Re: [RC] [RC] reply to Bob Morris - Truman Prevatt
I would suggest that unless the incident was seen by several
individuals - preferably someone associated with ride management or the
vet staff - this would be very shaky.
The AERC does not have to put people under oath to tell the truth to
get information. Little credence can be given to such - unless observed
by a sufficient number - and I suspect if the AERC tried they would be
slam dunked in the courts.
Bottom line the rule is about using a drug during competition - not two
weeks before or after. If it is not in the horse's system in sufficient
amounts to test or unless there is irrefutable evidence that it was put
into the horse (and brags are not that) immediately prior or during the
competition and the substance is verified to be a banned substance then
there is no violation.
Having bute in your trailer - in fact the AERC has no authority to know
what is in your trailer or to try to find out - is not a violation,
taking about it is not a violation. The AERC has no rule (or policy )
on durgs that can be used in training (a big mistake in my opion one
that opens the sport up to the worse form of drug use and one we see
more and more in human athletics). It being in the horse's system in
amounts that can be proved during a competition is a violation. The
only way I know to prove beyound a doubt is through chemical analysis
of blood, urine. Any idiot that hangs up and IV during a ride or after
they check in front of the world is clearly in violation of the rule -
but I seriously doubt that is much an issue.
The last thing we need is for endurance riding being turned into "witch
hunts" where heresy and gossip is confused with evidence. If that
happens the AERC will eventually end up in court and it will lose.
Rule 13 as written is wonderful policy but as a rule it's clear as mud.
If it were clear it would not be coming up every three months on
ridecamp.
Excause me. Even if there was an "eyewitness" to someone givng something
by syringe, you will sitll have to prove the substance given the horse
was a banned substance which require testing. Giving substances by
syringe is quite common at endurance rides, electrolytes, probiotics,
water to wash down same, etc.
An "eyewitness" many times only knows what they know - and that isn't
much - and in general I suspect that without verification of the
substance, you have no evidence - at least that would hold up in the
lawsuit that would follow.
First of all, it IS entirely possible to be an eye witness to more of the
sequence than just the administration of "something" via syringe. I agree
that merely using an oral syringe is not "evidence"--and I didn't infer
that in my comment. But an eye witness to an IV injection during a ride
would constitute evidence, since injection is an invasive procedure and as
such is illegal, regardless of the substance used. Likewise being an eye
witness to other modalities of treatment would constitute evidence. You
are only thinking of one very narrow area of "application" and not
thinking about the many other situations that can constitute violations.
Secondly, some riders also actually brag about having given illegal
substances. Their own words, in such cases, are also "evidence."
Heidi
-- "It is necessary to be noble, and yet take humility as a basis
"It
is necessary to be noble, and yet
take humility as a basis.
It is necessary
to be exalted, and yet take modesty as a foundation."
