The problem with this idea is that it puts huge expense on the rider to
prove himself innocent, as well as much worry of their own fate when they
should have time to heal them selves from the disaster. Most of us spend all
our money doing this sport anyway and do/would not have the extra to do this
step.
While the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone to our legal
process, our laws are very specific as to where this applies. For
example if a person is caught with a blood alcohol content of X (as
defined in the relevant law) their drivers license is automatically
suspended or if they refuse to take a breath (or blood) test their
drivers license is automatically suspended in most states.
This meets the muster of the courts in "presumption of innocence,"
because driving is not a right it is a privilege granted by the state
and the sate can suspend that privilege for cause.
It seems to me that participating in an AERC sanctioned ride falls in
that same category, it is not a right (the founding fathers somehow
didn't put up there with freedom of speech, press, etc.) it is a
privilege granted by the AERC and the AERC can suspend that privilege
for cause. So the presumption of innocence doesn't apply.
I, however like you, would prefer to see the AERC belly up to the bar
and establish an investigatory process for any fatality (and maybe
serious treatments) and in the case that rider error was a significant
contributing factor in the death of a horse to sanction the rider in
question. Of course the devil is in the details in the definition of
"significant contributing factor."
Best Regards,
Truman
I do believe that some action should be taken when a horse death is caused,
when it was avoidable. As you said it can and does happen that the death was
"going to happen" anyway and the rider is not at fault. Why should the rider
then have to prove his innocence? We do live in an innocent until proven
guilty world. I feel AERC should do an investigation, prove the rider at
fault and then the suspension. This would be fair and ensure that all deaths
are investigated equally, also the riders not at fault would not care being
investigated and begin their own grieving processes with out worry of
proving their own innocence. I admit that those guilty may not like it but
the guilty ones never do.
In all I do support the suspension and think riders who continue to cause
deaths should possible be banned from the sport for an extended time frame.
Lets just ensure that the innocent are not punished unfairly.
Rusty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cora" <bandc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aercmembersforum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "terre"
<tobytrot@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] automatic sanctions
Hey, all
Truman posted the other day a suggestion that AERC impose an
automatic one year suspension on anyone who had a horse die at a
ride---and
nobody reacted! You guys asleep or something? He and I discussed it a
little off-list, and this is what I came up with:
So: if a horse dies at the ride for metabolic reasons, or at
a
clinic after referral from a ride--automatic 1 year suspension. (this
would not include horses who trailered home, colicked and died the
next
day or so--I DO think that is due to the ride but would be impossible
to
accurately monitor). If a rider feels the death is truly unrelated to
the ride (aneurism, heart attack), they may order and pay for an
necropsy, and file a protest including the report, to the P&G
committee. The Vet Committee should have supplied to the P/G
committee
a
list (by technical name) of the conditions they consider
"extenuating". If the protest is upheld the rider gets his protest
fee
refunded (but still has paid for the necropsy) and the suspension is
lifted. ALL of this is reported--pro, con, necropsy results--ALL of
it.
terre (I was expecting a big furor on rc when you called for automatic
sanctions--and nada! Amazing!)
