Re: RC: Dancer

["Nancy Mitts" <mitts_n@hotmail.com>]

I have been thinking about this issue a lot, & come to the conclusion going 
over the cliff was probably a separate issue from the over-riding & abuse 
claims. But now that it's come to a head, abuse needs some open discussion, 
perhaps in more generic terms.
"Abuse of an equine" (although "abuse" is not clearly defined)is 
specifically listed as a cause for which a ride manager may refuse entry. 
Yes, after being refused entry the rider may well put up the $100 and file a 
protest, which may or may not be upheld. But if so many riders, vets, and 
ride managers were supposedly wringing their hands over this individual for 
2 years, why was nobody willing to follow through with documentation of what 
they had witnessed? Speaking out after a horse dies is useless if the 
speakers are not willing to risk having to send affidavits to the protest 
committee.
Plus, having to publicly defend one's behavior to a committee might get 
someone thinking more seriously than a one-on-one warning. It is not 
uncommon for the frontrunners in this sport to get sniped at for 
over-riding, cutting trail, yada, yada, yada.  I can understand why a person 
might tune out a comment or two as sour grapes. If a horse is truly 
mechanically sound and metabolically fit at the start and finish of each 
race, it's not abuse, even if it isn't the way I might ride.
On the other hand, a whole stack of signed testimonials about whippings, 
etc. from well repected peers might make the difference. If not, you really 
can't legislate against stupidity, only hope someone else learns from the 
mistake.
And maybe AERC could elaborate a little on the definition of abuse in the 
rulebook?
Nancy Mitts
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com