Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cardus
Eric,
I do not understand the "it's easy to be a critic" tack here. Why is it so hard to understand that some people would not subject his horse to something that, perhaps not illlegal, is not in the horse's best interest? I'm certain that I would not operate in the same alleged way as those owners listed above.
Please clarify the "Everybody is entitled their business the way they want" line. Does that mean that owners can operate as they want within or without the rules? I don't think that you mean that, but that's how it came across.
|
No, of course it didn't mean that. Come on now, be reasonable.
The critic tack is in my mind part of the problem. Some people wouldn't subject a horse to something . . . OK. I'll buy that. And some will. Period. That is almost, in today's environment, a moot discussion. What isn't moot are the rules, or lack thereof. That's what matters.
This is also a circular discussion. If someone doesn't like the fact that Jess Jackson, who speaks for integrity in the game, has chosen Steve Assmusen as a trainer -- let them boycott his operation. Don't board your mares at his farm, don't visit his consignment or buy horses from there, and so on. Anything else? Boycott the states that don't have rules to our satisfaction? Don't bet on the horses? Where is this conversation going?
If someone doesn't like the way Jess Jackson runs his business -- what are they going to do about it? Not buy his wine? Or were we talking about horses here?
Change will in fact come from within. I just don't think it will come in the fashion talked about here.
Eric