Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Criminal law in the US is fairly interesting. Say a person's actions 
results in the lost of another's life. There are all sorts of crimes 
that the person could be convicted for - from third degree manslaughter 
with maybe probation to first degree murder with maybe capitol 
punishment. It might even be a cause of "justifiable homicide" which the 
person is not convicted of a crime. It all depends on the circumstances 
- actually not too much different but more complex that what is 
described below.

The key is, an investigation, a decision process based on the 
circumstances, a decision on what to try the person for and a formal 
process that establishes the guilt or innocence.

We are never going to be able to address the solutions to address the 
first and third cases below while showing understanding that every once 
in awhile - something goes awry - without a formal procedure in place to 
address it. I don't see that to be the current P&G process. I think the 
key is all incidents have to be addressed with a decision made based on 
the circumstances if the actions of the rider put the horse at undue 
risk. If the answer is yes, then some sort of remedy should be implemented.

The one downside to any such system could have an unintended consequence 
of putting some riders horses at a greater risk than they already are. 
For example rider takes off early with a potentially sick horse so that 
if it does crash it does not do it on the ride site because. This 
clearly is not in the best interest of the horses. I do not believe the 
AERC as presently functioning has the ability to prevent that from 
happening.

The bottom line is I think the issue can be dealt with. However, it will 
impact all of us. Some one who has an event where a horse gets into 
trouble through no fault of their own is going to have to accept a 
process of review. I suspect some will object to that. Personally I 
would welcome it if it would provide a remedy to the first and third 
case below.

The one comment I would like to make is on the proposed new P&G rule. To 
file a protest it cost $150.00. If the protest is successful the filer 
gets back $100.00. That is although the protester is correct and has be 
aggrieved - they still lose 50 bucks to seek redress for their grievance.

> *14.2.3. *Filing Fee. A filing fee of $150 must be paid by the 
> protestor to the AERC
>
> by check, credit card or cash when the protest is filed. The AERC 
> shall refund $100
>
> of the filing fee if the protest is granted.

On the other hand the only current way to address potential horse abuse 
is for a person to step forward to file a protest. It seems that this 
new rule will make that a lot less likely to happen. Is this the correct 
direction?

Truman

Dawn Carrie wrote:
> The problem I see is, how to write rules that punish those who deserve 
> to be punished, but not those for whom "sh** happens.
> The Mariposa case is pretty clear-cut...the guy over rode and abused 
> his horse. Due to lack of knowledge? Determination to win at all 
> costs? We don't know for *sure*.
> Then there's the case of someone who has a history of doing things 
> right, and their horse still gets in trouble. Someone (I can't 
> remember who) posted a story a month or two ago about their horse 
> colicing at a ride (I think it was a 100 out west?). They gave lots of 
> details about the ride, and how everything seemed to be going just 
> fine, then the horse colicked.
> Then there is the case of a rider who might have a "history" of their 
> horses crashing. They ride very competitively, and sometimes they 
> win/top ten, the other times they are pulled for metabolics or 
> lameness...all or nothing, so to speak. They have quite a few 
> instances of their horses being on jugs, either when ridden by 
> themselves or someone else. Seems to be a pattern of pushing the 
> horses too hard and/or too often.
> Three different scenarios/types of riders. The first one is pretty 
> clear cut overriding/abuse. The second one is pretty clear cut not 
> overriding or abuse...and I think everyone will agree that that person 
> doesn't need to be "punished." Perhaps we could draft a rule that 
> would "get" the first person, but not the second.


--

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how 
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” Richard 
Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=