Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Heidi said:

> When the rider overrode the horse on the last
> leg of the ride, concerned riders came into camp,
> reported the problem, and sought help. Ride
> vets went out on the trail and treated the horse.
...
> AERC did just fine in this unfortunate fracas.  It upheld
> its rules and it stepped in to protect the horse.
Actually, the AERC didn't do ANYTHING in this unfortunate fracas.  The
rules were inadequate to protect the horse from its allegedly*
overzealous rider since the horse passed the midpoint vet check and
crashed before it got to the next official place on the course.  It was
other riders and ride vets who stepped in to save the horse.

> What more do you want?  Will a pound of his flesh
> accomplish any more than was accomplished?
Since the AERC doesn't have the authority to extract a pound of flesh
from anybody, no "a pound of his flesh" is not the "more" that some
people here want (although it does appear to be what Patrick MacDonald
wanted, probably because the AERC appeared unwilling to do the "more"
that it could have done).

The "more" that I think some people here want is for the AERC to have
actually investigated the occurance (if it has done, it hasn't reported
such) and taken an official position.  Which would then give it the
ability to do any or all of four of the five penalties as laid out in
rule 15.

It couldn't do penalty c) remove placement or completion in the ride
because the horse and rider didn't finish the ride anyway.   It could
have a) sent a warning letter, b) censured the rider, d) suspended the
person from competing for any period of time, or e) suspended from
membership in the AERC. Yes, I know the person was only a "day" member
at the time, but any such suspension from membership for a period of
time will disallow the rider from joining in the future (even if only as
a "day" member) for that period of time (e.g. Mr. Boggs was suspended
from membership in the IAHA for five years, this IS something that can
be done even if the person is either not a member or is not a life
member).

What _I_ would have liked to seen done is for the member of the Board of
Directors who WAS at the ride and witness the event to have filed the
protest himself (rather than actively discouraging other people from
doing so as was reported), for the Protest and Griveance Committee to
have officially investigated the occurance to determine if the rider WAS
actually guilty of horse abuse (e.g. DID the rider actually continue to
whip and spur the horse when it obviously was unable to continue as has
been reported or was the incident blown out of proportion by people who
hadn't even seen it and in actuality the rider was caring and
conscientous but because he was a novice endurance rider also rather
clueless?)

And if the P&G Committee DID find, after its investigations, that the
horse was abused by its rider...or that the rider's crew (who IS a
member) was complicit in the abuse and therefore should also be included
in the protest, THEN the AERC could have imposed any of its penalties
(except for the disqualify from the ride one).

If the rider WAS guilty of the abuse, then the AERC could have, at the
very least publicly censured the rider (which is what Patrick MacDonald
got because a new member who didn't know any better DID file a protest
when she was assaulted), but if it was as aggregious as has been
reported here by some, then it would have been entirely appropriate to
suspend membership (albeit day membership) and participation in future
rides for at least six months.

And if the rider failed to obey the penalty (i.e. entered rides during
the suspension anyway), then additional penalties could have been
imposed.

Of course, it would be easier for ride managers to ensure that AERC
penalties are imposed if the AERC were to publish a list of people who
are currently under suspension.

The fact that penalized riders can enter rides under an assumed (i.e.
different) name in an attempt to avoid being caught violating their
suspension doesn't mean that the AERC shouldn't bother trying to impose
suspensions on violating riders, no matter what their membership status.

There is a LOT more that the AERC could have done that has nothing to do
with extracting a pound of flesh.

But if the AERC doesn't use (or actively discourages the use of) the
tools that it HAS for dealing with aggregious infractions, it risks
having members take matters into their own hands and start assaulting
each other and attempting, literally, to extract a pound of
flesh...which, in this instance, we have already seen.

kat
Orange County, Calif.
:)


"Le meilleur que je sais les hommes le plus que j'aime mon
cheval."--Catherine the Great



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=