What a wonderfully lucid and complete (if not long) response to all the
concerns and sometimes hate regarding the Cosquin Challenge.
I am not at all opposed to the sponsership of endurance riding events, how
else are we to get sorely needed moneys for trail projects. As an original
member of a group that started the AERC trails committee I applaud you and
your organization for an obviously difficult task you have taken on.
I have only had one concern about Nutramax's participation. How can the
AERC allow the sanctioning to continue (as you say it was already granted)
when the rulebook does not allow us to use the products such as Cosequin
in our horses( I know many do use it) within 72 hours of the event? I have
a problem, be it ever ethical only, that a company that promotes a
substance not permitted in sanctioned endurance rides would want to have
their name attached to the event.
AERC would not allow us to openly use this product during this event , see
rule 13! Isn't there some kind of conflict of morality here on AERC's
part? I do believe Nutramax has only the best intentions and of course
they in good faith would not push for nor promote the use of a dis-allowed
substance at an event they are sponsoring. BUT the name has to change from
"TheCosequin Challenge" IMO.
It implies, too much, that we as endurance riders think our AERC rules do
not matter!
I know rule 13 has been a source of controversy since it's inception but
it does give us the general guideline that no normally internally occuring
substance should be administered to an endurance horse in competition in
abnormal amounts. Detectable or not!
----------------------------------------------------
Raymond Santana
Network Operations
UC Davis Medical Center
Sacramento, CA
rtsantana@ucdavis.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------