the way the AERC derives some of its cash flow.   Completion mileage has been heavily promoted as a harmless and safe goal, but there are serious animal welfare issues with obsession for any objective that is so narrow in its scope and so quantitatively determined.   We are only fortunate that no one with extensive financial resources has taken this goal too seriously lately.  We saw a glimpse of this a couple decades ago and it made a lot of endurance riders repulsed enough to lose interest in these goals.

Then in 2007-2008 when the price of diesel fuel doubled suddenly, the number of miles required to receive the typical mileage pinned annual award of the AERC dropped very nearly in half. Such a clear correlation is strong statistical evidence that the ability to finance fuel intensive trips was a larger factor in achieving awards than anything else, including horsemanship.   Quantitative awards promote only “Trailer Races” and the overuse of horses.

It’s useful to record quantitative records like lifetime mileage, but to obsess in promoting such very narrow of aspects performance is unhealthy.  Evidence of this obsession is the excessive proportion of AERC annual awards that are pinned to mileage.   The AERC should retire some of these awards and bring other more qualitative statistics forward to balance and diversify their award portfolio.

For examples:  What horse/rider/trainer entering at least 3 events had the highest ratio of First to Finish /Best Conditioned/High Vet Score points per mile attempted?  This is nine more qualitative question combinations.  Each recognizes pursuit of excellence in way that can’t be overwhelmed simply by being reckless, or affording more rolls of the dice.   It’s that easy.

The underlying issue with the AERC’s mileage obsession is same one that is causing so much concern with fast paced races in FEI Group 7.   I keep hearing that “speed” is problem there, that we need to control speed.  Speed in not the issue, but it is an indicator of an issue.   I can fix a glaring indicator light on the dashboard of my car with a piece of electrical tape as cover, but that doesn’t solve the underlying issue.

The underlying issue is the lack of natural diversity in the tests, and the inherent quantitative behavior of durability tests with an unnaturally narrow focus.

In any scientific form of endurance testing we are inherently seeking the limits of durability.   By making the test very naturally diverse, by including many elements of challenge at one time in the course of the test, we get a more comprehensive examination of subject, and the test represents more of a qualitative assay.  Tests of this nature can discriminate levels of quality between subjects without the need to exhaust any one part.   In the ideal endurance race course the horses complete the test a little tired in every fiber of their body, without any single component being pressed to failure.  We cut the wheat from the chaff without destroying either.

The more monotonous we design the course, the more coldly quantitative the test becomes.  The strain of the test is focused on just a few components.  We will need to push those components to very near or even beyond breaking point to discriminate one test sample from another.   The endurance testing process rapidly approaches a consumptive exercise where the “winner” is the last one left intact.

As endurance racing has developed in the Emirates the courses have been made more and more unnaturally “perfect” with grading and other race track style “improvements”.  To narrow the scope of the test even further the horses run under a continuous supply of cold water.  This completely removes natural heat stress from the equation as well.  The artificially cooled horse can then direct its full vascular supply, more than is natural, to production of energy through the legs.

Each gait and pace of a horse has its own unique set of stress risers; points where stress becomes focused in the horses’ body.  This is not a problem when the horse is working though changing terrain because these stress risers are shifting accordingly.   When the horses run the same monotonous gait and pace from start to finish, and we press for distinction among nearly equally matched horses, high attrition rates are the inevitable result.

I’m aware that a many of the actors in the Emirates have great regard for equine genealogy.  What is being created in Emirates racing is only another dramatic distortion from heritage of the Arabian horse.  This is an extreme pressure development into yet another new “Sport of Kings” product; a longer range version of Thoroughbred, complete with its own set of frailties and dependencies on unnatural support.  It’s only a matter of more generations on this trajectory to create horses that can no longer produce their own hormones, or sweat to cool themselves.

The great Arabian horses of antiquity were not born of racing on perfectly groomed track under a bath of cool water.  Already we can see that horses that excel in those conditions are less like the classic Arabian, more like other flat-track race horses. Breeders pursuing this market have been shifting their programs post haste for years now.


A Rebirth Begins


It’s fitting that Sh. Sultan, a supporter of regional heritage preservation, would come forward with the initiatives at Bouthib.   The global endurance community now needs to embrace this example and act.  We shouldn’t need to wait for the FEI come up with its next wave of great bureaucratic contrivances to constrain us.  As always, it is seeking counsel only from those that have investment and interests tied to its current institutions and policies.  This is no way to achieve truly “sweeping changes” as it has been professing to the public for years now.

We don’t need to accept that the only form of endurance testing we are allowed to share on this earth is one layered under divisions of mock political warfare.  The discipline has no need for that burden.  Our horses have carried that burden for us in real warfare enough.   The relationship between man and horse has been around for over six thousand years and has transcended our fleeting political borders time and time again.

We have enough lessons learned from the past to see what is ahead and what must be done.   Here in North America the discipline of endurance testing has been stymied by super polarization.   The AERC and the FEI represent two divergent and self-conflicting paradigms, while philosophy that genuinely makes the welfare of the horse paramount has been abandoned in the middle.  Each organization was drawn into a narrowing dead-end road chasing short-sighted sources of revenue.  Each is now deeply mired in dependency on that revenue.  Each facing severe austerity as it tries to pull out of its self-excavated pit, and slow death if it fails to try.

Horsemen developing endurance testing programs in other regions can observe the mess the AERC and the FEI have made for themselves and beware.  Many regions of the world have done better; sustaining more academically sound, welfare compatible programs all along.  There is still a lot to be done to coordinate this into a new global unity.

Already our classic endurance test in North America are seeing a resurgence in popularity.   CTRs are slowly beginning to make a region by region comeback as well.    It’s time to seize this momentum and run with it.

Regional identity is more significant than political borders in the construct of endurance racing that genuinely makes equine welfare paramount.   Every region of the world has their own indigenous equestrian heritage intertwined with the culture and geography of the land.  This source of diversity can be integrated and celebrated in endurance testing instead of being forced to uniformity for sake of a “one world champion”, which is of limited value to the horse.   Embracing regional heritage is complementary  with the maintenance of healthful genealogy.   Regional governances only need enough coordination by a global entity to support each other’s efforts toward a common theme of preserving the sound and healthy horse, in all its variations.

Eventually this will grow into a healthy exchange of cross-regional testing, and comparing champions of one region to another.  This will be a healthy evolution of a discipline that has grown organically from its roots.  The rush to create a “one world champion” ahead of having well developed regional programs around the world is only a shortsighted promotional ploy, more politics than horsemanship.  It is an illusion of little value to the equine species.

Once traveling a distance is mastered in programs of deliberate academic rigor and focus, learning to race that distance effectively is a rather easy final step.   Learning on this pathway teaches important skills and habit that are never learned in the course of racing only.


Building Wise Endurance Testing Programs


The fastest way to herd cattle is slowly.

By taking the time to develop methodically in a “Master the Distance First” paradigm both horses and riders develop more thoroughly.  Racing is always the final step in the program.   Cutting corners and taking a more direct route into racing only wastes time and destroys the chance for real mastery altogether.

Value the complementary role trials with a specified completion time, such as CTRs, can play in program that ultimately supports endurance racing in its most honorable form.  This is the root that bears the most fruit.  Understand the unique role each distance testing form has to contribute to create a comprehensive program.

CTRs will always be the optimum environment for nurturing development of horses and riders.  The basic formats can be adapted in a wide variety of ways to support regional needs.  A little diversity and thoughtful experimentation in this area worldwide is a healthy thing.   It can include varying degrees of academic rigor and controlled focus on particular abilities as desired.

CTRs are the more effective format for grading levels of competence, for determining whether or not a subject is suitable for advancement to a longer CTR test, or on to racing at a distance that has been mastered in CTR.   This applies to horse or rider the same.

CTRs are not very effective at discriminating between the abilities of elite individuals, particularly in trials of less than 100 miles (160 K).    A standardized course difficulty and pace that is appropriate for the development of the majority of the test group is often insufficient to discriminate elite talents.

It’s therefore wise to avoid overstating the resolution of the CTR trials. In the past we made the error of inciting expectations that all participants can be ranked in precise order in shorter distance CTRs.  This only leads to discontent when judges are forced to score on trivialities in order to break ties.  Participants here should not be led to expect more than academic grading.  A simple “A”, “B”, “C”, ”D”, ”E” referenced to standard grading distributions of results is ideal.  CTRs are valuable enough in a complete distance testing program without expecting them to split competitive hairs.  They are the place of education, grading and qualification in endurance testing.

Endurance races complete the spectrum of a distance testing program.  They have the potential to objectively discriminate between elite individuals even at moderate distances of 75-100 miles (120-160 K) (a truly a modest distance for equines).    There is legitimate use for races in a distance testing program that dares attempt to be all that it can be for the welfare of the horse.   For the horses’ sake, we need to see the very best practices and the most elite athletes compared….         Occasionally.

The most effective endurance testing programs for the welfare of the horse will have significantly more CTR type event opportunities in a region than endurance races.    A ratio of 6 to 10 CTRs for every endurance race might be a healthy balance.   Endurance races work best when they are reserved for just the annual or biannual pinnacle of a region, and treated with the unique reverence and honor having that type of event available not too often affords.

Programs that rush to fill a calendar with a race spectacle every week or a “one world champion” in just a few years of development have been the bane of this discipline.   Perhaps someday those things can come, but we have a lot of more careful grassroots foundation building to do first.   When we rush to force the image of Endurance testing to emulate that of other international sports we will only find ourselves selling our souls to the devil in order to chase an illusion.   Endurance Testing is very different from other disciplines, and it needs to grow in global prominence in its own way.

A regional distance testing program that supports rich balance of CTR opportunities to endurance races can benefit the entire equine community; providing essential genealogical testing support to all types of horse.   This was much more apparent in those decades of endurance testing in North America when CTRs were still a strong foundational platform.   People brought horses of all types to be tested.  For these horse enthusiasts it isn’t about winning a race against Arabian types, on course that favors those aerobic specialists. They came to give the test their earnest best just the same whether they were racing or doing a CTR because it was important to prove that their horse was among the best of its type.

They might be fond of supporting a particular breed or type of horse, bred for a particular ability; such as a Tennessee Walker known for its smooth riding gait, or a Morgan valued for equal ability under saddle or in light harness utility.    They recognized that even if those traits were a hallmark of the breed, obsession with a few features would not lead to a healthy breeding program.  Maintaining the ability to cover a long distance is universally fundamental and vital to the welfare of horses of all types.  Special merit and distinction toward breeding went to horse that excelled at endurance tests AND tests of the breeds unique functionalities.

Often their respective breed associations made recognitions for the best of their type at CTRs and endurance rides.  They saw that certification of their specific type at endurance tests was a healthy complement to their efforts to keep the breed everything it was originally meant to represent.

A wisely constructed endurance testing program therefore has a place for both the endemic favorite types of a region, as well as the Arabian typed aerobic specialist we see dominate endurance racing today.   A thoughtfully codified global endurance testing system can provide genealogic health benefits to all horses, from the Creollo of South America to the Mongul ponies of Asia.  The endurance testing community can be much richer by the diversity, and the entire world of horses can be happier for it, now and for centuries to come.

Endurance testing is much more than a sport.  It is an educating discipline.  It is an evolving experiment in the sustainable welfare of our domestic animals.  The knowledge we gain here, of wisdom and insight in genetic guidance may benefit our own species as much as theirs someday.  Mankind has been carried by the horse for thousands of years, and their greatest gift to us may be yet to come.

Continue to  Roadmap to the Future: Part 1