Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Now would you tell me why it matters what ridecamp thinks or care if they
trash Jim Holland?  The AERC vet committee should be the last group to care
a tinkers damn about what ridecamp thinks when it addresses the issues around
a dead horse. 

The bottom line horses have died and from my perspective the AERC BOD has
been willing to just let it slide in the past. When you hear directors say
things like, "sh** happens, what messge does that send. Not a good one IMO.
Some see the comments of the vet committee as just another example of that.
IMO it is time we as a sport start taking the words horse welfare seriously
or remove them from our bylaws. 

Truman

Unfortunately I see a lot of defense for the status quo on this issue. 

Heidi Smith wrote:
> > Why not? Speculation on what "might" have happened is the first step
> > toward resolving the problem....as in the Challenger disaster, for
> > example. Speculation  should include propose possible scenarios not only
> > as to why it might have happened, but how it might be prevented in the
> > future. Are the details surrounding the death "secret" and not availble
> > to us "regular" AERC members?
> >   
>
> Speculation has its place, but not in an official report.  If the official
> report says, "Jim Holland's horse that died MIGHT have been saved if he had
> given more e-lytes at vet check 3," then by the time it gets on Ridecamp, it
> has become "Jim Holland is an ignorant SOB who overrode his horse and
> refused to give it e-lytes and the vet committee says he killed his horse."