apm-studio.com

0 Comments | Racing Post (London, England), The, Oct 22, 2008

Byline: Graham Green

THE name of controversial owner Karen Sanderson will appear on the forfeit list as a disqualified person later this week, in connection to pounds 46,511 owed to Newmarket-based Brian McMath in unpaid training fees, writes Graham Green.

The latest development comes after Sanderson failed to respond by last Friday’s deadline to a written warning she received from the BHA a month ago.

Lawyers acting for Sanderson have lodged an application to overturn a judgement gained by McMath at Reading County Court last month, but although a hearing has been scheduled for November 26, the BHA has decided to take action rather than await the outcome of those proceedings.

Sanderson, a cosmetic dentist from Stockbridge, Hampshire, is a colourful figure who has had bust-ups with several trainers.

The dispute with McMath centres on one of her former horses, Invasian, who disappeared from the trainer’s stable in October 2006, after the chains on the yard gates and padlock to his box were smashed with bolt-cutters.

Sanderson subsequently admitted having Invasian removed, but claimed the training agreement she had signed was fraudulent.

Sanderson already faces legal action from Keeneland after failing to provide evidence she could pay for three yearlings bought on her behalf last month. The three, believed to have made around EUR300,000 less when resubmitted, included a daughter of Medaglia D’Oro knocked down to Paul D’Arcy for EUR1.1 million.

BHA spokesman Paul Struthers said: “We have not heard from Karen Sanderson, so she will therefore go on the forfeit list on Thursday, which will make her a disqualified person until the outstanding sum is settled.”

Repeated efforts by the Racing Post to contact Sanderson over recent weeks have proved unsuccessful, but while she now faces being banned from racecourses and licensed stables, it is debatable how effective disqualification will be in her case.

She has only a half-share with D’Arcy in Augmentation, and he was taken out of training after going under the stalls at Great Leighs this month.

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Dec, 2009 by David De Haan

HOPE FOR A HEATED PLANET: How Americans Are Fighting Global Warming and Building a Better Future by Robert K. Musil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009. 224 pages, notes, index. Hardcover; $24.95. ISBN: 9780813544113.

If, like me, you are concerned about global warming, frustrated with our history of government inaction on this issue, and bewildered as you watch the veritable parade of oversize vehicles continue to roll down our highways, you may be in need of a book entitled Hope for a Heated Planet: How Americans Are Fighting Global Warming and Building a Better Future.

One might ask: Are we fighting global warming? Well, at least some Americans are, and it restores hope to hear about them. The primary goal of this book, in fact, is to restore readers’ hopes that Americans, world leaders in per capita greenhouse gas emissions, can at last take the lead in drastically reducing them. The book is part political history, part strategy session, and part how-to guide for decreasing our emissions and increasing our political involvement. In a telling reflection of the current status of the climate change problem, this book spends at least fifty pages on rhetoric and politics for every one page on science. Truly, the scientific debate ended at least a decade ago.

The author, Robert Musil, directed the activist group Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) for fourteen years, and he takes a public health approach to the issue of preventing climate change. This strategy, and the book itself, encompass several steps. After quantifying the potential adverse effects on human health (and secondarily, on the ecosystems on which we depend), the roots of a problem must be assessed in terms of individual, social, cultural, and political factors. An action plan is then developed based on available resources and experience, and put into effect in order to change behaviors and fix the problem. The author gives this powerful approach (wielded by PSR and allied groups) much of the credit for drastically lowering both the percentage of Americans who smoke and the number of nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia. That is an impressive record. Can a public health approach stop global warming, too?

In an especially chilling chapter, Musil looks at the roots of our political impasse, outlining the Washington influence and actions of the “carbon lobby” (consisting of automakers, railroads, power, oil, and mining companies). He gives a first-person account of their work to confuse the public, water down legislation, and stymie international treaties, calling it “a textbook example of corporate greed and disinformation that for far too long outweighed the public good.” Musil then presents a spirited, insider’s defense of the efforts of a number of allied environmental groups aimed at blunting the anti-environmental onslaughts of the second Bush administration. He concludes that US environmental groups (the available resources) are not yet a match for the well-funded carbon lobby (the roots of the problem), and that the solution to this mismatch lies in better ways of “framing” the problem to convince more people, and politicians, to get on board.

Musil argues that global warming is most compelling when presented as a moral and medical issue, especially when practical solutions are offered. While readers of this journal should be familiar with the moral issue, they may not be aware that global warming is a medical issue: the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that climate change is already killing 150,000 people per year
accredited online degree