I'm quite new here.........so perhaps there is some
"history" to the rhetoric that is being bantered about. I certainly do not
want to speak for Truman...he is quite capable on his own.....what I will say is
that my interpretation of his post on the jumping tragedy is
this:
The horse had no "say" as to whether it was going to be a
jumper. The decision were made by the humans. That
is what I garnered from his post.
Editorial: It is sad and often
tragic when any horse or human is seriously injured or killed. This
touches us especially deeply when it occurs during an equestrian related
event. But, it is a risk we, as thinkers and planners and decision makers,
willingly take (though we my fail to weigh ALL the
outcomes of our decisions). Our horses cannot take risks because
they don't understand the concept of "risk-taking". We decide their
job, their training, their welfare, their very existence. So when tragedy
does occur it is important for us to recognize our role and responsibility in
the entire matter. In this case perhaps the horse received adequate
training, perhaps not, perhaps he loved it, perhaps not, ....supposition could
go on forever but the reality is that the horse had no "choice".
This is not "finger-pointing" at all. Every time I
work with a horse, load a horse or compete a horse it is MY decision unless
someone is pointing a gun at my head with the intention to pull the
trigger. Until then I am fully responsible for the welfare of that
horse. If the horse is injured or killed, I am responsible. If I am
injured or killed, it is again, my responsibility. Seems simple as that to
me. Does it remain sad, and tragic, of course, being responsible does not
lessen the sadness for the injured horse or human. It just means that I
was responsible. There is another aspect that has not been discussed and
that is "fault". To me, fault is different than
responsibility.
Again, this is my personal interpretation with a few
editorial statements. I am not speaking for Truman.
