Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

I agree with you on this. ?

One correction - in the Tribunal report, they did decide she was guilty of "abuse", but that is a *technical definition* that is explained in the report, where they do **not** require the action to be intentional. ?They define what they mean in the report. ?Under **that** definition, they decided she was guilty of abuse, but with mitigating factors in that her actions were taken under an honest misperception of the situation, rather than deliberate disregard of the horses' welfare. ??

Informally, I would put this into the poor judgement category, as my own, personal definition of 'abuse' requires deliberate disregard.

On Jul 26, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Smith, Dave wrote:

Seems to me that a lot of folks are second-guessing those who officially reviewed the riders' action and are ignoring the tribunal's findings when they condemn the rider for alleged abuse.? The tribunal did charge her with poor judgment - a far different thing than "abuse."? I can only imagine how terrible this woman must feel, knowing that her poor judgment led to the death of her horse.? While we each have a right to our opinion on the matter, we also have the responsibility that if we plan to state our opinion in public, it should be based on facts.? And unless we actually sat on the tribunal, it is highly unlikely we are privy to all the facts. To conclude that the rider abused her horse, you must also conclude that the tribunal was either incompetent in its investigation, or that it purposefully is lying about the facts of the case.

?

?