Re: Horses requiring vet care at Tevis

["superpat" <superpat@gateway.net>]

I hesitate to throw this thought out to ride camp without pondering it
further....but...here goes, guys. I would *guess* that a good percentage of
the horses who required IV fluid therapy would be horses without proven
endurance experience. Just a guess here worth exploring. If this proves to
be the case, would it not seem that perhaps it might be prudent to examine
whether there should be some pre-qualification requirements for those horses
allowed to enter the competition? Having not ridden this ride, (having not
even ridden a hundred miler), my impressions are based solely upon
discussions with those who have and some of the articles I have read. I have
the distinct impression that more than a few competitors aim for the Tevis
ride as their sole competition. Such is the power of reputation for being
*the* ride to distinguish horse and rider as *tough*. And if a horse and
rider are truly qualified to attempt this ride, how hard would it be for
them to demonstrate some experience and competence at this game? I cannot
imagine that it would be difficult to fill the rider list even with some
qualifying requirements. So there's my nickel's worth. Congratulations to
all who completed.
Pat Super
----- Original Message -----
From: <Onefarmgirl@aol.com>
To: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 3:41 PM
Subject: RC: Horses requiring vet care at Tevis


> Well, some interesting responses to my question about this.   I heard from
a
> half a dozen folks, all with essentially the same reply - somewhere in the
> vicinity of 25 horses required IV fluids and/or other relatively
aggressive
> veterinary care.   That's about 10% of horses entered.
>
> Disclaimer:  None of the folks who replied was a ride official, or one of
the
> treating vets, so the fact that all seemed to have approximately the same
> number to offer still doesn't necessarily mean that this is accurate.
(As
> we have seen on RC, sometimes "everyone" has the same WRONG information.)
>
> Oddly enough, three of the six folks who replied included a comment to the
> effect that we probably wouldn't be able to confirm the actual number of
> treated horses, and two offered a disclaimer asking not to be quoted as
the
> source of info.   Of course their request for privacy is completely fine,
but
> the fact that they felt confidentiality might be necessary for some reason
> adds to my sense of unease.    Surely these numbers are known to the vets,
> and aren't a nasty little secret?
>
> So.....  I'm inclined to open a discussion, based on a the apparently high
> number of horses requiring treatment.   Don't you folks think this is of
> special concern?   I understand it's a tough ride, but sheesh!     I can
just
> imagine how some of us would respond if we heard that 10% of rodeo horses
or
> track horses required IV therapy after an event.   I can just see one of
> those photos of a "line" of horses with jugs hanging published by PETA.
> Yikes!
>
> Could the high number of treated horses just be representative of better
or
> more available vet care?   Obviously, with a 49% completion rate, the vets
> were reasonably aggressive about pulling horses that didn't look good to
go.
>
> I'm sure willing to hear from anyone who wants to dispute these numbers.
If
> the numbers are accurate, I'd really be interested in any input especially
> from those who were there or from the vets about what we are seeing here.
>
> I don't want to leap too far without better confirmation of the facts, but
if
> these numbers are correct, I think we all need to give this some long
> thought.   We seem to be learning more every day about the physiology and
> exercise metabolism of these horses - could it be that we aren't
succeeding
> in making the sport safer for them?    Whadaya all think?
> pat farmer
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>