--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Dear awoelflebater what is your take on that or how i use to write your > op -onion--?(Beware the peeling effect of onions) > ".. > the protest was denied based on Annex XI of the FEI Veterinary > Regulations, which state: "there is no appeal against the decision > of the Ground Jury to disqualify a horse for abnormal sensitivity from > an event."
First of all, there are definitely disciplines within the horse world that regularly "sore" their horses around the coronet band. Tennessee walking horses and gaited horses are particularly prone to this abuse from the use of various topical applications of chemicals that cause the skin to erupt and ooze and it can even go so far as to keep a horse from standing up. Hideous. Show jumpers more frequently use the technique of either rapping or poling to strike the horses front or hind legs as they are in the air over a jump in order to make the horse think he hit the fence and therefore next time the animal will presumably jump higher. These people use either bamboo poles, regular jump poles or tack poles that have sharp implements imbedded in the wood to actually hurt the horse. Other methods can involve sharp objects placed inside of a jumping boot that the horse wears so that if the animal hits the fence it hurts even more. A legal method is to use weighted horse boots so that once you remove them the horse just feels that much lighter and it likely to clear the obstacle easier once the weight it removed. I highly doubt the Canadian team would have purposefully injured their team horse's coronet band at the Olympics in the year 2012. Ian Millar, one of the veteran team members has seen 10 Olympics. These people would not risk such behaviour. Eric Lamaze was the leading show jumping rider in the world aboard the late Hickstead. All of this question of intentional injury is highly unusual for these Canadians, they are not, like some other countries I can name, prone to various charges related to both drugging as well as misuse of equipment. They are simply too experienced and too smart to have created an injury that is obviously visible to the naked eye and would be detected eventually by some veterinarian or steward or other competitor. Now I know the rules committee is not implying that Tiffany or anyone else intentionally created a sore on this horse's leg but they are abiding by a general rule that since a horse has a pre-existing area on its body, likely to be struck again during warm up or competition, they have to consider this and err on the side of caution for the horse's sake. I understand this stance although I wish there was some type of boot or sock or bandage they could use to protect that area. However, that place on the leg is hard to protect as it moves and any protective covering would most likely be inefficient in staying in place. Also, the mere fact that there would be something placed over the small wound could also exacerbate the problem. So, unfortunately, the horse will be withdrawn for a very unfortunate and probably insignificant issue. But abuse is so rampant in the horse world that I would have to err on the side of the rules in general. So much goes ignored and the Olympics and the FEI in particular hold very stringent parameters. If only all horse shows did. > http://tinyurl.com/cysnzq5 <http://tinyurl.com/cysnzq5> > Isn't there a potential for collateral damage? The idea was always give > the benefit of the doubt to the athlete. In this case, it's the > opposite.The only "revenge" would be to finish top three again in > today's final with the remaining three riders; if they do, Foster will > receive a medal. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUB1WoMJbG4 > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUB1WoMJbG4> >
