Re: RC: RO

[Susan Young Casey <glenn218@yahoo.com>]

--- CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com wrote:

> Metabolic.  It just happened to be an issue that
> resolved.  Again, even if the rider chooses to pull
> the horse, we want to know WHY the horse was pulled.

Here again, the vet didn't feel he had sufficient
cause to pull based upon his understanding of the
guidelines.

>  There are always "shades of gray" issues as far as
> whether the horse can go on or not.  But they
> usually are not gray as to what the issue is.

Very true and a good point.  I think this is the
underlying issue of this entire thread.  If a rider
pulls due to a horse-care issue, the problem is either
lameness or metabolic.  The problem isn't severe
enough for the ride vet to pull but the problem is
severe enough for the rider to discern a problem.

In your experience, and in the experience of all
others, what would be some good explainations of RO? 
We could say RO-L or RO-M.  I can see a real nightmare
for AERC on this one as far as keeping statistics
goes.  The bottom line is, the most of us are
"amature" vets and make a choice not to push the issue
with our horses when we feel something off.  We could
be wrong though.  How reliable would the statistics be
then?
 

=====
Susan Young Casey
Glenndale Grace Farm
Ft Gibson, Oklahoma U.S.A.

"Ride on! Rough-shod if need be, smooth-shod if that will do, but ride on! Ride on over all obstacles, 
and win the race!"         - Charles Dickens (1812-1870)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com