Re: Radios, et.al. and similarities

[K S Swigart <katswig@deltanet.com>]

On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Randy H Eiland wrote:

> Ok, with that said I have to think that AERC set a precedent in a
> philosophical sense.  By ruling that "high tech", non invasive means to
> improve performance were illegal and unfair during competition, I believe
> AERC took the position that this is a simple horse and rider team
> competition during the event.   

It is interesting to me your assumption that these methodologies were made
illegal because they allowed for "high tech" unfair competition.  It was
my understanding that they were ruled illegal because (for the most part)
these technologies are "pain killers" that could easily mask the true
physical condition of the horse, and therefore are equally as detrimental
as administering something like Banamine (understnading that like
Banamine, they may also have other treatment benefits, such as muscle
relaxing or anti inflamatory, etc.---but pain killing just the same).

Am I the only one who understood 13a in this way?

kat
Orange County, Calif.