Great care should be taken in passing any rules that may have the reverse
effect than the one desired. If people are penalized for seeking
treatment, then they in fact not seek (or accept) treatment in order to
avoid being penalized. This would be to the determinate - not the benefit
- of the horse.
Truman
----------------- original Post --------------
>
>>There was a problem at an NATRC ride earlier this year. At this ride a horse
>>completed the ride including the final check, and then coliced and had to be
>>treated with drugs. Under current NATRC rules, the horse is in competition
>>until final awards, and thus should be eligible for completion only due
>>to the treatment. The problem with this is that this could lead to an
>>unscrupulous rider, knowing the horse to be in trouble, load up the
>>horse, go down the road and then treat the horse, avoiding the penalty.
>>Riders are allowed to leave a ride before final awards with management
>>and judges permission, which is rarely withheld.
>>
>>My question is this: How is this handled on an AERC ride? If a horse were
>>to complete the ride and pass the post ride vet check and then colic and
>>have to be treated, what would AERC rules do with this horse as far as
>>awards are concerned?
>>
>>The reason for this question is that NATRC is considering a rule change
>>that would not penalize a horse that has to be treated after the final
>>vet check. This would provide better protection for a horse in trouble
>>as there now would be no advantage to removing the horse from the ride
>>to avoid penalty.
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>-Jim Ferris
>>jferris@cwa.com
>>Morgan Hill, CA
>
______________________________________________________________________________
The race is not always to the swift, but to those that keep running.
Truman and Mystic "The Horse from HELL" Storm
prevatt@lds.loral.com - Sarasota, Florida
____________________________________________________________________________
__