Well, that idea has been discussed but, somehow, it was rejected (by a
lawyer I believe). Joe, I gotta tell you, once in awhile you and I do
agree on something (I do believe the last time was when we discussed minimum age
for juniors; but, let's not return to that one just yet). I'm not for
automatic sanctions either against the rider. It just doesn't sit well
with me at all.
But, we do have to do something. I really think tightening up the
reins on the sport will improve things. If we could just decide what
these "things" were, a majority of members might actually come to some sort
of agreement on this. I say, let's go after the sport, not the
rider. Make it so the sport has enough safety valves to prevent certain
yahoo's from running their horses into the ground. Heck, I'd go so far as
to say these folks won't want to do endurance if we make enough changes.
I?m still recovering from the shock when you gave me two assertive "OK's"
concerning 2 out of my 7 ideas on changes. For you and I to both agree on
Log books has to count for something.
I do think a horse death should be investigated, automatically, if, for
nothing else, information and vindication of the rider. Because, without
an impartial jury, the rider will be found guilty of all counts in the Her
Majesty's Court, Rumor and Innuendo.
cya,
Howard (I was hoping for a better discussion of my "time" changes
idea)
>Joe Long wrote: > >>The process would also
inevitably be politicized. While I was on the >>Board I saw,
first-hand and close-up, how "who the accused were" >>affected the
resolution of protests against riders for alleged abuses. >>
>> > Ah, but that's why doing it the other
way--individual investigation >by the P&G committee--isnt as
effective; too slow to gather the data, >discuss, rule, etc, and the
"OJ" factor.
You want to really be "effective," take the rider out
behind the barn and shoot him.
