|but I used to jump, remember?|
But then I ran across an article on Chronicle of the Horse that argued for changing the banned substances rules. It's fascinating read if you have the time. If you don't, the gist of it is that the USEF can ban/fine it's members for even the tiniest violations, a 1000th of a 1000th of a gram, which is so small that it could be explained by a horse metabolizing a drug differently.
It's an interesting argument, to be sure.
|not a DUI|
Part of me agrees with the author. The hoopla around the disqualification of Jock Paget at Burghley even when he proved he did nothing wrong intentionally was wildly unfair in my opinion. The other part is offended that the author's examples are enforcing speed limits (on vehicles by police) and blood alcohol limits placed on DUI enforcement.
|only strike dramatic poses on cloudy days|
A horse cannot consent to compete in a sport verbally. It can't understand the risks inherent in putting that kind of stress on a body and it has no concept of what another option might be.
Because a horse cannot give informed consent, I think the standard of evidence for riders MUST be higher. It's not as simple as saying "I drugged him, but he wasn't impaired" to the USEF enforcement officer looking at a tainted blood sample.
At least, in my world, it shouldn't be.
Thoughts? I really can argue this one either way.