Re: [RC] [RC] reply to Bob Morris - Truman Prevatt
Not at all. One needs to have evidence in order to issue sanctions. If
I saw a person cut trail, I would report it to the RM and let them
collect other evidence, such as timing information. If there was not
other evidence I would not expect my one report to carry any weight and
sure would not expect it be enough to DQ someone and if it did I would
hope they would be vindicated in protest. If this sport gets down to he
said she said - we are in trouble.
The AERC BOD has been sued in the past over how it enforces the rules.
One over a sore back issue back in the early 90's. I believe it lost.
Also in the early 90's right after this arcane drug rule was passed,
the AERC tried to get the Tevis to DQ the winner because she told
someone she used a brace - a mixture of DMSO and rubbing alcohol if I
remember correctly. The AERC was rattling it sword pretty big time and
if I remember correctly when the individual basically said they could
talk to her lawyer, they backed off.
The rule is unclear, the rule is imprecise, the rule is vague and if
the AERC gets aggressive about enforcing it the way it stands - someone
just might own them. The basic reason why it is all the above is there
is not sentence that begins along the lines as, "... for the this rule
the word drug (or illegal substance) is defined to be.......... I am
very surprised Trilby didn't sue them back to the stone age. She could
have owned them - and maybe even a few of the directors. She was a lot
nicer than I would have been.
Truman
Ed & Wendy Hauser wrote:
"..., it would get down to a "he said, she said" situtation in
which without further hard evidence, it would be very difficut to
enforce any sanction. ..."
Using this logic if two people were
to see you cut trail, we could not file a protest unless we had a
photograph of you doing it? Or maybe not even then because we all know
that photos can be faked.
You are continuing to try to confuse
the issue by raising straw men and knocking them down. If an invasive
treatment were to be witnessed by one or two persons (say me and my
wife), if the alerted vet then found the needle mark, if the vet DQ'd
the person, if the DQ'd person protested, if the P&G committee did
not allow the protest based on hearing with due process and used the
standard of preponderance of evidence then the DQ'd person could sue.
That would be a mess, but we can't avoid all possibility of law suits.
The only law suit of this type I
have heard of happened when David Boggs was sanctioned for violation
of show rules. His sanction was upheld.
If your idea of a having a list of
prohibited drugs etc. would not stop lawsuits at all. They would just
change the fight to one about exact amounts, lab integrity, chain of
evidence etc.
Ed
Ed & Wendy Hauser
2994 Mittower Road
Victor, MT 59875
