Re: The great drug debate

[jlong@mti.net (Joe Long)]

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:08:02 -0800, softride <softride@cdsnet.net>
wrote:

>It really seems to me that a lot of people out there are so wanting to
>do rides that injuries to the horse/mule/donkey are totally
>over-looked.  Drugs are not given because the RIDER has a ride in 2
>weeks that they want to go on.    Would you really want to go out and do
>a 100 or 50 or 25 or, or, or,  with an eye infection  or any other
>injury??

One year when I was running for a National Championship under the old
point system (where all rides counted), I competed in a ride just out
of the hospital from an injury at the preceding ride.  I was still on
drugs, including antibiotics.  My wife was appalled, but when she said
so to other riders they looked at her like "What is she thinking?" and
said, "He has to ride, he's running for points."  Another time I
competed with my arm in a sling from another injury.  If the goals are
important enough to you, you do what you have to.

>These are animals,   they do what we ask of them,   shouldn't we put our
>desires on hold till the animal is really healed that we didn't have to
>beat the clock to see if they are off the drugs before the ride.   

On this I agree 100% with you and Heidi.  It takes time, time after
the last traces of pain are long gone, for an injury to be fully
healed.  Anyone who competes a horse such a short time after stopping
the drugs that they'd show up in a test had *NO BUSINESS* competing on
that horse anyway.  I have no sympathy for them if they get caught in
a drug test.

The difference between the cases above are, of course, that the rider
makes his own choice to compete hurt or not (and can feel how his own
body is responding) -- the horse has no choice.

-- 

Joe Long
jlong@mti.net
http://www.mti.net     Business
http://www.rnbw.com    Personal