This is a clear cut situation. It is very bad. Intent doesn't matter. Rose has to be held accountable for his actions. Is there a "his side of the story" so to speak? Possibly. Victor Carrero didn't have a "his side of the story" -- he did what he did out of anger, frustration, etc. -- and no offense, that didn't mean a thing. He faced the music for his actions. I understand the "other side" and how that can play out, but that doesn't justify or explain this type of action.
It doesn't matter if it was a cheap claimer or a stake horse. I don't care. Nobody else should either. It doesn't matter. I don't care what PETA has to say -- I don't need them telling me this was wrong, or bad, or whatever. I certainly don't need them furthering their own, and often uneducated, agenda by distorting truths. Handing out punishments due to public pressure or duress, educated or not, can be very dangerous. OTOH, it can cut both ways. The educated public, people in the business, etc. must know that regulatory bodies are serious and that there is bite behind the bark. Perhaps though, you can never satisfy the uneducated public. You can't increase penalties because you are afraid of "what people might think" -- or else you are not governing with confidence and integrity; you are governing for popularity. Doing what is right means sometimes doing what is unpopular.
Unfortuantely, often, there can be no standard. You want to tell me there should be a minimum -- OK, I see that. A minimum of X days, y dollar fine, anger management, community/backstretch service, etc. -- OK, that's fine. In our own legal systems, we have sentencing guidelines, mandatory sentences, graduated sentencing, etc. Perhaps we need that within our own "system" for our sport.
Eric
|