Vet Criteria

[guest@endurance.net]

K S SWIGART   katswig@earthlink.net

Lynn Kinsky said:

> I don't disagree with you -- and I'm not a vet, hence can't offer
specific
> suggestions, esp vis a vis a 100 mile ride.

I am not a vet either, but what I have heard from vets that I
know and respect (and at the pre-ride meeting of virtually every
endurance ride I have gone to and virtually every head vet)
is “Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the vets or any
veterinary criteria can keep you from over riding your horse.”


So the fact you and I cannot offer specific suggestions (not
being vets) and all the vets that I have ever talked to have
said that there ARE no specific criteria that will keep riders
from overriding their horses, leads me to the conclusion that
tightening specific veterinary criteria is not a viable solution
to the problem associated with the possibility of ambitious
riders overriding their horses on TV and turning endurance into
a PR horror show.

> The vets are there as the back-up to what is first and foremost the
rider
> responsibility.  But if the rider fails in their duty, then the vet is
> there to still protect the horse.

There is no way that I can agree with this; and it is, in fact,
this concept that I think is totally wrong headed.  The vets are
there to help the riders to “do their duty,” to provide
assistance not back-up.  If a rider fails in that duty, the vet
will NOT be able to protect the horse.  Vets cannot protect
horses from the negligence, ignorance or ambitions of their
riders.  If a rider fails in their duty to properly take care of
the horse, there is NOBODY “there to still protect the horse.”

As all the other endurance head vets have said (in varying ways
with varying degrees of effectiveness in communicating the
idea) : Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the vet will
protect your horse if you don’t.  If the rider doesn’t protect
the horse from being overridden, nobody else can.

And I will lay you odds, if you were to take away the power of
vets to disqualify horses that they think are not fit to
continue (with the exception of disqualifying lame horses at the
finish) but could only advise those horses’ riders (or owners)
to do so based on their findings at a veterinary inspection,
that there would be fewer “horses in trouble” at endurance rides.

It is the (wrong) idea that vets can protect the horses if the
riders don't that gives riders (especially novice riders) a
false sense of security thinking that they don't HAVE to err on
the side of caution because if they don't do it, the vet will.
Riders would be a lot more careful if they didn't think of the
vet as a "safety net" to "protect the horse" if they fail to do
so themselves.

kat
Orange County, Calif.