Protest and Grievance Committee Findings

On September --, 2007, riders B, A and C competed in the --- Ride. On Sunday, all three riders were disqualified by Ride Management. The crux of this DQ was the alleged violation of a "No Dog" rule and leaving a horse tied and unattended on the trail.

Concerning the "No Dog" issue, the entry form that all three signed clearly states that "By signing this form I acknowledge the 'No Dog' rule and that my entry will be voided." After sifting through all of the pages of explanations, club minutes, overflow campground maps, etc., it is without question these protesters brought their dogs to the ride. However, this was not known until after two of the riders had completed the ride. It is obvious to this committee, had the dogs been discovered before the start of the ride, their entries would have been voided. Should the riders be granted a completion simply because they were not discovered until after the ride? We think not. Rule 6 states, in part, as follows: Completion requires meeting all of the following: c. Obeying all the rules. h. Not being disqualified.

Although the "No Dog" rule is not an AERC rule, it is a rule of the --- Ride and it must be followed. In the preamble of the AERC rule book it states, "Additional measures may be taken by any ride to provide greater safety for equine and rider."

The last issue solely involves Rider A. Initially, it must be pointed out that we have some procedural difficulties with Rider A's protest. First, Rider A did not use the required Formal Protest Form but merely signed Rider BŐs form without paying the necessary $100 protest fee. Without the benefit of the form, we have no reference to the rules Rider A believes were violated. In Rider A's narrative, the rider does mention rule 4.1.3, which concerns AERC ride entry refusal, and Rule 6, which pertains to completions, neither of which apply to the facts of this matter. In spite of these shortcomings, the committee decided to act on Rider A's protest.

Turning now to the facts, we find that during Rider A's limited distance ride, the rider pulled from the ride. Rider A dismounted and tied the horse and helmet on the trail, then walked some distance to a road, ostensibly to summon Person D or others to transport Rider A and Rider A's horse back to camp. Neither Rider A nor Rider A's horse were in any kind of distress or difficulty. According to Rider A's account, Rider A decided to pull by rider option. Also, according to Rider A, the horse remained at that tied location for at least an hour or perhaps an hour and twenty minutes.

Ride Management has stated that other riders coming upon the scene became concerned, some of whom searched for the missing rider to no avail. Some time later Ride Management learned that horse and rider were fine. There was some evidence that the rider was angry at the horse and tied the horse there to discipline it. We make no finding in that regard.

Also, according to the protester, Rider A was disqualified for "abandoning the horse on the trail." Although it is not completely clear from the response of management the exact reason for the DQ, we were able to discern from that response that the rider was not acting responsibly to the other riders and possibly to the horse; furthermore, Rider A violated the "No Dog" rule.

Regardless of all the convoluted facts in this twisted saga we cannot find a rule called "abandoning a horse," nor do we find that the protesters' actions in regard to the horse were cruel under 15.1.c. We do, however, find that Rider A did violate the "No Dog" rule and based on that conclusion the disqualification was appropriate.

Therefore, the protests of all the protesters are denied and the disqualifications are upheld.

Very truly yours,

Michael D. Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

On 11/15/07 AERC filed a protest alleging violation of Rule 14 against Lisa R. Coverdale.

The facts are as follows:

Early Sept. 2007, Rider A, owner and rider, planned to have Rider A's horse, Horse 1, shod no later than Sept. 10, since Rider A intended to ride the --- Ride. Due to unforeseen emergencies, the farrier shod the horse on September 13th and administered "Bute" because he felt the horse appeared a "little sore." All of this was done without the knowledge or consent of the Rider A, who incidentally did not return home until the day Rider A left for the ride.

Rider A competed in the 25-mile limited distance ride and placed 6th overall. After the ride Rider A was randomly asked to submit Rider A's horse for a blood test, to which Rider A readily complied.

That evening, in a casual conversation with Rider A's spouse, Rider A mentioned the blood test. The spouse later recalled that the farrier had mentioned that he had given Horse 1 something but he did not recall what the substance was. That Saturday night Rider A attempted to reach the farrier to no avail. On Sunday morning Rider A reported what had happened and Rider A's discovery to ride management and the ride veterinarian. On the way home Rider A was able to contact the farrier and confirm the horse was in fact given bute. On Monday morning, Rider A reported the incident and findings to AERC.

On 11/13/07, Dalare Associates, the equine drug testing service, reported that the blood sample taken from Horse 1 contained 5.7 micrograms of phenylbutazone. On 11/20, the Veterinary Committee reported that the presence of that substance is a violation of Rule 13.

The Protest and Grievance Committee find that the respondent, Rider A, had no intention to violate the AERC drug rule in any manner. However, as we have said before, intention does not decide the issue. It is the presence of the drug in the horse during competition that is the critical deciding factor. That being so, we direct the following:

1. Rider A is disqualified from the ride.

2. Rider A's 6th place finish is disallowed and stricken.

3. Rider A is directed to reimburse AERC for all drug testing cost in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Michael D. Marino, Chairman, Protest and Grievance Committee

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 --, 2007, Ride Management of a Southeast Region ride filed a protest alleging that Rider A 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 --, 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 Rider A 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 --, 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

Return to Top