Drugs.

[mwdodger@mweb.co.za]

Hi,all, I'm sending this via airmail, as I have a virus at home, so I hope you 
get it, and I hope it's virus-free!


Kat made some pertinent points in this thread, which can be summarised as 
follows:

1. The substance in question has a pharmacological effect, and hence is a drug.

2. The fact that it does not test does not mean that it falls outside the ambit 
of Rule 13.

Truman responded as follows, and it is to Truman that I wish to respond, with 
the greatest of respect (no female irony intended,either).

1. Ice boots have a pharmacological effect, and hence, by Kat's definition, 
would be a drug.

I don't mean to sound overly-simplistic, but there is one glaring difference 
between the 2 : "drugs" are taken internally, and operate on the internal 
workings of the body, and take time and certain metabolic processes (even if 
it's just a good long pee) to get out of the system. Ice boots stop "doing 
their thing" the minute you take them off.

I would put ice boots in the category of "tack", just as I would put one of 
Karl's wonderful vent pads in the category of tack. The fact that the vent pads 
or ice boots also aid the horse in getting through the ride perhaps elevates 
them to the level of "miracle tack", but the point is that the minute you take 
them off, they stop working. The body doesn't have to DO anything to rid itself 
of the tack.

(Karl : no charge for the advertising)

2. The law is interpreted narrowly in order to prevent unjust convictions of 
people taking drugs which fall outside the scope of the defined illegal drugs.

There is a Latin maxim for this principle, Truman, but I forget what it is 
right now. You are correct in your interpretation of the law. The underlying 
principle is that the law is not to be applied retrospectively, because, upon 
embarking upon an action (like taking a substance), people are entitled, nay, 
have the right, to know whether what they are doing is illegal.

It is a good principle, and one to be applauded in legal practice. But we're 
not in a court of law, we're dealing with a sport, as Bob says, and I think 
that, especially when an animal's well-being is at stake, you can give a
narrower interpretation to a "catch-all" like Rule 13. After all, the
guilty party is not going to face a jail term with Big Bubba, but rather
suspension or a fine. 

Now, we can argue that Endurance is becoming a Professional Sport, big money is 
being poured in yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.  And when the sport becomes Big 
Business, then we may have to change our thinking on Rule 13. But that, I'm 
afraid, is a hurdle you can only cross when that time comes, and then God help 
the sport, because the rules will be written by the lawyers who are paid by the 
people with the most money, I'm afraid. Certain facts remain:

1. The substance has a pharmacological effect, although it does not test; and

2. The people who elect to use it, for the time being, have nobody to answer 
for than their own conscience. Kind of like showjumpers who elect to "rap" their
horses at home, because there is no-one around to stop them.Personally, I like 
to think that principle wins out, in 99% of cases. And it is encumbant upon us, 
as men and women of principle, NOT to look for loop-holes that the unprincipled 
1% will squeeze through, to the detriment of the sport. And, if those loop-
holes exist, we must do all that we can to close them.  Which is one of the 
reasons that boards like this are so valuable. They offer no hiding places from 
righteous indignation.


Respectfully,Tracey(who doesn't do endurance, but sure as nuts doesn't want it 
becoming like Show Jumping before she gets a chance!)
 
 



---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using M-Web Airmail.
http://airmail.mweb.co.za/