We just returned from a long road trip and are catching-up on Ridecamp.
As for your rule question, one may not refuse vet treatment if
recommended by the vet in order to receive a completion.
As for payment for vet services, there is a parallel in the legal
profession. If I were traveling to LA by plane for a client, I would be
compensated for travel time, as well my time in the courtroom. If I
were to review a second client's file while in flight, I could not bill
that client as well. Such double billing is considered to be less that
ethical.
In an endurance setting, vet's are paid by ride management for their
presence at the ride. To bill riders for other than supplies would also
be a form of double-dipping. Never-the-less, there are times where
direct client billing might be OK IMO. For example, if the vet has
discounted or donated her time to support the ride. Or, if the
treatment occurs outside of the schedule of competition (ie when off the
ride management clock).
See you in KY, Ramey
RUN4BEAR wrote:
>
> Dave:
>
> Point well-taken.
>
> By the way, I heard that at a ride recently, a rider whose horse was in
> trouble refused treatment because she wanted completion and that the vet gave
> the completion then treated her horse. As far as I know, AERC had considered
> some ruling on this, but I don't think they made it official.
>
> Those that reported this to me really have a bad taste towards both the rider
> and the vet. "To finish is to win" takes on a different light considering
> this.
>
> Teddy