 |
Re: [RC] APF - heidiOur point of disagreement would seem to boil down to whether "0", or some formal action level is best, and whether to ban all active substances or just a laundry list of substances. The other list has had thread that a specific person feels that they were unjustly punished by the P&G committee when it did not follow the vet committee's recommendations. If this issue has not been handled internally by changes of procedure, I would support a change to Rule 13, preventing the P&G committee from assessing a harsher penalty than the vet committee recommends. We do want to leave the P&G committee in the loop, because their work is essential for due process. Ed, I think you are onto something. What we need to define here is how the penalty phase works, since that is the area open to abuse by the human factor sitting on the P&G committee or the BOD. Although the veterinary committee is also made up of the human factor, I think that the vets have a better perspective about what the rule is supposed to accomplish, and are not as apt to emote about the issue. This should be the direction of any action taken regarding Rule 13--not altering the intent of the rule by trying to make some stab at defining threshholds for specific drugs. Heidi ============================================================ They're athletes! This is a partnership between horse and rider - we don't have any jockeys out there, just pals and partners. We'd allow a rider with a broken foot, a sore back and a nasty cold to compete - but we would never let a horse in a similiar condition hit the trail. ~ Dr. Barney Flemming DVM ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/ ============================================================
|