 |
Re: [RC] The Drug Rule in Court - heidiYep the Carr case was settled with a gag order, but after it the AERC BOD did get insurance! The Tevis case didn't go much farther since the AERC backed off. That was 8 to10 years ago. Today people are selling endurance hores for 100,000 a million bucks and some people make a significant portion of their income training and selling endurance horses. Such things are no longer "amateur." I suspect that given this change if such a person went to court for redress, then the courts might take a different tone. As kat pointed out, they didn't take a different tone in the David Boggs case--and his financial involvement with Arabian show horses would make the involvement of even those endurance folks selling high-dollar horses overseas look like peanuts. To reiterate what kat said--nothing is forcing these people to be endurance riders--they do that voluntarily, and to do so is a tacit agreement to play by the rules. PS: Being nice is not important, being a fair person is. And I'd submit that being fair doesn't mean taking the guts out of our no substance rule--quite the contrary. I can't think of anything MORE fair than "none"--there is no hair-splitting, no favoritism, no nothing. "None" is about as level as you can make it. Heidi =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|