Protest and Grievance Committee Findings

The facts of the case are as follows:

On July 24, 2007, Susan Horne filed a formal protest against two AERC Riders, Alexandra Luck and Andrea Pace, charging them with violation of AERC Rules:

(1) 6D - following the prescribed course;

(2) 15 - Section 1B - acting or inciting any other to act in a manner contrary to the Rules of AERC, or in a manner considered otherwise illegal or un-sportsmanlike; and

(3) 15 - Section 1C - cruelty to an equine.

Attached to the protest were 8 additional first-hand accounts supporting various aspects of the protest.

The protest arose from the Wyoming Big Horn Ride of July 14, 2007, in which Alexandra Luck and Andrea Pace competed in the 50 and 100 mile rides, respectively.

Copies of the protest and supporting documents were sent to both Alexandra Luck and Andrea Pace for reply; however no response was made by either Respondent.

The first infraction alleges that Alexandra Luck and Andrea Pace, after traveling 4 or 5 miles into the ride, began cutting off large sections of S curves of the trail located on the road, thereby disregarding the trail markers and intentionally shortcutting the trail. This trail deviation was witnessed by no less than 3 other competitors who gave notice of this violation at the next available stop.

The second violation alleges that both riders rode in an overly aggressive manner, deliberately passing up two watering locations. When the Pace horse, named K-Moon, a.k.a. Little Bay, was pulled at the 68 mile marker, the real problems began. From that point in time and for the next 18 hours, for all intents and purposes, these riders abandoned their horses. For that extended time neither rider gave their horse food, water or care that was necessary after a difficult ride. It was only on Monday morning did they realize too late that Little Bay was in serious trouble. After valiant attempts to save the horse were made by one of the ride vets, it was necessary to put the horse down.

The third allegation reveals that these two Respondents, after the ride, stole credit cards, checks and I.D. of one of the other competitors, and also stole a license plate from another AERC member's camper. All of these thefts took place at the ride camp site. On Tuesday, July 17th, both Respondents were arrested by the Gillette, Wyoming, police. Alexandra Luck was arrested for assault on Andrea Pace, forgery and receiving stolen property. Andrea Pace was charged with unauthorized use of a credit card.

It is the findings of the Protest and Grievance Committee that all of these allegations are more than supported by the factual accounts of the protester and other witnesses, and therefore each of the violations alleged are sustained and upheld. It is also the findings by the Protest and Grievance Committee that the violations are extremely egregious, demanding severe sanctions, which are as follows:

1. That the first place finish of Alexandra Luck in the 50 mile ride is disallowed and she is disqualified.

2. That both Alexandra Luck and Andrea Pace are suspended from all AERC rides and activities for a period of 5 years from December 1, 2007.

3. That both Alexandra Luck and Andrea Pace are placed on probation for a period of 5 years from the last day of the suspension.

Michael D. Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

The ride in question is the --- Ride held on June --, 2007, in the West Region in the state of ---.

On that date, rider "A", a non-AERC member, new and inexperienced at endurance riding, competed on a --- in the 25-mile limited distance ride. It is a fact that the rider severely overrode "A"'s horse to the point of near death. It was only through the heroic action and Herculean effort of AERC Director --- and the treatment veterinarian, Dr. ---, that this horse's death was narrowly averted.

As ably pointed out to this committee by our AERC President, no protest was ever filed against this rider since such a protest would have had minimal effect on such a non-AERC member.

However, a protest was filed by AERC member "B", charging "C" with a violation of Rule Section 15.1, Subsections B & C, unsportsmanlike conduct and physical assault upon a person. This protest was timely filed on July ---, 2007, and sometime shortly after July 9 the Protest and Grievance Committee received all of the protest accounts, along with a witness list. On July 17, 2007, e-mails were sent to all the witnesses appearing on the list, requesting comment.

On August 3, 2007, the protest documents were sent to "C" for response. Between July 17, 2007, and August 14, 2007, three of the witnesses responded to the committee, with one reporting no direct knowledge of the incident. On August 20, 2007, "C" responded with a detailed written account of the incident.

The protest basically alleged, and later found to be true, that "C," the Respondent, upon learning of the overridden horse, reacted in a violent and threatening manner toward the rider and the rider's friends that included "B," the protester. That "C" berated, shoved, cursed and frightened "B" is beyond question and without justification of any kind. That only the intervention of "B" and others prevented an ugly situation from getting worse.

It is further found that "C" followed the Rider about, screaming and yelling at "A" in an attempt to provoke a fight and even create a greater confrontation. Had it not been for the retreat of the rider through a hole in a fence, an assault would have surely taken place.

There was an allegation by the protester that "C" slapped "A" in the face during the altercation; however, no disinterested witnesses verified that account and "C" vehemently denies striking anyone. As a result, we of the Protest and Grievance Committee specifically find that no such assault took place.

We can fully comprehend the anger and even the rage of the Respondent when "C" learned that the horse received 40 liters of electrolyte solution, and that large spur welts were clearly visible on a shaking and gravely ill horse. We of this committee have witnessed such distressing scenes far too often to be unmoved by such an emotional event, yet we cannot condone the Respondent's flagrant misconduct towards fellow riders. Even the following admission of "C" cannot and will not absolve "C" of wrongdoing:

"Regarding my own actions, I did uncharacteristically lose my temper and did some things I regret. I wanted to humiliate the owner into taking off his spurs for whatever reason. I did yell and swear at both the owner and his friends when they interceded. In hindsight, my actions were out of line and I wish they did not happen and they will never happen again."

Therefore:

1. The protest of "B" against "C" is upheld and that the AERC is directed to return the $100 protest fee forthwith.

2. That "C" was in fact in flagrant violation of Rule 15b, unsportsmanlike conduct.

3. That "C" is hereby publicly censured and rebuked by this committee for flagrant misconduct.

4. That AERC is directed to publish this official censure in the next two issues of Endurance News so that such censure is disseminated to the endurance community.

Michael D. Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

On May 12, 2007, Ride Management of the Biltmore Challenge filed a protest alleging that Rider Jesse Jarrett violated AERC Rule 15.1b: Unsportsmanlike Conduct. The specific nature of the charge is that after the Rider was pulled at the finish of the 100 mile ride, and shortly thereafter, the Rider left the ride grounds driving at a high rate of speed while shouting obscenities at the ride veterinarians, Ride Management, and others. It is unnecessary to quote the exact obscenities; however, they were designed to convey his anger with the veterinarians and Ride Management for being pulled.

On May 25, 2007, in response to the protest, the Rider accepted full responsibility for above conduct and apologized for his actions.

Although there was some hearsay evidence of other conduct that allegedly occurred at 2:45 a.m. upon the Rider's return to base camp, there was no direct eyewitness evidence presented and the respondent has denied such activity. As such, this allegation is dismissed as unfounded.

It is the finding of this Committee that AERC-sanctioned endurance rides are known to the entire equestrian community as events which are conducted with uncommon sportsmanship and goodwill by the riders, ride management, veterinarians and tireless volunteers. It is common knowledge that, on countless occasions, highly competitive riders assured of a win or high placement have sacrificed their position to aid another rider in trouble. Also, it is well known that good sportsmanship and concern for the horse are the hallmark of the ride veterinarians. Ride management and their volunteers perform without compensation and totally for the love and goodwill of the sport. As a result, there are few, if any, equine disciplines from top to bottom that can boast of a more sportsmanlike record than that of endurance riding.

With this in mind, we find that the protest against Jesse Jarrett is upheld as a violation of AERC Rule 15.1b: Unsportsmanlike Conduct. The penalty imposed is a 3-month AERC ride suspension to date from July 15, 2007. In addition, there is imposed a 9-month probation period commencing thereafter.

Protest and Grievance Committee member Vonita Bowers did not participate in this decision due to a self-declared conflict of interest.

Michael D. Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

This matter involves the protest of rider "A" concerning a second place limited distance finish at a Central Region Ride on October ---, 2006.

"A"'s position and challenge is that "A" "called out as down just seconds before" the first place rider had pulsed down to the required 60 beats per minute.

Unfortunately for "A," three other people, namely the ride manager, an eyewitness volunteer, and the actual P&R person, who determined the pulse of the horse of the first place rider, strongly disagree with "A." All three of these people responded to "A"'s protest and stated unequivocally that "A"'s horse pulsed down to the necessary 60 beats per minute after the first place rider's horse did so.

The Limited Distance Rule L5.4 reads as follows: At the finish ride time of the competitor continues until a preset veterinary criteria of 60 heartbeats per minute or less is met. (Finishing time is recorded as the time at which the rider asks for and subsequently meets this preset criteria.) There is no marked finish line on the course that is used to determine placing or completion time.

Although this rule can and should be written clearer, however, for the purpose of this protest, all that must be determined is what horse reached 60 beats per minute first. After reviewing the protest, the responses and all other material thereto, we, the Protest and Grievance Committee, find that the protest of "A" is denied and the ride standings are correct.

Mike Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

On August ---, 2006, owner/rider "A" competed at the --- Ride riding rider's horse "B." After approximately 30 miles, the horse was pulled for lameness and a urine sample was randomly taken for testing. The urine sample was taken to the University of California at Davis for analysis and on September ---, 2006, the lab reported that the sample contained caffeine.

On September 14, the national office of AERC filed a formal protest with the P & G Committee alleging a violation of Rule 13, abnormal substances. On September 20, 2006, the P & G Committee forwarded the protest for response. On September 25, "A" responded to the P & G and Vet committees and furnished a list of food, supplements, electrolytes and medication that "A" had given the horse. "A" further advised that caffeine was not listed as an ingredient in anything "A" had given the horse and that "A" had no knowledge of how the substance was administered to the horse.

The Vet Committee then began an inquiry of the supplement know as "Platinum Gentle," one of the substances given to the horse in question. The manufacturer of "Platinum Gentle" advised that unbeknownst to them, one of their suppliers did not properly process and filter caffeine from a green tea additive. Upon this discovery the manufacturer notified USEF and others. The manufacturer did not notify AERC or "A."

Turning now to our Rule 13 which reads in part: ". . . AERC prohibits from competition equines who contain evidence of the administration of abnormal substance or of normal substance in abnormal amounts. . . ."

An analysis of this rule reveals that no intention of the rider, owner, trainer, or veterinarian is required or necessary to establish liability. All that is required is that the horse be in competition and contain an abnormal substance. It is obvious that the rider/owner did not intend to give the horse caffeine, a stimulant, but a supplement to calm the horse. In this instance, because the horse was pulled there is no necessity for the correction of the ride results, but let this protest stand for the proposition that the use of untested supplements or substances can be risky business, that can lead to disqualification and other sanctions regardless of the innocent intentions of the participants.

Mike Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

This protest was filed by the AERC Executive Director for violation of limited distance Rule L3.1, alleging that on January ---, 2006, an underage equine was ridden at the --- Ride, while being 85 days short of the required 48 months of age. Limited distance, Rule L3.1 reads as follows: "Equines must be at least 48 months old at the time of the ride."

An investigation into this matter revealed that the records of the Arabian Horse Association conclusively established that the horse in question was born 85 days short of the required 48 months of age. It was further determined that the horse in question was ridden by a 13-year-old juvenile, who after receipt of the protest, immediately admitted to unintentionally riding an underage equine. The juvenile further advised, "I will not ride an underage equine again."

It is the opinion of the Protest and Grievance Committee that in view of the age of the offender and the admission of the violation, that some consideration of the minor's age be given. Therefore it is the decision of the Protest and Grievance Committee that:

1. The ride placement of the juvenile be voided.

2. The juvenile shall be barred from competing for a 30-day period in any AERC sanctioned ride in the year 2007.

3. The juvenile's name shall not be disclosed.

The determination of the exact 30-day suspension period shall be left to the discretion of the AERC administration. It is suggested that the busiest ride month of the offender's region be selected.

Mike Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

"A" and "B" protest the placement results at the --- Ride, held in the Mountain Region on July --, 2005. The ride was fifty (50) miles in length. A third rider named "C" and the two protesters finished first, second and third, respectively, in the ride but their placement was denied because they deviated slightly from the prescribed course. All three riders were allowed a completion.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. The three riders deviated from the prescribed course by traveling approximately one hundred (100) to two hundred (200) feet less than what was required. It is important to note that they finished about twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes ahead of the next rider. The protesters contend that their course deviation was the result of a poorly marked trail as well as pre-ride briefing that indicated the trail was the same as it was the previous year, when in fact it differed slightly. Markings from last year's ride had not been removed and contributed to the protesters' confusion regarding the course of the trail. Those factors, they claim, resulted in their going off course (100 to 200 feet)./P>

In reaching a decision in this matter, the Committee has reviewed statements from the protesters and other riders, as well as from a "Pre-Ride Information" handout and a map of the ride course. The Committee has also reviewed the relevant AERC rules./P>

The Committee has not heard from the ride manager. However, a careful reading of all the statements reveals that substantial pressure was brought to bear upon the ride management by a single competitive rider, who insisted upon strict application of all AERC rules./P>

The Committee finds that based on statements from various riders, the trail was poorly marked. Many trail markers were obscured by the tall grass, making them difficult if not impossible to be seen. An inadequate number of signs also led to the riders' confusion. One rider said that nearly "everyone" got lost. There is one report of a group of ten (10) competitors riding abreast searching for ribbons in order to find the trail. Many riders saw flags remaining from last year's ride. This fact is significant because "C" and "A" rode in last year's ride, which most riders were led to believe was the same course as the prior year. To illustrate this point, the "Pre-Ride Information" handout indicates that "last year's trail was well received so we are duplicating it." Rider "D" remembers the ride manager saying, "Due to a positive response from last year we are keeping the trail the same this year."/P>

The relevant AERC rules are as follows:/P>

Rule 6.d: Completion requires following the prescribed course./P>

Rule 6.1: A competitor . . . who fails any of the other completion criteria should be pulled from the Top Ten, but may be allowed a completion./P>

It is interesting to note that Rule 6.1 does not require a competitor to be pulled from the Top Ten. It uses the word "should" as opposed to "shall" or "must." The Committee interprets the language of this rule to therefore allow a competitor who deviates from the prescribed course to finish in the Top Ten./P>

The Committee is next left to define the "prescribed course" language found in Rule 6.d. We find that a "prescribed course" is one that the ride manager intends to be followed and is clearly and properly marked so as to avoid confusion and unintentional deviations from same. Not lost in our finding is that, in this case, the unintentional deviation of 100 to 200 feet in a 50 mile ride was de minimis./P>

The confusion caused by the poorly marked course, the Pre-Ride Information and a statement by the ride manager indicating the trail was the same as the prior year, resulted in the unintentional and de minimis course deviation which had no bearing on the riders' placement. The Committee, therefore, upholds the protest. "C," "A" and "B" are awarded first, second and third place respectively. The AERC administration is directed to correct the ride results to reflect the Committee's decision and to publish this decision in the next two editions of Endurance News./P>

Mike Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

This is a protest by the AERC through its Executive Director of the violation of the AERC's anti-drug rule, Rule 13, at the --- Ride in the Midwest Region on August ---, 2004. The protest is based on a positive drug test for flunixen, commonly known as banamine, from the horse finishing in first place, "D." The horse was owned by "C" and was ridden by "A" who was 18 years old at the time. This protest raises significant issues regarding both the AERC's drug testing procedure and management at rides of horses rented by a rider from a separate owner. After careful consideration of the arguments of the parties and of the underlying facts, the Protest and Grievance Committee rules that no measure is justified beyond removing the record that the horse had ever entered the ride.

Preliminarily, this decision should recognize the extraordinary degree of cooperation exhibited by all of the parties with each other and with the Committee. Although "A" justifiably raised questions about the drug testing process in this case, it was also freely admitted that a crew member had without anyone else's knowledge administered a dose of banamine to the horse sometime between 48 and 96 hours before the ride. An attorney for "A" and "C" brought the crew member, veterinary technician "E" to the site of the AERC Convention in Reno on March 18, 2005. The undersigned chairman and other members of the Committee were able to interview "E," "C," "C"'s spouse, the ride manager, and veterinarian "F" in an informal hearing. Counsel for "A" and "C" and Dr. "F" were able to ask questions of these witnesses and make comments.

Since then the Committee has stood by for approximately a year while both sides to the protest have developed additional information and have attempted to resolve the protest by settlement. Both sides have declined to submit written witness statements. The parties appear to accept each others' descriptions of what occurred at the ride and in the testing process. Although each might ideally desire a different outcome than this decision, it appears that each accepts the ruling by the Protest and Grievance Committee as a reasonable result under all of the circumstances.

It should also be noted that "A" voluntarily agreed to refrain from competing in any AERC events in the 2005 ride season while this protest was pending. Although the Protest and Grievance Committee believes no suspension was warranted in this case, a full one year suspension would not have had any greater effect than "A"'s own voluntary withdrawal from competition for the 2005 AERC ride season.

From the information provided by the parties, "A" attended the ride with veterinarian "G," who hired "A" to provide horses and crew for various events. For this ride, the plan was to enter horses in both the --- Ride (100 miles) on July ---, 2005 and the --- Ride (50 miles) on August ---, 2005. The original intention was for "A" to ride "D" in the 100 mile ride.

The agreement between "C" and "A's" stable was not particularly formal. Although there was a written document entitled a receipt with the word "lease" appearing next to the rental amount, there were none of the various terms and provisions which typically define a lease of horses. This is important because a horse lease normally assigns full custody and control of a horse at a ride to the party leasing the horse and not the owner. Here, however "C," "C"'s spouse, and their employees not only transported "D" and the other horses to the ride, but kept them in a temporary paddock, fed them and otherwise continue to care for them. Dr. "G" and his technician, "E," also attended to the horses and had their own veterinary kit with medications. From a practical standpoint, both "C" and "A"'s stable must be considered to have had responsibility for the horses' care.

Unfortunately, "D" and several other horses got loose two nights before the ride and ran around for hours before they were finally recovered. One of the other horses required veterinary treatment. "D" himself seemed to be suffering from a mild colic, so Dr. "G" after consultation with "C" decided the next morning to withdraw "D" from the next day's ride.

Mid day on either the 29th or the 30th, the veterinary technician "E" became concerned that "D" was looking less and less comfortable. Left alone with the horses at the time and without cell phone service at the ride camp, "E" had to decide alone what to do with "D." Believing that "D" would not be used at this ride, "E" gave the horse a single paste dose of banamine. "E" did not think to tell anyone because "E" knew "D" had already been withdrawn from competition. Since "E" did not have a practice of keeping chartnotes at rides, "E" kept no written record of medicating "D" for Dr. "G" to see. On "C"'s return to the horses, "C" noticed "D" feeling better but thought it was due to the probiotics "C" had given "D" earlier that morning. Meanwhile, "A" rode in the 100 mile ride on the 30th on another horse, "H."

Over the next day or two, "A" expressed an interest in riding in the 50 mile ride on August --. Seeing that "D" had recovered from his colic, Dr. "G" and "C" decided to let "A" enter "D" in the 50 mile ride. Primarily concerned with taking care of the horse that had been ridden in the 100 mile ride, "H," "E" never learned "D" was going to be competed after all and did not tell anyone "E" had been dosed with banamine earlier. "A" rode "D" to a first place finish in the 50 mile ride.

Dr. "F" was the Head Veterinarian for the ride. Before the ride, Dr. "F" made the decision to drug test the ride. He specifically determined to test the first place horse. Accordingly, after "D" completed the ride, Dr. "F" took a blood sample from the horse. It appears from the tag completed when the samples were taken that "C" signed the tag as a witness.

The blood sample was sent to Dalare Associates in Philadelphia, Pa., for testing. The lab found the presence of flunixen (banamine) but erroneously assumed that the drug was not a prohibited substance for AERC sanctioned competition. Apparently, banamine is an allowable substance in some horse sports. The lab therefore originally reported a negative result for the drug test. Dr. "I," the veterinarian in charge of drug testing for the Veterinary Committee, then reminded Dalare Associates that the AERC is a "no drug" organization and that the use of banamine is indeed prohibited during competition under Rule 13. The lab subsequently reissued its report. By letter of September 3, 2004, to the AERC Executive Director, the lab reported the presence of a flunixen concentration of 0.19 ug/ml in "D"'s blood sample.

The report of the positive drug test was then referred to the Veterinary Committee for its review. It found that the concentration of flunixen found in the drug sample from "D" represented a therapeutic dose, meaning it was present in a level high enough to have influenced the horse. Presumably, the Veterinary Committee then instructed the AERC Executive Director to commence this protest. On October 4, 2004, the Executive Director informed the Protest and Grievance Committee of the positive drug test at the ride in question. Unfortunately, the letter did not identify the horse tested, nor did it identify the horse's rider or owner. It was not until December 15, 2004, when sufficient information was supplied to the Protest & Grievance Committee necessary to initiate the protest process. The Protest & Grievance Committee gave formal notice to the parties of the protest on January 3, 2005.

As mentioned above, counsel for "A" and "C" then provided information about "E"'s administration of the drug to "D" but also made various objections to how the AERC applied its drug testing procedures to this particular case. In summary, the objections were:

1. The positive test was unreliable because the original report was negative;

2. The AERC failed to follow its own drug testing procedures; and

3. There was too much delay by the AERC before the protest was filed.

The Committee sees some merit in each of these objections but does not believe they should change the outcome of the protest.

With respect to the initial report by Dalare Associates of a negative test for a prohibited substance, the lab actually found the presence of banamine but mistakenly considered it an allowable drug for use in AERC competition. The actual test was positive; the error was in its interpretation by the lab. The test itself was not tainted somehow and was not redone. The Committee sees no reason to question the reliability of the testing by the lab. Again, the protested parties admit that "E" gave "D" the drug, anyway.

With respect to delay, the argument is that Rule 13.1b plainly states that "Upon receipt of the laboratory report, the Executive Director shall immediately file a protest." Rule 13.1c goes on to require the Executive Director to "simultaneously transmit by email or telecopy copies of the complaint to the chairs of the Veterinary Committee and the Protest and Grievance Committee." Further, the Veterinary Committee is supposed to submit its comments on the lab test to the Protest and Grievance Committee within ten days.

There certainly was a delay here while the question of whether banamine was an allowable substance was straightened out with Dalare Associates. No protest was filed immediately. Instead the Veterinary Committee considered the results of the test for some undisclosed period of time, but no more than a month, before the Protest and Grievance Committee was ever notified. It took another two months to obtain identification of the horse and proper parties before the protest process could be set in motion. Did all of this really make any difference? The Veterinary Committee would have had to comment on the lab test anyway before the Protest and Grievance Committee could have done anything. The Protest and Grievance Committee does not believe that the delay was extraordinary or that it prejudiced the protested parties in any way. "A" and "C" have been afforded every opportunity to present their case and are equally responsible with the AERC for any delays following the notification of the protest from the Protest and Grievance Committee. The confusion and delay by the AERC in initiating the protest does not change the fact that the drug sample for "D" was positive and that "E" admits to administering banamine to the horse.

The Committee is more concerned by the objection that the AERC failed to follow its own publicly stated drug testing procedures in this case. As counsel for "A" and "C" pointed out, the AERC's own website has a page entitled "AERC Drug Testing." It may be found on the Regulations submenu under the Membership menu. On the Regulations submenu, the topic Drug Testing immediately follows topics on Bylaws, Rules and Drug Policy. The text on the AERC Drug Testing website page includes the statement that "Rides are selected randomly from around the entire country (except California where that state provides its own testing program) and a Veterinarian is sent to the ride where horses are randomly selected for testing." In this case, the ride was not chosen at random and the horse was not randomly selected for testing. Dr. "F" made the conscious decision to test this particular ride and to test the first place horse.

The explanation provided by the AERC to the Protest and Grievance Committee is not very satisfying. First, what obviously seems to be a statement of the AERC's Drug Testing policy on its website apparently never really was an official policy of the AERC.

It was never adopted by the AERC Board of Directors or even the Veterinary Committee. It is only something the website's creator posted in 2003 after gathering information from the veterinarian then chairing the Drug Testing Subcommittee of the Veterinary Committee.

Second, the practice of relying solely on random testing was changed anyway by the Veterinary Committee. As reported to the AERC Board of Directors at various times in early 2004 by both Dr. "F" and Dr. "I," the Veterinary Committee's policy from that point forward was to choose rides for testing and to then test two horses chosen at random and such additional horses as were selected by the testing veterinarian at the ride. Although the Veterinary Committee's new drug testing procedures were reported to the Board, no notice was given to the public and no change was made to the Drug Testing page on the AERC website.

In essence, the AERC posted a drug testing policy on its website which wasn't really a policy but more a historical practice and then failed to change the policy which wasn't a policy on the website when its Veterinary Committee really did adopt a drug testing policy. Additionally, there was no announcement by Dr. "F" at the ride that it was going to be tested or that the first place horse would be tested. In making its decision, the Protest and Grievance Committee must still ask the same question it has for all of the procedural objections: did the AERC's confusion over its drug testing procedures prejudice the protested parties? The answer remains no.

It should go without saying that nothing purporting to be a policy should be posted on the AERC website if it has never been approved by the AERC Board or is so out of date as to be misleading. The AERC would obviously benefit from adoption of clear drug testing procedures and from training neutral personnel beyond any reasonable suspicion of bias to follow them closely. The Committee hopes this discussion of the objections made by the protested parties serves as wake up call to the AERC Board of Directors about the need to professionalize its drug testing program if it is going to try to enforce its anti-drug rule. In this case, not only was it next to impossible for a member of the public to divine just what the AERC's drug testing procedures were but the AERC's adherence to the drug testing procedures it did have was sloppy at best.

Still, "A" and "C" were completely aware that the AERC barred the use of banamine during competition. The freely given admission that "E" administered banamine to the horse provides independent proof of violation of Rule 13 outside of the drug testing, anyway. It would be patently unfair to all of the other riders at the ride and make a travesty of Rule 13 to allow the first place finish to stand for a horse which everyone agrees was drugged. Given the honorable manner in which "A" and "C" have handled themselves during the pendency of this protest, it is hard to believe the rider and owner would want to keep a first place finish for a horse which is now known to have competed under the influence of a prohibited substance.

The unwitting administration of banamine by "E" to a horse to be subsequently entered in competition was not a reflection of the philosophy or intent of "A." Since the Protest and Grievance Committee does not believe the owner or rider would have entered the horse had they known it had been drugged, it is only appropriate to now treat the horse and rider as never having been entered in the ride. The question then becomes whether there should be any additional sanctions imposed on "A," "C," "E," Dr. "G" or anyone else. The answer is also no.

It does not matter why a horse was drugged for the purpose of determining whether or not there is a violation of Rule 13. If a horse competes under the influence of a prohibited substance there is a violation of Rule 13 regardless of any excuse for the owner or rider. The blameworthiness of the owner and rider is relevant, however, for determining what sanction should be assessed against them for the violation.

Here the owner, "C," did not administer the prohibited substance to her horse. "C" had nothing to do with the decision to give "D" banamine. "C" did not even know "D" had been given banamine at the ride until notified of the protest. Since "C" was feeding and caring for "C"'s horses and the ride and did not have a true lease arrangement with "A" for them, "C" certainly had some responsibility for what happened to them. In the future "C" would be well advised to clarify who is responsible for what in the leasing documents. If "C" is going to retain any responsibility for the custody and control of horses "C" leases out, "C" should have some system in place for staying informed about what "C"'s lessees are doing with "C"'s horses. Still, there is no reason for imposing any greater sanction upon "C" in this case other than the loss of "D"'s first place finish and completion.

With respect to "A"'s stables, the Committee also sees no reason to impose any form of punishment on "E" for giving "D" the banamine. "E" thought the horse was withdrawn from competition and thought "E" was doing the best thing for the horse's health and well-being. "E"'s supervisor, Dr. "G," was not there when "E" administered the banamine and did not know about it when the decision was made to enter "D" in the 50 mile ride. Like "C," Dr. "G" did not learn the horse had been drugged at the ride until notified of the protest months later. Although the Protest and Grievance Committee does not believe Dr. "G" should be sanctioned either, it does suggest Dr. "G" implement some sort of chartnote record keeping system at rides to keep fully informed of the status of horses under Dr. "G"'s care and avoid this kind of problem in the future.

This brings us to the rider, "A." The typical rider at most AERC rides is also the owner and is responsible for everything about his or her horse, from bringing it to the ride, feeding it, grooming it, riding it and medicating it, if necessary. The first reaction upon learning that a horse has been drugged at an AERC ride is to think that the rider must have known. But "A" is not the typical AERC rider. "A" did not participate in any way in the care of the horses "A" rode at the ride. "A" made no decisions about the horses. "A" had just turned 18 when the events in question occurred. Dr. "G"'s role included watching over "A" but not taking "A"'s direction on the day to day management of the horses. As Dr. "F" testified both from what was observed at this ride and from experience, "A"'s only involvement with the horse began when "A" was handed its reins at the starting line.

As mentioned above, "A" avoided competing in AERC events for the 2005 ride season while this protest was pending. Under the circumstances, the Committee finds that no measure against "A" is justified beyond removing the record that the horse had ever entered the ride. The Committee hopes "A" continues with "A"'s plan to enter more AERC rides. "A"'s prolonged exposure to the way most AERC members ride endurance may provide valuable experience and perspective as "A" grows older.

John H. Parke, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

This is a protest of AERC member "A" by AERC member "B" over an incident occurring at the --- 50 mile endurance ride held in the Northwest Region on October ---, 2004. "B" charges that "A" verbally harassed "B" near the end of the ride.

According to "B," "A" was in the lead all day after the start of the ride. "C" rode in second place most of the day, and "B" rode in third place behind "C." "B" caught up with "C" from time to time. "B" caught up with "C" the last time approximately five miles from the finish line and rode in with "C" to a water stop approximately one mile to the finish line. While they were watering their horses, "A" rode up from behind them.

According to "B," "A" yelled at "B" and "C," pointed a finger at them, and accused them of cutting trail. "B" and "C" denied cutting trail. "B" thought "A"'s horse did not have much sweat on its neck and wondered if "A" had cut trail, instead, to wind up behind them. The three of them rode off together from the water stop, continued to argue from time to time, and decided to finish together without racing in.

According to "B," "A" suggested once they finished that "A" take first place and that they split the first place points in a tie. Neither "B" nor "C" disagreed at the time. However, several minutes later "C" followed by "B" went back up to "A" after they had taken care of their horses. "C" and "B" questioned why they had been accused of cheating. They questioned why "A"'s horse wasn't sweatier than theirs and why "A" came up behind them at the last water stop if "A" had not cut trail. After they told "A" they were thinking of borrowing the ride manager's ATV and going out on the trail to see where "A"'s horse's tracks rejoined it, "A" stated that "A" knew "A" had gone off the trail for a short time and had rejoined it. They told "A" that "B"'s horse was stronger than the other two horses and deserved the win. The three of them then agreed that "B"'s horse would be given first place. "A" hugged "B" and said, "Now, let's not let this come between us." (They had known each other and had been friends for several years.) At the awards ceremony, "B" was announced as the first place rider and "A" as the second place rider and winner of the best condition award.

In the response in opposition to the protest, "A" tells a somewhat similar story, but strongly disagrees with "B"'s characterization of their communications with each other. According to "A," "A" rode up to the water stop approximately one mile from the finish line and was surprised to see "B" and "C" since "A" had been in the lead all day. "A" asked them if they had ridden all of the prior loop. They said they had and "A" accepted that. Nevertheless, as they started moving down the trail, "B" became agitated and accused "A" of having cut trail. "A" raised "A"'s voice also as they argued. "A" did admit that "A" had missed a turn and gone off trail for several hundred yards before returning and that that was probably how they got ahead.

According to "A," the argument quieted down as they rode toward camp together. "A" apologized two or three times to both "B" and "C." They all finished together. When the finish timer asked who was first, "C" reported that "A" had led the whole ride, so "A" said that "A" was first and that "B" was second and "C" third. Before the award meeting, "B" and "C" came to "A" complaining that the finish order was not fair. Wanting to avoid an argument, "A" agreed that "B" should go first. "A" hugged "B" and said their argument should not come between them. According to "A," "A" cheered and applauded when "B" was awarded first place at the award ceremony.

Approximately a week later, "B" wrote "A" and told "A" that "A" had displayed unsportsmanlike behavior while trying to intimidate "C" and "B." "B" asked "A" to contact the AERC and agree to take a completion only for the ride, thereby giving up a second place finish. "B" stated that "B" would take no further action if "A" accepted a completion only for the ride. Northwest Region Regional Director Gail Williams and also ride management then became involved in an effort to mediate this dispute short of a protest. After an exchange of several e-mails and also some phone calls between Ms. Williams and the parties, these settlement discussions failed and "B" filed her protest with the AERC Protest and Grievance Committee.

Aside from the narratives of "B," "C" and "A," the parties submitted more than a dozen additional witness statements between them. This included character references for "B" from ten different people and similar references for "A" by another five people. Brief statements were also submitted by the ride manager and the Northwest Regional Director, Ms. Williams. It is clear from these various character references that both "B" and "A" are long-time members of the Northwest endurance community in good standing. They are both considered to be industrious, helpful, generous, loyal, caring and honest. Each has managed or assisted in the management of endurance rides in the area. "B," in particular, is considered perseverant. Notwithstanding all of these statements in support of one or the other parties, the only direct testimony about what actually occurred came from the original three participants with some supplemental information from ride management.

After reviewing all this material, the Protest and Grievance Committee declines to determine who was right and who was wrong in the argument between "B" and "A." The issue in this case, as it is in all protests, is whether or not there was a violation of AERC rules. On the evidence submitted, the Protest and Grievance Committee does not believe that there was a violation of AERC rules in this case, regardless of which side's story was more truthful or accurate.

In the original protest letter, "B" charges that "A"'s conduct amounted to a violation of AERC Rules 4.1.3 and 4.2. Both rules are part of AERC RuleÊ4 which states, "Entry to a ride may be refused for cause." Under Rule 4.1.3, cause warranting the refusal of entry to a ride may include: Abusive harassment of ride personnel, other riders or crews, such as arguing with the veterinarians, breaking the line at vet gates, or deliberately blocking other riders on the trail.

Rule 4.2 adds that cause for refusal of entry to a ride may also be determined by the Board of Directors of the AERC or one of its committees.

It is clear from the plain language of Rule 4 and its subsidiary Rules 4.1.3 and 4.2 that they deal only with ride management's refusal to allow a rider to enter a ride. These rules do not deal with the situation presented in the current case in which one rider is complaining about the behavior of another rider once both have entered and have ridden in a ride, and the complaining rider wants the other rider's placing taken away.

A somewhat better fit under the circumstances would be Rule 15.1(b) which prohibits acting "in a manner considered otherwise illegal or unsportsmanlike." Was "A"'s behavior unsportsmanlike in this case? The Protest and Grievance Committee concludes that it was not, for the purposes of the application of Rule 15.1(b).

Although it is certainly possible that verbal communications may amount to abuse or harassment rising to the level of unsportsmanlike conduct under Rule 15.1(b), this is not that case. No matter who said what first and in whatever tone of voice, the argument which erupted was necessarily brief since it started at the water stop and continued momentarily only during the short period of time it would have taken to travel the last mile to the finish line. The fact that the parties were all able to ride together and cross the line simultaneously indicates that the tensions between them at the time were not extreme. Both versions of the story wind up with "A" hugging "B" and trying to be conciliatory, and with "B" being awarded first place.

The five members of the Protest and Grievance Committee have a collective experience in this sport exceeding 60 years. One member has ridden close to 25,000 miles while two others have ridden in excess of 12,000 miles. Four of the members of the committee have managed rides while the fifth vetted rides in both the eastern and western halves of the country. The members of the committee are well aware that it is frequent for riders to become irritable with each other, especially when the competitive juices are flowing and also when everyone is tired near the end of a ride. The members of the committee are concerned that if the behavior described in this particular protest were to be considered a violation of the AERC rules, the AERC would be swamped by literally hundreds of similar protests each ride season.

The committee members believe that the informal mediation procedure utilizing the services of one of the appropriate regional directors such as Ms. Williams, as described in the informal protest procedure set forth near the beginning of Rule 14, is the best way of handling disputes like this. The regional director in this case, Ms. Williams, is to be commended for her diplomatic efforts to resolve this controversy. This does not appear to be a matter where horse welfare or rider safety, or even competitive advantages between riders, was at stake. The members of the Protest and Grievance Committee hope that when some similar controversy inevitably arises somewhere in the country in the future that the riders involved will do their best to settle their differences with the help of ride management or the appropriate regional director and avoid invoking the formal protest procedure.

This protest is denied.

John H. Parke, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

This is a protest by AERC member "B" of the "A" Association for denial of her entry to the --- Endurance Ride. "A" Association refused "B" entry to the ride in both 2003 and 2004. "B" charges that "A" Association violated AERC Rule 4 by denying entry without cause.

Both sides submitted several witness statements about communications between "B" and ride management, conditions at the ride, "B"'s behavior at this ride and other rides. Some of the statements were critical about "B"'s attitude while others were complimentary. The statements gave detailed descriptions of the parking and vet check layout for this ride and of incidents at this and other rides. The Protest and Grievance Committee found some of this information to be pertinent and some of it to be irrelevant. The most relevant facts and allegations are summarized below.

"A" Association has been running competitive trail and endurance rides for --- years. The rides it puts on each year include the --- Ride. "B" entered the --- at the ride in 2002 and won the ride. After that ride, four different ride volunteers complained to ride management about her "B"'s and abusive treatment of them. These volunteers reported confrontations with "B" about:

1. "B"'s initial refusal when "B" arrived at camp to park in the camping area set aside for "B"'s size trailer;

2. "B"'s demand during the ride that the P&R volunteer (a rider with 10,000 miles experience in endurance and competitive trail) write down a lower pulse than the pulse recorded by the volunteer even though the pulse recorded met criteria;

3. "B"'s failure to follow the designated in time and out time procedure at a vet check; and

4. "B"'s insistence on collecting the Best Condition award and leaving early before Best Condition judging was completed for the qualifying riders.

According to the ride volunteers, "B" was impatient, disrespectful, dismissive and nasty to them and complained that they were stupid and that the ride was poorly managed.

After reviewing the complaints from the ride volunteers, the "A" Board of Directors decided to do nothing further at that time but to address any necessary issues if "B" chose to enter another "A" Association event. When "B" requested an entry for the 2003 --- Ride, ride manager "C" and ride secretary "D" sent "B" a letter informing "B" about the complaints from the previous year and the asking "B" to treat the ride volunteers with more respect. The letter stated, in pertinent part:

. . . [S]everal of the volunteers including timers, P&R crew and scribes felt that you had disrespected them and their efforts. Volunteer recruitment is generally one of the biggest tasks of organizing a ride. No ride is possible without the voulunteer participation. We would ask, that if you do decide to enter the --- Ride this year, that you please respect the volunteers and their efforts.

"B" responded with an email denying that "B" had been rude to P&R crew but agreeing to respect the volunteers and address ride management if problems arose. "B" wrote, "If I make friends great if not Ôoh well' it's about my horse and exposing horsemanship that I have not seen much of in the endurance world . . . horsemanship based on the horse, not popularity contest."

Unfortunately, another dispute erupted when "B" sent in entry materials. Ride secretary "D" notified "B" by email that "B" had sent in a copy of "B"'s National Equestrian Federation of the United States membership card by mistake and that "D" needed to see "B"'s AERC membership card. "B" emailed back: YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED EVERYTHING. THEN TALKED ABOUT ME MAKING SOME KIND OF SWITCH. . . . I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS OR MISUNDERSTANDING. ON THE SAME SHEET OF PAPER (PHOTCOPY) IS A COPY OF 2003 AERC MEMBERSHIP AS WELL AS A COPY OF MY 2003 USA EQUESTRIAN. ARE YOU INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO MAKE SIGNING UP DIFFICULT FOR ME?? WHATS THE PROBLEM? IF THIS IS A HONEST OVERSIGHT ON YOUR PART THEN NO PROBLEM, BUT IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ME, BE UP FRONT.

"D" then contacted "A" Association Board President "E" with his concern that the same problems with "B" were starting up all over again. "E" consulted with various ECTRA and AERC board members, then polled the "A" Association Board of Directors. The board voted unanimously to reject "B"'s entry to the ride. After being notified of the decision, "B" then called "E," who reported that "B" was calm at first, explaining that "B" had already paid for a groom to help at the ride, but then became agitated and threatening. "E" again polled the board which again unanimously voted to deny "B"'s entry. After still another similar phone call with "B," "E" once more polled the board with the same result. The "A" Association also elected to refuse entry to "B" in 2004.

AERC Rule 4 states that "Entry to a ride may be refused for cause." Rule 4.1 adds that:

Cause is defined as a specific occurrence, substantiated by direct and corroborated evidence of, including but not limited to, one of the following: 4.1.3. Abusive harassment of ride personnel, other riders or crews, such as arguing with the veterinarians, breaking the line at vet gates, or deliberately blocking other riders on the trail.

The Protest and Grievance Committee finds that "A" Association complied with Rule 4 in denying "B"'s entry to the --- Ride. Ride managers put on rides; the AERC merely sanctions them. Ride managers take all of the risk and do all of the work so that the rest of us can enjoy our sport. The Committee is not inclined to second-guess a ride manager's discretionary decisions. The Committee will generally defer to a ride manager's judgment when it is exercised reasonably. Here, the ride manager clearly acted in good faith.

Regardless of what exactly happened at the 2002 ride, ride management had legitimate grounds for concern over "B"'s behavior and attitude towards ride help. "B"'s harsh response to "D"'s inquiry about the AERC membership card a year later was the the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Given "B"'s problems in the past, "B"'s communication over the membership card did not promise any improvement. The denial of entry was not a capricious act by a personally offended ride manager. Instead, it was the careful decision on three separate occasions by the governing body of the substantial parent organization after consultation with officials from other organizations.

"A" Association complied with Rule 4 by denying the entry with cause as defined in Rule 4.1 and 4.1.3. The protest is denied.

John H. Parke, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

Return to Top