Re: RC: RE: The Way We Win

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated Tue, 31 Jul 2001  9:56:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net> writes:

> Both   you and your acquaintance Heidi suggest that a necropsy would be futile! 

Bob, please at least have the courtesy to be accurate in representing what other people have said.  I did not at any time suggest that necropsies of dead horses are futile.  Indeed, they are great learning tools, and I fully support the veterinary committee in urging that necropsies be done.  However, as Maryben stated, results from necropsy don't always provide nice, tidy, black-and-white answers.  They simply provide a few more of the puzzle pieces when one is trying to figure out what happened.  Equally important with necropsy results are a complete history, including the clinical presentation of the horse during the ride and during the time leading up to death or euthanasia.

Actually, it has been my experience that quite frequently necropsy removes the stigma of overriding by pointing up an entirely unknown factor leading to death far more often than it supports a diagnosis of exhausted horse syndrome.  I remember working frantically to medicate a horse post-ride that was put down a few days later at home, and turned out to have a tumor in the intestinal mesentery that had ruptured, causing peritonitis.  Clinically, the horse looked very much like an overridden horse, but the history didn't fit that diagnosis, nor did the necropsy.  I remember hearing about a case that occurred at ROC in which the horse actually had micro-abcesses throughout the liver--another "overriding" death that was not due to overriding or endurance whatsoever.  No, Bob, I fully support necropsies.  What I do not support is non-medical people trying to make black-and-white rules and prosecute people based on necropsy results.

Heidi