If the use of interference boots violates their philosophy, why do
they allow shoes? For that matter, why do they allow saddles and
bridles? I'm not being facetious ... I do not see a substantive
difference between use of an iron horseshoe to protect the hoof, when
some horses can ride our trails barefoot, and the use of boots.
And how can it possibly be in keeping with that philosophy to protect
the hoof wall, but not the sole? It makes no sense to me.
Certainly a horse that doesn't normally interfere is a better trail
horse, all else being equal, to one that frequently interferes. One
reason Kahlil stayed sound for over 11,000 miles is that he never
beat himself up (and has never worn an interference boot in his
life). So, take that into account in the scoring -- assess a horse
wearing boots the same penalty as if he had come in with interference
marks. But why make the horse suffer the injury to prove a point?
Their philosophy also doesn't consider the fact that not everyone can
afford to sell a horse with a minor fault or two (or that they may
have an emotional attachment to the horse) to go and buy one without
that fault. Don't make a horse with faults a champion, but why deny
his owner the opportunity to enjoy your sport?