Re: RC: Hypothetical injury-varied responses

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/19/99 7:04:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
sisufarm@mmmpcc.org writes:

<< The questions are:
 
 1. Which of the owners responded properly to this injury?>
None. None of them performed an adequate diagnosis before coming to delusions.

 2. How long should each have waited before entering a race?>

Until the injury has been diagonsed, treated and healed and the horse 
refitted so as to prevent the injury from recurring.

 >3. Is the purpose of the drug rule to prevent a horse from having his
 performance enhanced by a drug, or to enforce a certain period of rest after
 an injury?>

Enhanced performance, especially of a clinically lame horse that might be 
able to perform with one drug or another--doing further damage.

> 4. If purpose of the drug rule is to enforce rest periods, should we make
 new rules designed to prevent John and Sally from racing until their horses
 have healed?  If so what would these rules be.>

Can't be done. The best you can do is eliminate clinically lame horses from 
the competition, as is being done now. No way to enforce quality 
horsemanship. 
 
 >I don’t have any answers to these questions, but do think that they are
 things we should all think about.
 
 Ed and Wendy Hauser >>

ti


Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-Ý-