Re: Radios, et.al. and similarities

[flemmerl@rcbhsc.wvu.edu (Flemmer, Linda)]

K S Swigart wrote:

> 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,



> 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,

This was my understanding of the spirit of the rule as well.  How effective
some of these modalities are may be hotly debated, but if they are <at all>
effective, they could be detrimental TO THE HORSE'S WELL-BEING!

To me, this means - not an unfair technological advantage, not a competitive
edge over the competition.  It benefitted the horse to show any aches & pains
so that they could be watched as a ride progresses.  I really don't believe
they are for legislating against an "unfair advantage" over the competition!!

The horse's health is first & foremost in my mind.  Second is a successful
completion to the best of our ability on any given day.  Third is a good
placing, BC, or a win.  I really believe that most of the rules for AERC were
written with this in mind!  Am I wrong?

Linda Flemmer