PDA

View Full Version : Darren Chiacchia arrested on HIV related charge



Andrea_W
Jan. 21, 2010, 09:12 PM
OMG! Another disastrous chapter.

Link re-found: Link (http://www.barnmice.com/group/everythingeventing/forum/topics/news-from-ocala-darren)

LexInVA
Jan. 21, 2010, 09:14 PM
Yeah, we already talked about this before and the threads have been closed.

Andrea_W
Jan. 21, 2010, 09:18 PM
Sorry to re-post. I just read this news this minute.
Perhaps the thread can be deleted.

IrishWillow
Jan. 21, 2010, 09:18 PM
I think its all very sad. :(

goobs
Jan. 21, 2010, 09:28 PM
If you want to read the full police report it is listed at wwweventingnation.com and the whole thing is indeed very sad.

LexInVA
Jan. 21, 2010, 09:36 PM
We might as well keep it open now that the initial evidence has been made public. It doesn't look good for Darren and the evidence against him is very much in line with his much lamented "behavior" not to mention he pretty much shat on the gay community he supposedly represents by suggesting, in a recorded conversation no less, that HIV is just an accepted part of the lifestyle and that the victim would be naive to think otherwise.

eponacowgirl
Jan. 21, 2010, 10:30 PM
We might as well keep it open now that the initial evidence has been made public. It doesn't look good for Darren and the evidence against him is very much in line with his much lamented "behavior" not to mention he pretty much shat on the gay community he supposedly represents by suggesting, in a recorded conversation no less, that HIV is just an accepted part of the lifestyle and that the victim would be naive to think otherwise.

What he said.

Copper
Jan. 21, 2010, 11:45 PM
ugghh,
but that's what I always thought about him.........
I would add that its sad though at least he had a purpose in life before his injury

Carol Ames
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:32 AM
I think I'm glad I missed all of this

cloudyandcallie
Jan. 22, 2010, 07:50 AM
I just want to know if Lex still has Celine Dion on his ipod.
Another horse hero (Lex) fallen!

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:17 AM
I don't own an iPod. I'm anti-Apple and I haven't bought or listened to any Celine Dion since 1997.

Tamara in TN
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:22 AM
I just want to know if Lex still has Celine Dion on his ipod.
Another horse hero (Lex) fallen!

and there is always the Makenzie Brothers....

Tamara in TN

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:25 AM
This is a tragic situation indeed, BUT not unique to Darren.

His partner must bare some responsibility as well. When someone says to you "it's okay, I am negitive, we do not need protection" the response from the partner should have been something like "how do you KNOW that I am".
Not only do sexually active people have an obligation to their partners but also to themselves and that means practicing safer sex practices at all times. This is not just about HIV but rather a whole range of other things one can come in contact with.
Darren's remark regarding being naive if his partner did not think he has had sex with someone that did not have HIV (or any other sexually transmitted disease) is not far off the mark. This is another reason to take the resposnisbility to protect YOURSELF regardless of how persistent one's partner is about "not having any diseases"
Whilst I have no proof that Darren lied when or if asked about his status, it is never the less the responsibility of both parties to be honest and go one further and assume that the other is lying.

Jazzy Lady
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:28 AM
Amen Snoopy.

That goes for everyone. People are so quick to point fingers and say "that person did that!" It takes two for a concensual relationship. He was with the man for quite some time. And it takes two to forget the risks.

gladys
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:43 AM
I agree that it is up to each person to protect themselves, but if you KNOW that you are HIV positive, and you are in a loving relationship, wouldn't you want to protect your partner from a horrible and contagious disease?
To me, this goes so far beyond the legal issues (which would apply to a stranger or anyone else) to the core of someone who would do this to a loved one.

IFG
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:45 AM
This is a tragic situation indeed, BUT not unique to Darren.

His partner must bare some responsibility as well. When someone says to you "it's okay, I am negitive, we do not need protection" the response from the partner should have been something like "how do you KNOW that I am".
Not only do sexually active people have an obligation to their partners but also to themselves and that means practicing safer sex practices at all times. This is not just about HIV but rather a whole range of other things one can come in contact with.
Darren's remark regarding being naive if his partner did not think he has had sex with someone that did not have HIV (or any other sexually transmitted disease) is not far off the mark. This is another reason to take the resposnisbility to protect YOURSELF regardless of how persistent one's partner is about "not having any diseases"
Whilst I have no proof that Darren lied when or if asked about his status, it is never the less the responsibility of both parties to be honest and go one further and assume that the other is lying.

Agreed, and speaking as a public health professional, thank you for such a reasoned statement. Unfortunately, the attitude that AIDS is no longer a problem is not unique to this situation. Aside from everything else, as the police report states, a negative test is no guarantee that the partner is not infected. It often takes several months for antibodies to develop, and for the HIV test to give a positive result.

EVERYONE should be careful out there.

OK, getting off my soap box.

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:48 AM
Yes it is my opinion that the "victim" here was also a victim of poor judgement/choices.


There are those out there who have no regard for the health of their partners...ultimately a partner should be protecting their own health. I am not siding with Darren on this but as Jazzy said "it takes TWO" when it involves concenting adults.

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:57 AM
Wow. Blame the victim?

Woman goes into a bar alone, dressed provocatively. Has too much to drink. Accepts ride home from someone she doesn't know well. Is assaulted and raped. Well, I guess she should have known better.

The law disagrees. The assailant committed a crime and should be held accountable for his actions, despite the fact that the victim's actions made it easier to commit said crime.

In other words, it's still burglary even if I leave my door unlocked.

It's still a felony even if DC's partner did not verify DC's HIV status and use protection.

Mara
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:58 AM
Not that it matters at all, but I somehow missed the bulletin that Chiacchia is gay. I really haven't ever given it any thought until now, but I suppose I'd always taken it for granted that most of the men in eventing, along with racing and the Western disciplines, were straight.

(Please don't take the above to mean any more than exactly what it says. It isn't in any way casting aspersions on dressage, hunter-jumpers, etc., and certainly not on gay people. It's just always been my perception).

saje
Jan. 22, 2010, 08:59 AM
In an attempt to keep this related to horses...

It's a very sad situation, but how do you think this will affect the Eventing world? Or will it? (other than as fodder for gossip, speculation, and innuendo)

What about the Sporthorse Sale that's got his name attached to it?

Any repercussions for Windfall II?

goobs
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:01 AM
If the victim is free of disease and his partner is not - it is the responsibility of the partner (because he knows he is infected) to inform their partner and to wear protection. Should every married couple or anyone in a long term committed relationship protect themseslves? If you are in a loving relationship shouldn't trusting one another be part of that relationship? Knowingly betraying someone and in the process helping to spread this disease or any other STD is downright irresponsible. The victim, any victim, probably is kicking themselves right now. It wasn't a one night stand. We weren't privy to their bedroom conversation either. Hopefully noone else comes forth saying Darren had done the same thing to them. If noone does then it will be hard to believe that he just did it to one person. We haven't heard his defense either so I am hoping that Darren is cleared and can move on with rebuilding his life and business. I find it very hard to believe that someone who is so meticulous about his health and physical well being would NOT wear a condom after contracting HIV - it would open the door for so many other STDs.

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:10 AM
Wow. Blame the victim?

Woman goes into a bar alone, dressed provocatively. Has too much to drink. Accepts ride home from someone she doesn't know well. Is assaulted and raped. Well, I guess she should have known better.

The law disagrees. The assailant committed a crime and should be held accountable for his actions, despite the fact that the victim's actions made it easier to commit said crime.

In other words, it's still burglary even if I leave my door unlocked.

It's still a felony even if DC's partner did not verify DC's HIV status and use protection.



Nobody is BLAMING the victim....and I HATE HATE HATE this term as his partner is NOT a victim, but a willing participant in a consentual relationship with unfortunate circumstances.
What "I" am saying is that BOTH parties here must bare responsibility. If infact Darren was lied about his status, his partner made his OWN decisions regarding unprotected sexual activity. In this day, regardles of gay or straight, regardless of HIV or any other disease, the resposible thing to do is to protect oneself. This is not the same as getting into the car with a stranger and being assulted and raped. This relationship was consentual. If Darren's choice was to not use protection, it can be said that the partner also made the choice not to use protection, which shows a lack of regard for one's own health and IMO very poor judgement indeed.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:10 AM
Well, in Florida, where he has been charged, it's just a misdemeanor unless it happens in conjunction with sexual offenses or "good-will" activities like donating blood and other such things. Due to the jurisdictional circumstances of the case which are confined to NY and FL, Darren currently faces no criminal charges unless more people come forward saying he's done the same to them, in which case he would certainly face criminal charges in court. At the very least, he's likely going to get sued and lose what little money he has left.

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:16 AM
OK, let's say this case involved a hererosexual married couple. Husband also fools around on the side and becomes infected. Doesn't inform wife.

Is she a victim? YES.

According to the criminal complaint, DC was in a consensual committed relationship with someone who repeatedly inquired into his HIV status. Does not that person have the same right as the wife to truthfulness in the relationship? Or are you saying, because they are gay, that the Victim should have known this could happen and therefore is responsible for DC's actions? The charge is failing to inform his partner.

That is a third degree felony.

Jazzy Lady
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:16 AM
Wow. Blame the victim?

Woman goes into a bar alone, dressed provocatively. Has too much to drink. Accepts ride home from someone she doesn't know well. Is assaulted and raped. Well, I guess she should have known better.

The law disagrees. The assailant committed a crime and should be held accountable for his actions, despite the fact that the victim's actions made it easier to commit said crime.

In other words, it's still burglary even if I leave my door unlocked.

It's still a felony even if DC's partner did not verify DC's HIV status and use protection.

We are talking about two concenting adults, not one who was raped and assaulted. Very different situations.

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:17 AM
If the victim is free of disease and his partner is not - it is the responsibility of the partner (because he knows he is infected) to inform their partner and to wear protection. Should every married couple or anyone in a long term committed relationship protect themseslves? If you are in a loving relationship shouldn't trusting one another be part of that relationship? Knowingly betraying someone and in the process helping to spread this disease or any other STD is downright irresponsible. The victim, any victim, probably is kicking themselves right now. It wasn't a one night stand. We weren't privy to their bedroom conversation either. Hopefully noone else comes forth saying Darren had done the same thing to them. If noone does then it will be hard to believe that he just did it to one person. We haven't heard his defense either so I am hoping that Darren is cleared and can move on with rebuilding his life and business. I find it very hard to believe that someone who is so meticulous about his health and physical well being would NOT wear a condom after contracting HIV - it would open the door for so many other STDs.



If you read my posts you will know I agree with you. Both should be honest....sadly this is not always the case....and therefore each partner should take action to protect themselves...
As far as loving trusting relationships....trust is a big issue, and again sadly trust is aften broken in relationships. The responsible thing to do if a couple had made the decision not to use protection is to get tested together and tested again in three months...if given the all clear and both are of the opinion that this is a manogamous relationship then they take the responsibility for that choice.

It would appear from the police statement that this procedure was not followed.

Jazzy Lady
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:20 AM
In a perfect world everyone would always be honest with one another but we all know that that doesn't always happen. So you have to protect yourself and take all the proper safety precautions.

I'm also suprised that someone as health concious as Darren had this happen. But we all know his judgement has been altered greatly after his accident. And his partner since then have all known and should be aware that his judgement is not as clear as it once was also. I mean, you're with a guy who's suffered a serious brain injury. You'd think you'd be taking extra precautions.

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:28 AM
Consenting adults commit assault against their partners every day. And are charged with crimes. To me this case is no different than any other case of domestic violence, in that the assailant took advantage of the inherent trust in the relationship to abuse the victim. The law agrees with me.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:38 AM
Well Miss Jazzy, it hasn't been made known exactly when he found out he had HIV or how he contracted it. The information presented in the case is conflicting and contradictory in that regard but as I pointed out before, he could have easily contracted it post-accident from blood transfusions which fits with the e-mail evidence while the victim states that Darren admitted to having been HIV Positive for "several years" in one of several phone conversations after the break-up but before the charges were filed. Until the medical records of Darren are released, much of this will be a mystery.

Equibrit
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:39 AM
re spelling; CONSENT..........CONSENSUAL

Jazzy Lady
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:41 AM
Well Miss Jazzy, it hasn't been made known exactly when he found out he had HIV or how he contracted it. The information presented in the case is conflicting and contradictory in that regard but as I pointed out before, he could have easily contracted it post-accident from blood transfusions which fits with the e-mail evidence while the victim states that Darren admitted to having been HIV Positive for "several years" in one of several phone conversations after the break-up but before the charges were filed. Until the medical records of Darren are released, much of this will be a mystery.

It's very true, and I continue to give Darren the benefit of the doubt. He's also been tattooing himself up lately which also could be a possible way of contracting the disease. I feel like it may always continue to remain a mystery. Can they really say how he contracted it?

Backstage
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:41 AM
We are talking about two concenting adults, not one who was raped and assaulted. Very different situations.

Not that it matters, because Florida law is different, but since the discussion seems to be on a more general level... In Canada, at least, there is case law that suggests that lying about your HIV status vitiates consent. Essentially, that the act the victim consented to was different than what happened and it can be considered sexual assault, and recently a man was convicted of aggravated sexual assault AND two counts of first degree murder after two women he slept (unprotected sex, he hid his HIV status) with died of AIDS-related conditions.

http://www.thespec.com/article/543731

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:42 AM
he could have easily contracted it post-accident from blood transfusions....


Be careful here LEX...this is a very early 80's occurance and very unlikely to happen today in the USA.

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:44 AM
Does it matter how he contracted the disease? That is not relevant to the charges.

WishIWereRiding
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:47 AM
Well Miss Jazzy, it hasn't been made known exactly when he found out he had HIV or how he contracted it. The information presented in the case is conflicting and contradictory in that regard but as I pointed out before, he could have easily contracted it post-accident from blood transfusions which fits with the e-mail evidence while the victim states that Darren admitted to having been HIV Positive for "several years" in one of several phone conversations after the break-up but before the charges were filed. Until the medical records of Darren are released, much of this will be a mystery.

The risk of acquiring HIV from a blood transfusion is actually about 1 in 2,000,000. The risk of acquiring HIV from tattooing is low too (don't have a #) since I believe most places use disposable instruments (I could be wrong though, not being some who has ever had a tattoo). I think the odds are greater that he acquired it through a different mechanism. Regardless of how he acquired it, with this whole situation, it will certainly be interesting to see how this pans out in the eventing world with his sponsors, upcoming horse sale, students, etc.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:51 AM
This case is multi-jurisdictional (Florida and NY) but it seems he's going to be charged in Florida. Both states have a relaxed stance on knowingly engaging in unprotected sex or other acts leading to STD transmission unless it's done deliberately with the purpose of infection (strange wording if you're already doing it knowingly), in context with sexual offenses, or things like donating blood where you are forbidden by law to do so if you knowingly have a transmittable disease or unsuitable blood.

frugalannie
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:53 AM
In this day, regardles of gay or straight, regardless of HIV or any other disease, the resposible thing to do is to protect oneself.

If there can be any good that comes from this situation, it will be that someone takes home this message. Gender preference is irrelevant: sexual activity in any context other than a long-standing monogamous relationship is very risky from a health perspective. It behooves every and any participant to be proactive and protect themselves no matter what they are told or may believe about their partner(s).

Thank you for making the point, Snoopy. IFG, you made this same point as well. I just thought it needed a separate post.

Now, can we go back to horse-related topics?

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:54 AM
Not that it matters, because Florida law is different, but since the discussion seems to be on a more general level... In Canada, at least, there is case law that suggests that lying about your HIV status vitiates consent.



and I for one agree with this. His partner may have decided that the risk be too great IF Darren is HIV positive with or without protection. But what I am saying is that this is not just about HIV but other diseases as well. His partner's actions would suggest that he was willing to take risks with his health by not using protection against ALL diseases. Again, we do not know if the conversation was only about HIV status and included all known diseases. If his partner had queried his status and it was an issue to him, which it would seem to be by the numerous questions, then you would think that until the partner was SURE of this status that he would have insisted on protection and not just relied on the honesty of Darren....but rather medical proof.

As I said, I would assume the other is lying and therefore not only in protecting myself I am protecting my partner.

If someone is insistant that they do not want to use protection, well for me, that is a warning sign.


There are those people out there who willfully engage in risky behaviour...and that is their choice...but it is also the choice of a prudent individual to choose not to.

I am certainly NOT letting darren off the hook if these charges are found to be true, I am merely saying that the partner also engaged in risky behaviour by not taking the neccessary precausions by insisting on medical proof or personal protection.

Stacie
Jan. 22, 2010, 09:58 AM
Well, in Florida, where he has been charged, it's just a misdemeanor unless it happens in conjunction with sexual offenses or "good-will" activities like donating blood and other such things.
From the news article:
"The charge is a third-degree felony degree; it could be upgraded to a first-degree felony if Chiacchia is found to have committed multiple violations of the crime."

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:28 AM
Be careful here LEX...this is a very early 80's occurance and very unlikely to happen today in the USA.

If blood was obtained through normal blood bank procurement, yes you would be correct thankfully, but there is typically little or no screening of blood when an emergency transfusion is needed from a compatible donor in cases where it's required immediately on the spot and the blood supplies available do not contain the required blood-type which means a donor is the only option meaning tests cannot be performed due to the time and expense of the tests which make them impractical in serious emergencies. That's the VERY reason why stockpiling is done. The tests are not as simple as dipping a treated Q-tip into a vial and seeing if turns blue when you pull it out. Fortunately, it's VERY rare that you have such instances where that mix of factors occurs. Nobody here knows Darren's blood-type (though I suspect he'd tell everyone it was AB Negative cause he's Darren after all) or his exact post-accident care so it's just a theory but it's very possible given some of the supposed facts presented by the victim, Darren's injuries, and the compromised state he was in after the accident which led to additional medical problems during his stay in the hospital.

Lori T
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:38 AM
In an attempt to keep this related to horses...

It's a very sad situation, but how do you think this will affect the Eventing world? Or will it? (other than as fodder for gossip, speculation, and innuendo)

What about the Sporthorse Sale that's got his name attached to it?

Any repercussions for Windfall II?

This is what I am wondering. It is a sad situation, for Darren, his partner and the eventing world. Darren, whether you liked him or not, was someone that was looked up too. I noticed today that pony clubbers in my region are already discussing this on facebook! BUT, the junior riders adore Mclean Ward, something I don't understand, so maybe Darren will come out of this relatively unscathed.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:40 AM
From the news article:
"The charge is a third-degree felony degree; it could be upgraded to a first-degree felony if Chiacchia is found to have committed multiple violations of the crime."

In some states, it is an outright felony but in Florida, as it is in quite a few other places, what he did is a lowly misdemeanor unless the act involves prostitution, donation of human tissue or fluids, or commission of sex offenses. If he did it multiple times to other partners or it is shown that he did it maliciously with the intent to infect the alleged victim, then it gets kicked up to a felony but for now, he just faces a slap on the wrist if he's convicted in Florida.

DMK
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:46 AM
From the news article:
"The charge is a third-degree felony degree; it could be upgraded to a first-degree felony if Chiacchia is found to have committed multiple violations of the crime."

Yup, the statutory section on penalties is fairly clear for F.S. 384.24 (2):

(5) Any person who violates the provisions of s. 384.24(2) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, 775.084, and 775.0877(7). Any person who commits multiple violations of the provisions of s. 384.24(2) commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, 775.084, and 775.0877(7).

NeverTime
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:47 AM
First, according to the police report, the victim to police he had conversations with Darren in which Darren (excuse the caps, it's a copy and paste) "TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS, IN FACT, HIV POSITIVE AND HAS BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS, BUT DID NOT TELL THE VICTIM BECAUSE HE DID NOT FEEL HE COULD TRUST THE VICTIM AND FELT THE VICTIM WOULD RUIN HIS REPUTATION."
So, two things:
First, good thing people are having sex with people they don't trust. Not.
Second, more imporantly, I wonder whether we are going to see more people coming out of the woodwork, now that this has been publicized, saying they had relationships (or casual sex) with DC in the past "several years" and that DC didn't tell them either.


Agreed, and speaking as a public health professional, thank you for such a reasoned statement. Unfortunately, the attitude that AIDS is no longer a problem is not unique to this situation. Aside from everything else, as the police report states, a negative test is no guarantee that the partner is not infected. It often takes several months for antibodies to develop and for the HIV test to give a positive result.

EVERYONE should be careful out there.

OK, getting off my soap box.

Just want to second this. I grew up in the '80s, when the AIDS epidemic was at its most deadly and terrifying, and had it pretty much pounded into my head that condoms were absolutely essential -- and still couldn't protect you from everything.
It surprises me today to learn how many of my younger friends are on birth control (pills, IUD, implant whatever) who are not in committed, monogamous relationships. That constitutes "safe sex" for them. Apparently AIDS (and the other lovely STDs a person can contract through sharing body fluids) doesn't scare them the way it scared me and others my age. (Granted, this doesn't apply directly do DC, who is older than me and frankly ought to know better and be better to the people he chooses to sleep with.)

cyriz's mom
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:48 AM
If you read the full police report that is posted on eventingnation.com (they have done an admirable job with this job, IMO, BTW). They have a phone recording of Darren stating that he become aware of his HIV status in 2008. He also stated that he lied to the victim because he did not trust the victim and was fearful that victim would tell people and Darren's REPUTATION would be damaged.

There is more from the recorded conversation published on the the above website. Clearly, there has not yet been a court case, but the arrest was the result of an investigation that started in September and that Darren apparently fought...as the police did finally obtain his medical records. And there does seem to be evidence to support the charges.

If convicted, there also appears to have jail time involved up to 5 years unless more people come forward with similar stories in which case it sounds like it could be as high as years.

Truly a sad situation. And as many have stated a reminder to everyone to take personal responsibility to always protect themselves (unless in a monogamous committed relationship in which testing occurred).

WishIWereRiding
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:50 AM
If blood was obtained through normal blood bank procurement, yes you would be correct thankfully, but there is typically little or no screening of blood when an emergency transfusion is needed from a compatible donor in cases where it's required immediately on the spot and the blood supplies available do not contain the required blood-type which means a donor is the only option meaning tests cannot be performed due to the time and expense of the tests which make them impractical in serious emergencies. That's the VERY reason why stockpiling is done. The tests are not as simple as dipping a treated Q-tip into a vial and seeing if turns blue when you pull it out. Fortunately, it's VERY rare that you have such instances where that mix of factors occurs. Nobody here knows Darren's blood-type (though I suspect he'd tell everyone it was AB Negative cause he's Darren after all) or his exact post-accident care so it's just a theory but it's very possible given some of the supposed facts presented by the victim, Darren's injuries, and the compromised state he was in after the accident which led to additional medical problems during his stay in the hospital.

Lex do you work in the medical field? Because you are completely wrong. Hospitals take blood transfusions very seriously and all donors and blood products are carefully screened. If it is an emergency situation and there is not enough time to properly cross match the patient's blood, then prepared (i.e. already screened) O neg blood is used. The type of situation you describe just doesn't happen. And why do you say he would tell people he's AB neg? That makes no sense. AB neg is not the universal recipient if that's what you are implying. I'm guessing if he didn't know he was infected earlier, he found out during his accident/hospital stay when some funky blood work or something of the like came up.

EventingJ
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:53 AM
If blood was obtained through normal blood bank procurement, yes you would be correct thankfully, but there is typically little or no screening of blood when an emergency transfusion is needed from a compatible donor in cases where it's required immediately on the spot and the blood supplies available do not contain the required blood-type which means a donor is the only option meaning tests cannot be performed due to the time and expense of the tests which make them impractical in serious emergencies. That's the VERY reason why stockpiling is done. The tests are not as simple as dipping a treated Q-tip into a vial and seeing if turns blue when you pull it out. Fortunately, it's VERY rare that you have such instances where that mix of factors occurs. Nobody here knows Darren's blood-type (though I suspect he'd tell everyone it was AB Negative cause he's Darren after all) or his exact post-accident care so it's just a theory but it's very possible given some of the supposed facts presented by the victim, Darren's injuries, and the compromised state he was in after the accident which led to additional medical problems during his stay in the hospital.


Are you kidding me? Please educate yourself a little before you spout off such utter and complete nonsense! The WORST thats going to happen is they are going to give you a unit of O Negative blood uncross matched. Any hospital will have an adequate supply of blood - any trauma hospital will have enough to resupply many traumas! Anything that comes from Red Cross has been screened for a hepatitis panel, HIV, and I forgot whatelse. The only blood that does NOT have to go through testing is if you were to donate your own whole blood to be used in the same hospital. Even if you are O Neg and the hospital and Red Cross have exhausted their stock, they will give you O Pos, and never never would they give you any old blood that might be hanging around.... In the USA we are still talking about here!!

WishIWereRiding
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:56 AM
Are you kidding me? Please educate yourself a little before you spout off such utter and complete nonsense! The WORST thats going to happen is they are going to give you a unit of O Negative blood uncross matched. Any hospital will have an adequate supply of blood - any trauma hospital will have enough to resupply many traumas! Anything that comes from Red Cross has been screened for a hepatitis panel, HIV, and I forgot whatelse. The only blood that does NOT have to go through testing is if you were to donate your own whole blood to be used in the same hospital. Even if you are O Neg and the hospital and Red Cross have exhausted their stock, they will give you O Pos, and never never would they give you any old blood that might be hanging around.... In the USA we are still talking about here!!

Actually, even if you donate your own blood, that is also screened! There is always the chance that your unit of blood is accidentally given to someone else, so that is why they screen it. A doctor I worked for used to have patients donate a unit before major surgery, and this way he also knew if they had any infectious diseases, because the blood bank would tell him if there was a problem with it.

EventingJ
Jan. 22, 2010, 10:58 AM
In our trauma hospital, and the small hospital I used to work at - as long as it stays at the hospital it was drawn at it is not screened. If it is transferred anywhere it is screened (or if you donate it to Red Cross, then it is screened)

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 11:02 AM
In Virginia, the charge would be thus:

§ 18.2-67.4:1. Infected sexual battery; penalty.

A. Any person who, knowing he is infected with HIV, syphilis, or hepatitis B, has sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anallingus or anal intercourse with the intent to transmit the infection to another person is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. Any person who, knowing he is infected with HIV, syphilis, or hepatitis B, has sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anallingus or anal intercourse with another person without having previously disclosed the existence of his infection to the other person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

C. "HIV" means the human immunodeficiency virus or any other related virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).

Nothing in this section shall prevent the prosecution of any other crime against persons under Chapter 4 (§ 18.2-30 et seq.) of this title. Any person charged with a violation of this section alleging he is infected with HIV shall be subject to the testing provisions of § 18.2-62.
******

goobs
Jan. 22, 2010, 11:19 AM
I am wondering how many people are truthful on their medical armbands in lieu of Darren's alleged claim that revealing that he has HIV would damage his reputation? If he is saying that he does not find his partner trustworthy to tell him he has HIV - then this leads me to believe he may not reveal this important medical information on his armband. This leads me to speculate how many others there are who are not truthful on the armbands due to the perceived stigma of having an STD or being a hep carrier, etc. It is hard to say that ONLY trained medics will touch/handle an injured rider with protective gloves. Plus who really reads the armbands unless it's the medics anyway? All issues to ponder.

eponacowgirl
Jan. 22, 2010, 11:23 AM
I am wondering how many people are truthful on their medical armbands in lieu of Darren's alleged claim that revealing that he has HIV would damage his reputation? If he is saying that he does not find his partner trustworthy to tell him he has HIV - then this leads me to believe he may not reveal this important medical information on his armband. This leads me to speculate how many others there are who are not truthful on the armbands due to the perceived stigma of having an STD or being a hep carrier, etc. It is hard to say that ONLY trained medics will touch/handle an injured rider with protective gloves. Plus who really reads the armbands unless it's the medics anyway? All issues to ponder.

That is an EXCELLENT (and horse related) point.

AppJumpr08
Jan. 22, 2010, 11:25 AM
First, according to the police report, the victim to police he had conversations with Darren in which Darren (excuse the caps, it's a copy and paste) "TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS, IN FACT, HIV POSITIVE AND HAS BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS, BUT DID NOT TELL THE VICTIM BECAUSE HE DID NOT FEEL HE COULD TRUST THE VICTIM AND FELT THE VICTIM WOULD RUIN HIS REPUTATION."


Wow. Just wow. This is even more self centered than I ever thought even Darren could be.

How terribly sad :no::no::no:

WW_Queen
Jan. 22, 2010, 11:31 AM
Well he's been in jail since Wednesday, according to this [alleged] police report. http://eventingnation.com/home/2010/01/darren-chiacchia-case-official-marion-co-sheriffs-police-report-part-1.html

Seems to me like now that he is under arrest, it will be up to the legal system to determine guilt.

Bogie
Jan. 22, 2010, 11:41 AM
Ah yes, he kept his medical condition to himself because he didn't trust his partner to keep it quiet.

Look how well it worked.:no:

Good point about the medical armbands.

Yes, it was apparently a consensual sexual relationship and it underscores the fact that everyone MUST look out for their own best interests and protect their own health.

goobs
Jan. 22, 2010, 11:45 AM
Who is posting on his facebook page then? His last post was that all the horses looked great for the upcoming sale. I heard he posted bail.

NeverTime
Jan. 22, 2010, 11:55 AM
I am wondering how many people are truthful on their medical armbands in lieu of Darren's alleged claim that revealing that he has HIV would damage his reputation? If he is saying that he does not find his partner trustworthy to tell him he has HIV - then this leads me to believe he may not reveal this important medical information on his armband. This leads me to speculate how many others there are who are not truthful on the armbands due to the perceived stigma of having an STD or being a hep carrier, etc. It is hard to say that ONLY trained medics will touch/handle an injured rider with protective gloves. Plus who really reads the armbands unless it's the medics anyway? All issues to ponder.

This is an interesting question. I don't know the laws, but I can't imagine a person could be required to list their HIV status on any document other than a confidential medical record. Armbands are NOT confidential -- not only would a medic see them, but they get photocopied and kept by the secretary at any FEI competition you attend, they float around your tack trunk, etc.

This day in age, unless you grew up under a rock, everyone should know not to touch other people's bodily fluids without protective gear. You don't need to be a trained medic to have that common knowledge and common sense.

I wouldn't feel comfortable requiring people to list something like HIV status on a public document.

MHM
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:05 PM
This day in age, unless you grew up under a rock, everyone should know not to touch other people's bodily fluids without protective gear. You don't need to be a trained medic to have that common knowledge and common sense.

This is absolutely true, but how many people would think of that in the heat of the moment, if they happened to be the person closest to the jump after a bad fall? Or first on the scene of a car accident?

Very sad situation, for sure.

JER
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:06 PM
This day in age, unless you grew up under a rock, everyone should know not to touch other people's bodily fluids without protective gear. You don't need to be a trained medic to have that common knowledge and common sense.

And you would not believe the lapses in basic body substance isolation procedures that I've seen in the medical profession in the south (specifically, TN/GA/KY). RNs sticking patients w/o gloves, phlebotomists tearing the fingertips off their gloves when drawing blood.

I have also been told, when handling patients at a clinic, that gloves 'scare' patients and therefore I should not use them for ordinary screening procedures.

It works both ways -- if a medical person has been touching a large number of patients in a clinic, do you want their bare hands on you next?

(In CA, you did BSI always. Or else.)

NeverTime
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:07 PM
And in the heat of the moment, would you first look at the medical armband or would you start providing care?
Would you move a person with unknown injuries so you could open and read the armband? For a multitude of reasons, I don't think armbands are the solution here.

Janet
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:10 PM
I heard he posted bail. So did I.

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:12 PM
From an ethical standpoint, if you are an infected with a potentially fatal transmittable disease, shouldn't you at least attempt (via armband) to make that information available to someone who may be trying to assist you?

TBCollector
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:14 PM
It's a very sad situation, but how do you think this will affect the Eventing world? Or will it? (other than as fodder for gossip, speculation, and innuendo)


This sad situation has about as much to do with eventing as golf does with Tiger Woods' predicament (or politics/John Edwards/Mark Sanford/insert favorite philanderer). Like Woods/Edwards/Sanford, it does have to do with a person being treated by others as though he/she can do no wrong, resulting in a completely self-centered human being who never feels compelled to take responsibility for any of his/her misdeeds.

Jumphigh83
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:18 PM
This was on our local news last night. Does anyone else find it more than ironic that he said he didn't tell this man (he was HIV positive)because he was NOT TRUSTWORTHY??? WHAT? He was trustworthy enough with whom to get naked and share bodily fluids but not trustworthy enough to share his medical status ??? Really?? Who was the untrustworthy one here Mr Chiacchia? Playing roulette with someone else's life sounds like a pretty HUGE breech of trust to me.....He at least could have come up with a better ruse or at least said NOTHING.:eek:

Jazzy Lady
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:27 PM
And perhaps the old Darren would have said nothing, or spoken up in the first place... but we all know his judgement has been compromised due to his accident. We also know that he doesn't really screen his statements before they come out of his mouth anymore...

It's all just very sad for all parties involved.

goobs
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:27 PM
All good thought provoking questions on the armband - hopefully it will stop and make people think.

Magic Johnson revealed he was HIV positive to the world - a public high-profile sports figure. He owed it to his family, teammates, fans and those he played against to reveal his status. The people he was in the game with need to know so that they are "aware". It didn't ruin his reputation - he did an honorable and responsible and brave deed when revealed that he was HIV positive. Shoudl other high-profile sports figures follow his lead? Will this help to fight the stigma attached to having HIV so that more can come forth without fear of repercussion? I would rather know if someone had it - I would say "ok thanks for telling me" and move on. Most people are, unfortunatley, not that accepting. Cheating on your wife (a la Tiger Woods) is damaging to a reputation - not being HIV positive!

NeverTime
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:32 PM
From an ethical standpoint, if you are an infected with a potentially fatal transmittable disease, shouldn't you at least attempt (via armband) to make that information available to someone who may be trying to assist you?


In no other public situation do we require people with HIV, hepatitis, etc. to wear a sign, a tag, etc. announcing their status. Until, as a larger society, we decide that is necessary, I guess my answer is no.

goobs
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:32 PM
There are many things his lawyers can say/do to get those statements knocked out - mental incapacity for one due to his sports injury. THey may be able to knock out his statements with that argument. Let's wait until the verdict is read. Until then I believe Darren will remain an active (maybe not so prolific?) figure in our sport.

Moesha
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:35 PM
It is sad how much prejudice and stigma is out there in relation to HIV, there are many people who remain silient out of fear, but not in a situation like this, I'm sure there is more to the story, there always is, not that the point of not disclosing this will ever be justified. Trust is so important in any relationship no matter how casual, but a warning that if you don't know someone well enough that medication like this is overlooked it means you should be safe with them every time. Sadly there is no safety for the heart and trust we put in people, that is always risk we take and hopefully the worst people get is a broken heart not a death sentence.

AppJumpr08
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:39 PM
And you would not believe the lapses in basic body substance isolation procedures that I've seen in the medical profession in the south (specifically, TN/GA/KY). RNs sticking patients w/o gloves, phlebotomists tearing the fingertips off their gloves when drawing blood.

I can vouch for that ! Granted, it was only one car accident that I arrived at before the first responders, but let me tell you, the way the scene was handled was enough to scare me into vowing NEVER to need an EMT in the Wagner/Springfield/Aiken SC area!

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:42 PM
From an ethical standpoint, if you are an infected with a potentially fatal transmittable disease, shouldn't you at least attempt (via armband) to make that information available to someone who may be trying to assist you?



I would agree with you on this.


I have been around through the early 80's onward and have been to too many funerals in my life time...first because nobody knew anout HIV/AIDS then. The sad part is that although once we all knew and informed of this disease, STILL there were those who continued to make poor choices...both those who were positive and those who were not and ended up positive.
During those early years with no real medical break throughs in treatment, most died.
I believe those poor choices resulted from the stigma attached with the disease back then and even now with some effective treatment options, that stigma is still there in some places and with some people.
Whilst it is common places in large cities around the world to willingly disclose your status and is often done before sexual activity, many places it is not.
I know/knew many who are/were infected with HIV who are in denial even though they are being treated with medication. Some are embarrassed, frightened, angry, sad and as such only tell a very few of their status. I can only hope that those chose to practice safer sex practices.

Darren, who is an olympian, a high profile person in the industry, etc...may for what ever reason share some of those same emotions. HIV effects you not just physically but also mentally. Each handles the diagnosis differently. Some are open and honest about their status with family, friends, and sexual partners...some, for their own reasons, are not.

The law may dictate otherwise, but some people cannot bring themselves to admit it to themselves let alone others. I can only hope in these instances that they do what is morally right and protects not only their partners but also themselves from other diseases that may be prove fatal or chronic as well further infection from different strains of the virus that may be drug resistant.

Some people live with the stigma placed on them by others or the stigma placed on them by themselves.

HIV is a virus...it does not know if you are gay or straight, black, white, brown, yellow, purple. Nobody deserves this virus. I personally do not entertain any stigma with it. I do think that morally one has an obligation to share this information to those who may come into contact with bodily fluids...because it is the RIGHT thing to do not because the law tells me to.

Nomoreusernames
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:43 PM
So I guess it's not "the woman scorned" situation his family friend posted .Big part of the problem in these cases, excusing, denying and thus enabling, which, of course, increase the likelihood of repeated similar behaviors.
Pretty much ironic, yet terribly typical . Even before his accident there was only one important person int he world to him. Just plain pitiful.

S A McKee
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:54 PM
In no other public situation do we require people with HIV, hepatitis, etc. to wear a sign, a tag, etc. announcing their status. Until, as a larger society, we decide that is necessary, I guess my answer is no.

USEF does require the athelete to compelete these documents when representing the US in International competition:

http://www.usef.org/documents/highPerformance/eventing/WEG/AthleteAgreement.pdf
http://www.usef.org/documents/highPerformance/eventing/WEG/MedicalHistory.pdf

There are several sports that I'm aware of that require similar information. And it's not just HIV related, it's so medical information that may help with treatment in case of an accident is available. Many medications interact and a hospital could cause harm without knowing possible drug interactions.

I wear a medical alert bracelet. Doesn't bother me, don't feel like i'm being made to wear a sign. Without the information on the bracelet I could be given medication that could kill me.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:54 PM
From an ethical standpoint, if you are an infected with a potentially fatal transmittable disease, shouldn't you at least attempt (via armband) to make that information available to someone who may be trying to assist you?

Morality is a lot like wine. What is good to some is bad to others. Many men such as Darren, by that I mean to say the ones who are similar in their social behavior, personalities, and conduct, don't want to talk about HIV/AIDS/STDs period and feel that they shouldn't have to tell anyone. Perhaps it's an extreme manifestation of their ego but there's always been talk of a serious apathy that men like that have towards STDs and that seems to be what Darren displayed in his conduct. As far as disclosing it goes, the legalities of AIDS/HIV disclosure are such that no sports organization would or could adopt a mandatory disclosure policy and certainly couldn't compel anyone to undergo testing due to the discrimination/lawsuit potential. I'd like to believe that people would disclose it voluntarily for safety purposes just as much as I'd like to believe that people wouldn't make a pariah out of someone who did but I think we're a long way from either one of those happening since they seem to be mutually exclusive if history is a relevant gauge of the possibilities.

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:57 PM
Morality is a lot like wine. What is good to some is bad to others. Many men such as Darren, by that I mean to say the ones who are similar in their social behavior, personalities, and conduct, don't want to talk about HIV/AIDS/STDs period and feel that they shouldn't have to tell anyone. Perhaps it's an extreme manifestation of their ego but there's always been talk of a serious apathy that men like that have towards STDs and that seems to be what Darren displayed in his conduct. As far as disclosing it goes, the legalities of AIDS/HIV disclosure are such that no sports organization would or could adopt a mandatory disclosure policy and certainly couldn't compel anyone to undergo testing due to the discrimination/lawsuit potential. I'd like to believe that people would disclose it voluntarily for safety purposes just as much as I'd like to believe that people wouldn't make a pariah out of someone who did but I think we're a long way from either one of those happening since they seem to be mutually exclusive if history is a relevant gauge of the possibilities.


agree

subk
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:58 PM
I would rather know if someone had it - I would say "ok thanks for telling me" and move on. Most people are, unfortunatley, not that accepting. Cheating on your wife (a la Tiger Woods) is damaging to a reputation - not being HIV positive!
I'm of an age with Darren and live a pretty boring 1husband-2kids-1dog-1cat-picketfence kind of life, (in the south no less!) but even from my bubble I'm a bit surprise that people think someone with HIV needs to worry about it damaging their "reputation."

AppJumpr08
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:03 PM
I'm of an age with Darren and live a pretty boring 1husband-2kids-1dog-1cat-picketfence kind of life, (in the south no less!) but even from my bubble I'm a bit surprise that people think someone with HIV needs to worry about it damaging their "reputation."

It matters if you are concerned about making sure that the dating market is as open as possible to you when you go a lookin'....

DMK
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:07 PM
USEF does require the athelete to compelete these documents when representing the US in International competition:

http://www.usef.org/documents/highPerformance/eventing/WEG/AthleteAgreement.pdf
http://www.usef.org/documents/highPerformance/eventing/WEG/MedicalHistory.pdf

There are several sports that I'm aware of that require similar information. And it's not just HIV related, it's so medical information that may help with treatment in case of an accident is available. Many medications interact and a hospital could cause harm without knowing possible drug interactions.

That form does a remarkable job asking every last detail about a multitude of conditions (up to and including herpes) but is notable in how it dances around that other STD. You could in good faith fill out that form and NOT disclose such a condition. That's not surprising, there are still a lot of laws on the books that prohibit asking that specific question (one learns these things if one used to work with insurance questionnaires from a compliance perspective), and the passage of HIPAA further complicated the business of asking for medical information without ensuring you have the right privacy protections in place, and it's not just HIV that HIPAA applies to, HIPAA is a far broader reach designed to protect ALL your medical data from being seen by anyone you do not specifically authorize, be that spouse, employer, or random person attempting to help you in an emergency.

As an aside, I'd LOVE to read that WEG form filled out by some of our more ... established ... athletes. I'm thiking the 1 line for head injuries, broken bones and surgeries *might* be challenging even with an 8 point font.

subk
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:09 PM
It matters if you are concerned about making sure that the dating market is as open as possible to you when you go a lookin'....
Ahhhh...thank you. I figured I was missing something because of my dull life.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:10 PM
It matters if you are concerned about making sure that the dating market is as open as possible to you when you go a lookin'....

That's one of many reasons why I only take the "friends first" approach these days. You'd be amazed at the things you can pick up on about someone without being intimate with them. It's saved my butt a lot in the last two years.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:10 PM
Ahhhh...thank you. I figured I was missing something because of my dull life.

Life in Tennessee is supposed to be dull. We like it that way.

snoopy
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:18 PM
That form does a remarkable job asking every last detail about a multitude of conditions (up to and including herpes) but is notable in how it dances around that other STD. You could in good faith fill out that form and NOT disclose such a condition. That's not surprising, there are still a lot of laws on the books that prohibit asking that specific question (one learns these things if one used to work with insurance questionnaires from a compliance perspective), and the passage of HIPAA further complicated the business of asking for medical information without ensuring you have the right privacy protections in place, and it's not just HIV that HIPAA applies to, HIPAA is a far broader reach designed to protect ALL your medical data from being seen by anyone you do not specifically authorize, be that spouse, employer, or random person attempting to help you in an emergency.

As an aside, I'd LOVE to read that WEG form filled out by some of our more ... established ... athletes. I'm thiking the 1 line for head injuries, broken bones and surgeries *might* be challenging even with an 8 point font.



The number two question asks if you have an ongoing or chronic illness and to list the medication. HIV medications are not on the banned meds list for OG's. HIV is a chronic illness regardless if you are symptom free.

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:23 PM
Disclosure of the disease might also affect certain sponsorship contracts, as one may no longer be deemed suitable as an advertising spokesperson.

TuxWink
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:32 PM
Disclosure of the disease might also affect certain sponsorship contracts, as one may no longer be deemed suitable as an advertising spokesperson.
Why would that be? I can think of a lot of reasons Darren Chiacchia might not be the best spokesperson or role model as of late, but being HIV positive doesn't really affect his "suitability" in my eyes at all.

I hope the "silver lining" out of all this is a greater understanding for everyone about HIV, STDs and personal responsibility.

I also hope that Darren Chiacchia's "personality" will not negatively influence public opinion of those with HIV. His behavior and actions aren't representative of most HIV positive individuals, just as he isn't representative of most eventers. HIV isn't a "scarlet letter" that people need to wear around.

subk
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:36 PM
Disclosure of the disease might also affect certain sponsorship contracts, as one may no longer be deemed suitable as an advertising spokesperson.
The trolling problem I now get (thankyouverymuch), but that's the part I don't get. We know he's gay. His sponsors know he's gay. That the gay community has significantly higher risks of HIV is not exactly news. All that is accepted. Once you're "out" I don't understand the HIV problem. It's like saying it's OK to be black, but we'll drop your butt if you get sickle cell anemia. (OK, maybe not exactly like that, but you get my point I hope.)

AppJumpr08
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:37 PM
Disclosure of the disease might also affect certain sponsorship contracts, as one may no longer be deemed suitable as an advertising spokesperson.

I would think that would open a whole new can of worms if sponsors tried to dump him based on a disease. There are plenty of folks who have HIV/AIDs/Herpes/etc, and that doesn't make them any less good at what they do.
However, the fact that he is now wrapped up in law proceedings ... that may be seen differently.

JLK
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:39 PM
Re: armband - I posted a question about what is on the medical armband on another thread, as I'm not an eventer and never looked at the armband.

But the thing about putting HIV status on an armband, in hopes that emergency responders will then suddenly follow the precautions they should have been trained to follow, is (IMNSHO) misleading. It implies that injured people should be divided into "touch" and "don't touch" groups. Even if everyone knew his or her HIV status, that doesn't mean everyone knows his/her complete disease status. Health care professionals are at much higher risk of getting hepatitis B than HIV (prick yourself with a needle just used by someone with HIV, and your chances of becoming infected are, if I remember right, about 0.3%. Hepatitis B - your risk is more like 30%). And there are plenty of other bloodborne diseases out there, including whatever new diseases the creative viruses are mutating into. So it bugs me to see one disease, as serious as it is, targeted as the one emergency responders should know about, as it implies that no other bloodborne disease is of concern. And that's just false.

So standard precautions all 'round, and if your EMTs don't follow them, they need to change, not the armband. They're risking their health, and are in violation of the law (they are - OSHA requires it).

Phaxxton
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:46 PM
The trolling problem I now get (thankyouverymuch), but that's the part I don't get. We know he's gay. His sponsors know he's gay. That the gay community has significantly higher risks of HIV is not exactly news. All that is accepted. Once you're "out" I don't understand the HIV problem. It's like saying it's OK to be black, but we'll drop your butt if you get sickle cell anemia. (OK, maybe not exactly like that, but you get my point I hope.)

I think the (very unfortunate) problem is that much of society still sees HIV/AIDS as a "lifestyle" disease. In other words, some people think, "if you are HIV+, then you must have gotten it by being promiscuous or by doing illegal drugs."

And I also think that this stigma is what makes many HIV+ individuals hesitant about coming out. They fear the assumptions some people make make about their lifestyle and their character.

Don't get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY do not think this is fair or right. I am just trying to explain what may be the perceived problem. As "advanced" a society as we claim to be, we're unfortunately not all well-informed about a lot of issues. :no:

Phaxxton
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:46 PM
Re: armband - I posted a question about what is on the medical armband on another thread, as I'm not an eventer and never looked at the armband.

But the thing about putting HIV status on an armband, in hopes that emergency responders will then suddenly follow the precautions they should have been trained to follow, is (IMNSHO) misleading. It implies that injured people should be divided into "touch" and "don't touch" groups. Even if everyone knew his or her HIV status, that doesn't mean everyone knows his/her complete disease status. Health care professionals are at much higher risk of getting hepatitis B than HIV (prick yourself with a needle just used by someone with HIV, and your chances of becoming infected are, if I remember right, about 0.3%. Hepatitis B - your risk is more like 30%). And there are plenty of other bloodborne diseases out there, including whatever new diseases the creative viruses are mutating into. So it bugs me to see one disease, as serious as it is, targeted as the one emergency responders should know about, as it implies that no other bloodborne disease is of concern. And that's just false.

So standard precautions all 'round, and if your EMTs don't follow them, they need to change, not the armband. They're risking their health, and are in violation of the law (they are - OSHA requires it).


THIS. :yes:

cloudyandcallie
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:48 PM
Wow. Blame the victim?

Woman goes into a bar alone, dressed provocatively. Has too much to drink. Accepts ride home from someone she doesn't know well. Is assaulted and raped. Well, I guess she should have known better.

The law disagrees. The assailant committed a crime and should be held accountable for his actions, despite the fact that the victim's actions made it easier to commit said crime.

In other words, it's still burglary even if I leave my door unlocked.

It's still a felony even if DC's partner did not verify DC's HIV status and use protection.

I agree with this poster. All my rape victims got tried by defense lawyers in court.:mad: My judge even wrote an article for Reader's Digest about it.
The police have the email and the taped phone conversations.
The victim is only "guilty" of trusting someone (and not wearing a raincoat).

What has always bugged me about the confidentiality of HIV status, is that it flies in the face of the disclosure of other diseases. It should be the same with HIV status as with TB and other diseases.

And a lot of our HIV and AIDS people in ATlanta , including my friend and co-worker, also had hepatitis, I forget which kind.

eventer80
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:56 PM
I must be very ignorant about HIV, so I am truly looking for information:

Isn't HIV mainly a lifestyle disease (these days)?

With all of the the blood tests, medical practices, rubber gloves, etc.... Isn't the most common way of contracting the disease from unprotected sex or contaminated intravenous needle usage?

Mara
Jan. 22, 2010, 01:59 PM
I would think that would open a whole new can of worms if sponsors tried to dump him based on a disease. There are plenty of folks who have HIV/AIDs/Herpes/etc, and that doesn't make them any less good at what they do.
However, the fact that he is now wrapped up in law proceedings ... that may be seen differently.

Exactly. Now that there is an arrest record, I think there are going to be a few sponsors saying, "Darren? Darren who?"

Phaxxton
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:03 PM
I must be very ignorant about HIV, so I am truly looking for an information:

Isn't HIV mainly a lifestyle disease (these days)?

With all of the the blood tests, medical practices, rubber gloves, etc.... Isn't the most common way of contracting the disease from unprotected sex or contaminated intravenous needle usage?

Most common, yes.

However, it doesn't mean one is promiscuous. It isn't proof positive that someone used IV drugs. It isn't even proof that protection wasn't used. (The only foolproof protection is abstinence. Condoms break sometimes - fact of life.)

My point is that the stigma is anyone who is HIV positive is a druggie or promiscuous -- and that simply isn't true for everyone. And I think plenty of HIV+ people want to avoid being labeled as such and therefore keep such an illness quiet. They don't want assumptions made about them and they don't want to be subject to even more judgment.

People with other STDs don't go around telling the world about them and being spokespeople for them -- because of the stigma attached to them. Until you can lift the stigma off HIV/AIDS (which may not be possible in today's society), you will always have this problem.

PS - NONE of this should be construed as me thinking it's fine to keep status from a sexual partner. This is NOT okay.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:04 PM
I'm curious to see who his lawyer is. I guess we'll have to wait for the CourtTV biopic telemovie.

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:06 PM
Why would that be? I can think of a lot of reasons Darren Chiacchia might not be the best spokesperson or role model as of late, but being HIV positive doesn't really affect his "suitability" in my eyes at all.

I hope the "silver lining" out of all this is a greater understanding for everyone about HIV, STDs and personal responsibility.

I also hope that Darren Chiacchia's "personality" will not negatively influence public opinion of those with HIV. His behavior and actions aren't representative of most HIV positive individuals, just as he isn't representative of most eventers. HIV isn't a "scarlet letter" that people need to wear around.

I can honestly state that DC's sexual orientation never entered my mind one way or the other until this arrest became public. I knew it about him, but I never thought about it, because I don't care.

Sponsorship, however, is about advertising and advertising is about selling a dream and a fantasy. DC - good-looking guy, lots of personality, rode a gorgeous black stallion in the Olympics. Great for advertising!

DC - arrested for a felony that indicates a callous disregard for the welfare of another human being, HIV positive. Dump him from my ad campaign.

Sponsorship is not about what is "right" or "fair", it's about whatever is perceived to be in the best interest of the sponsor.

sch1star
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:08 PM
I don't think for a minute that HIV is just another STD. There is no cure for HIV; it has been implicated in the deaths of more than half a million people in the US since the start of the epidemic, according to the CDC. As a chronic disease it irrevocably changes the lives of those infected. Many still consider HIV to be a death sentence.

Though that may not be as true as it once was, people continue to die every day in the US from HIV-related causes. Those under treatment with HAART - not all of whom respond - monitor their HIV VL obsessively, knowing the virus' tendency to mutate and rebound under drug pressure - and since we have a finite number of drug classes to treat with, it does happen that people become multidrug resistant. The HIV specialist community struggles even today with how to help these patients, who have made their way through all the drugs we currently have available to keep the virus in check. Patients live in fear.

I cannot think of any comparable STD. It doesn't matter to me that the laws lump them in together, because I'm not here to respond to the laws...but to share my feelings about my sport being represented at the highest levels by someone who may have knowingly put another human being at risk for contracting this horrible virus. It is an action I personally consider so morally abhorrent that, confronted yesterday with even the idea that it had taken place, I found myself unaccountably close to tears more than once during the day.

For now it is all what-if. However, if he is found guilty of this crime, I will find his continued presence as a sponsored ULR and US representative in the sport of eventing offensive beyond what I can describe.

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:09 PM
Hope for the best and plan for the worst I always say.

TuxWink
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:10 PM
I can honestly state that DC's sexual orientation never entered my mind one way or the other until this arrest became public. I knew it about him, but I never thought about it, because I don't care.

Sponsorship, however, is about advertising and advertising is about selling a dream and a fantasy. DC - good-looking guy, lots of personality, rode a gorgeous black stallion in the Olympics. Great for advertising!

DC - arrested for a felony that indicates a callous disregard for the welfare of another human being, HIV positive. Dump him from my ad campaign.

Sponsorship is not about what is "right" or "fair", it's about whatever is perceived to be in the best interest of the sponsor.
I totally agree with this. I just thought your other post was more about his HIV status being the "dealbreaker" for advertisers. There's about 10 other BIG reasons not to have DC as the face of your product or company that have nothing to do with his HIV status.

Moesha
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:17 PM
I don't think calling it a lifestyle disease is fair at all, there are many people living with HIV/AIDS who have been so for years and years and many people especially the younger population are naieve in shocking ways and a lot has to do with stigma and prejudice in our society. The comments about Hepatitis and other STDS going hand in hand with HIV are very poignant, when I worked for a well known clinic as a volunteer syphillis numbers were flags for HIV jumps in a given community.

People are still very uneducated and bring seemingly unbeleivable prejudice to the issue, one of our big projects was community outreach and the insane comments made at tables, events, functions where unreal. One woman who looked like someones grandmother slammed her fist on the table ( which was full of information and other items relating to safe sex paractices and told me I was promoting sin? ) A sin for promoting safe sex practices? But then you can't help people who don't take things seriously at clubs the number or drunk and high guys who thought the table was a dating service was crazy, I was like are you seriously hitting on me at HIV/AIDS awareness table??

I consider myself lucky to have come of age at the right time when safety and responsibility where paramount, sadly we are seeing things like conversion parties and deliberate unsafe sex practices in younger generations of all sexual persuasions growing...and with the new drug resistent strain of HIV causing big alarms in Southern Africa things are far from being contained or over.

What he did if he is proven guilty is horrible, how can anyone in their right mind be intimate with someone, claim to care about them and look them in the eye and yet do this to them?

cloudyandcallie
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:23 PM
I'm curious to see who his lawyer is. I guess we'll have to wait for the CourtTV biopic telemovie.

I used to work in the same office with Nancy Grace. While she is no longer with court tv, she will be covering it for CNN. (She used to send me Easter cards.)

ETA: I grew up in the era of "sex, drugs and rock and roll" when neither the sex nor the sun could kill you. Now for purposes of HIV/AIDs and other STDs, we are sleeping with everyone whom our partner ever slept with.

No one should be sentenced to death for having consensual sex with another. So I side with the victim in this case.

INoMrEd
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:27 PM
Why would that be? I can think of a lot of reasons Darren Chiacchia might not be the best spokesperson or role model as of late, but being HIV positive doesn't really affect his "suitability" in my eyes at all.

I hope the "silver lining" out of all this is a greater understanding for everyone about HIV, STDs and personal responsibility.

I also hope that Darren Chiacchia's "personality" will not negatively influence public opinion of those with HIV. His behavior and actions aren't representative of most HIV positive individuals, just as he isn't representative of most eventers. HIV isn't a "scarlet letter" that people need to wear around.

Ditto

Phaxxton
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:32 PM
I don't think calling it a lifestyle disease is fair at all, there are many people living with HIV/AIDS who have been so for years and years and many people especially the younger population are naieve in shocking ways and a lot has to do with stigma and prejudice in our society.

For the record, *I* was not characterizing it as a lifestyle disease. I was stating that I think many people perceive it as such and THAT is why it carries a huge stigma.

(Not saying you were misquoting me or anything. I just want to reiterate my point, with which I think you agree.)

eventer80
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:34 PM
Just to clarify: When I say lifestyle disease, I am not necessarily talking about sexual orientation, I am talking about the choice to have unprotected sex or to share needles.

So how, in post 1990's United States, do you get the disease if not from the aforementioned ways?

Once again, I am not trying to prove a point under the veil of a question. I am trying to gain knowledge.

Phaxxton
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:35 PM
Just to clarify: When I say lifestyle disease, I am not necessarily talking about sexual orientation, I am talking about the choice to have unprotected sex or to share needles.

So how, in post 1990's United States, do you get the disease if not from the aforementioned ways.

Once again, I am not trying to prove a point under the veil of a question. I am trying to gain knowledge.

Being born with the disease for one.

And by lifestyle I meant promiscuity and drug use -- not sexual orientation.

No one is debating that most people get it from unprotected sex and drug use. I am merely addressing the fact that SO many people think that people who HIV+ should come forward and stop "hiding." My point is just that they are probably keeping things private because they wish to avoid the stigma of how "most" people contract AIDS -- whether they did or did not contract it that way.

Do I think they need to "hide" and keep it private? No, I don't at all. I also don't judge them based on the disease. I do, however, completely understand why many do NOT want it out there and public.

And again, with the caveat that this doesn't include sexual partners. NO excuse for not disclosing a known STD to sexual partners.

rabicon
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:35 PM
In this day it seems to not be a big deal to sleep around. (I don't agree but just saying) esp. with teenagers. Its almost cool. Very sad. So to say Darren didn't trust this man but slept with him is really nothing now days. Heck he was with him a few months. The sad part is he didn't say anything, even when asked. I can't belive that someone could do that. And if you are going to do that then atleast make an excuse of WHY YOU want to use protection EVERY TIME. Its ridiculous and sicken that he would opt to not wear protection when he knew what he was carrying with him. Its pyschotic really and shows he has no care for a human life. Maybe he feels someone did it to him so he's mad, I don't know. Any moral person wouldn't do such a thing. Bringing it back to horses, I wonder if him not caring for another humans life could translate into how he feels about his horses. Not caring???

Also I highly doubt he would have gotten it any way thru blood transfusion etc... The blood is screened so well now days before it is stored. Even when I tried to give blood for my own nephew before heart sx a few years ago they wouldn't let me because I had had a tattoo 6 months before. They try to be very careful before even taking donated blood with questions and then the screening. He would not be given blood that had not been screened, not even from a family member in an emergency sit. More than likely he found out after his accident when something didn't come back right

DMK
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:43 PM
Being born with the disease for one.


Also, you as the individual could be in a long term committed relationship with another person and have no reason to believe you need to take precautions, but there's no guaranteeing that your partner/spouse is doing likewise...

Snoopy - I swear I read that form 3 times looking for that type of question, must have blown right past #2 every time! I do wonder if you can decline to fill all/portions out? HIPAA's a funny thing and having disclosures regarding who sees the information as well as protocols to protect it are SOP in the medical/insurance field. But then again, international sports are by invitation only so they probably have more latitude in this area than treating facilities.

poopoo
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:44 PM
. Bringing it back to horses, I wonder if him not caring for another humans life could translate into how he feels about his horses. Not caring???
[/QUOTE]

Either you have compassion or you don't. Did Jeffrey Dahmer have compassion for the animals he dissected or the people he later dissected and ate?

RAyers
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:47 PM
Either you have compassion or you don't. Did Jeffrey Dahmer have compassion for the animals he dissected or the people he later dissected and ate?


Only if you count a discerning palate as a form of compassion.

rabicon
Jan. 22, 2010, 02:48 PM
Thats what I would also think poopoo. Very sad

Bellfleur
Jan. 22, 2010, 03:03 PM
UMMMMMM I am not under the impression this is about someone having HIV.

It is about Darren lying to his partners when he was selfishly having unprotected sex with multiple partners after knowing he was HIV positive. AND then 'supposedly' telling his partner who cares you are no one. Who cares if you have HIV.

Also if I was sponsor I would not DUMP Darren for being HIV positive. I would dump him for selfishly endangering another human beings life.

The persons life he so carelessly endangered I am sure was under the impression that Darren cared about him since he was willing to have sex with him in the first place and he was supposedly in a relationship with him??

Anyhow just my two cents. Not that it is worth anything.

Moesha
Jan. 22, 2010, 03:04 PM
For the record, *I* was not characterizing it as a lifestyle disease. I was stating that I think many people perceive it as such and THAT is why it carries a huge stigma.

(Not saying you were misquoting me or anything. I just want to reiterate my point, with which I think you agree.)

We agree! Or I was agreeing with you : )

pokesaladannie
Jan. 22, 2010, 03:19 PM
LEX, when it comes to a lawyer it's gotta be ...Denny Crane, Denny Crane...!!

AppJumpr08
Jan. 22, 2010, 03:24 PM
LEX, when it comes to a lawyer it's gotta be ...Denny Crane, Denny Crane...!!

:D:D:D:D

LexInVA
Jan. 22, 2010, 03:24 PM
I'd laugh my ass off if it turns out he's got Mike Slocumb after you said that.

TKR
Jan. 22, 2010, 03:27 PM
It really doesn't matter *who* the culprit is -- it's still simply a matter of character, integrity, honesty and RESPONSIBILITY for one's actions. Being deceitful and dishonest or knowingly endangering another is inexcusable and no justification or defense. In addition, those who are "high profile" are at risk for the above as well as for very negative response from their fans or peers.
PennyG

Beam Me Up
Jan. 22, 2010, 03:34 PM
I think as "AIDS awareness" fades into the background, the "lifestyle disease" idea is coming back.

I'm 32. In the early 90s, when I was in middle school, AIDS awareness was at its height. I remember endless guest speakers and seminars, people talking to us about all sorts of safer sex practices that I could hardly grasp at 12. My middle school even had its own little musical singing/acting group that did performances about AIDS.

All this in a town of 2000 in Vermont. I knew nobody affected by the disease, but I knew all about the 6 months it could take between contraction and a positive HIV test, flavored condoms, you name it.

By the time I got to college, in the late 90s, my school health center was already saying that HIV was not an issue for the elite students there, let's get you on the pill dear.

About 5 years ago, just outside of DC, which has a relatively high infection rate for this county, my OBGYN (a doctor!!!) told me that HIV is not a concern for white, college educated, suburban women, as though somehow any of those things might prevent one from contracting it, or as though people never had partners of other backgrounds. I said as much and she wrote "high risk lifestyle" on my chart! New dr now, but the ignorance around is staggering.

I think the PC movement for HIV is dead.



Sometimes HIV, or even all STDs, just seem like an impossible battle.
Probably LOTS of people lie about it.
You read that 1/4 people have herpes, 2/3 have had hpv, etc.
And when you think back on your dating life, past or present, has ANYONE admitted to an STD, let alone that percentage? My sense is everyone is running around insisting that they are 100% clean.
Meaning that if you do have an STD and are honest, you are losing out to the dishonest ones, because nobody is used to hearing that.

It doesn't make lying ok. And it makes trusting extremely difficult, though in the end probably most of us do end up trusting a partner/spouse, for better or for worse.

Darren did a terrible thing in being dishonest, and I suspect it happens all the time because, in a game theory sense, the penalties for honesty are so high.

It's just sad all around.

TuxWink
Jan. 22, 2010, 03:54 PM
UMMMMMM I am not under the impression this is about someone having HIV.I would not DUMP Darren for being HIV positive. I would dump him for selfishly endangering another human beings life.

I think everyone agrees with you about what the awfulness of the alleged actions of DC.

I just think there is a little bit of hysteria because the disease in question is HIV. There have been some innuendos in certain posts like "well, I knew he was gay so I'd just assume he had HIV" or "this needs to be put on everyone's armband!" etc. I was just trying to address those posts.

2bayboys
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:07 PM
Personal story here:

I was the first to drive up on the scene of a single vehicle accident. I called 911 on my cell phone, and of course stopped to see if I could help at all. I'm not an EMT, and I certainly don't carry around gloves and mask. The driver had significant inuries, lots of blood everywhere, and was conscious. Almost the first thing out of his mouth: "I'm HIV positive, please be careful." I'm not a hysteric, and I didn't have any reason to think that I was much at risk. I stayed and talked to him until the ambulance arrived, and he told them about his status too.

Re armbands, no stigmatizing intended. Just personal responsibility.

annikak
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:14 PM
Universal Precautions are utilized by paramedics that respond to the scene. So, I'd not worry too much about them (coming from someone that works on patients at all ends on a daily basis who does not know if someone is HIV positive.) Everyone that is in health care, for many many reasons, needs to and does use universal precautions.

Overall, it's just sad. One almost has to wonder if he found out about his status when his accident occurred and if so, may have spurred some of the behavior that we have attributed to his head injury. Finding out your status must be a horrible thing, and I am sorry for Darren that he has to live that reality.

But shame on him for putting someone he says he loved in danger. It can happen in every sort of relationship...gay, straight, married (Edwards anyone?). Deception is a difficult human characteristic. I hope the victim ends up okay.


Re armbands, no stigmatizing intended. Just personal responsibility.- quoting above post- perfect. Good for that person that took responsibility...

subk
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:16 PM
I just think there is a little bit of hysteria because the disease in question is HIV. There have been some innuendos in certain posts like "well, I knew he was gay so I'd just assume he had HIV" or "this needs to be put on everyone's armband!" etc. I was just trying to address those posts.
Nowhere has anybody either said or implied that just because someone is gay it is assumed they are have HIV. The implication that someone having HIV is assumed to be gay (which is the opposite of what you claim to have read) might be fueled by the CDC when it discusses that over half the new cases of HIV/AIDs are contracted by gay men.

Reports of hysteria are more hysterical than the facts.

incahoots
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:16 PM
Trauma nurse....many years. You do not get HIV from blood transfusions. You get it in this day and age from unprotected sex and sharing needles. Very often it is accompanied by Hepatitis C. Both of these diseases are often fatal....eventually. If DC is "frontal" (a term we use when someone is brain injured and has judgement issues) he should not be launching horses over picnic tables and toyota trucks. His sponsors should pull him and so should the owners of those horses he is riding with his "altered judgement".

JER
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:24 PM
Just to clarify: When I say lifestyle disease, I am not necessarily talking about sexual orientation, I am talking about the choice to have unprotected sex or to share needles.

So how, in post 1990's United States, do you get the disease if not from the aforementioned ways?

Well, HIV can also be transmitted through breast milk.

And rape is not what I'd call a lifestyle choice.

Also, there are some really confounding 'unknown cause' cases out there. I'm saying this as a point of interest, not trying to induce hysteria.

I keep gloves in my glove compartment (:D) in case I see an accident but then I'm an EMT and have experience/training in these things. They also come in handy if you need to do something to your car that will get your hands dirty.

Glimmerglass
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:35 PM
Trauma nurse....many years. You do not get HIV from blood transfusions.

You are kidding me, right? Even the CDC would disagree with that statement (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/)


HIV also can be transmitted through blood infected with HIV. However, since 1985, all donated blood in the United States has been tested for HIV. Therefore, the risk for HIV infection through the transfusion of blood or blood products is extremely low. The U.S. blood supply is considered among the safest in the world.

So - no to say you cannot get HIV through blood transfusions is outright incorrect.

Red Cross Blood Restrictions (http://www2.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html) - one example


You may not donate if you received a blood transfusion in certain countries in Africa since 1977. This requirement is related to concerns about rare strains of HIV that are not consistently detected by all current test methods.

Persons who were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger and Nigeria since 1977 cannot be blood donors.

My sister, who received an emergency blood transfusion in Senegal after 1995, cannot donate blood as well.

cloudyandcallie
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:40 PM
You can get it from blood transfusions. If you think not, call the CDC before 5pm today and find out.

And you can get HIV from organ transplants.

There are documented cases of both forms of transmission.

And in Africa many women have AIDs. And as one poster noted, it can be passed to a baby from its mother.

We had heterosexual female prostitutes in Atlanta who were HIV positive. And if I remember correctly, there was a prostitute, female, in Connecticut who was arrested for continuing to have sex for pay while HIV positive.

Those of us who have dealt with many people who had HIV/AIDS have seen the ravages of the disease, the sores, the dementia, the death. Having unprotected sex with an uninformed partner is criminal if one is HIV positive.

Joanne
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:53 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

Interestingly (at least for me) is back in the early 1980s, I worked on a paper with a pulmonologist who was one of the first to report HIV.

incahoots
Jan. 22, 2010, 04:57 PM
It is extremely rare to get it from blood transfusions. As a previous poster said....1:2,000,000. It can be transmitted through breast milk but you can also treat the mother who is positive when she is pregnant and keep it from transmitting. It does cause hysteria when you go on a bulletin board and spout off about all these different ways of transmission when the great majority of cases are needle and unprotected sex. The point is not how he got the disease. The point is that he has a known fatal illness. He lied to his sexual partner about it. He potentially gave this person a fatal disease....knowingly. If he or anyone else is blaming his head injury for his poor judgement then he best not be galloping around a cross country course on somebody elses horses.

Moderator 1
Jan. 22, 2010, 05:04 PM
Again, as this majority of this discussion is not horse-related, we're closing the thread.

If/when the repercussions from this arrest affect this rider's involvement in the industry, we can perhaps resume discussion based upon those developments.

Thanks,
Mod 1