|
There has been a perception for a long time
that it is the rider's fault ("he over-rode his horse") if the horse has been
pulled for lameness, or PARTICULARLY for metabolic reasons. This is, of
course, not always true, but I've heard riders complain because they didn't want
the information made public (and thereby the criticism), so
they chose RO. I thought the stigma could be reduced by adding
some codes, namely RO-L and RO-M, meaning that the horse was lame or on his way
to being so, the horse was just not right and might be on his way to a metabolic
crash. Since it was the rider's option to pull, it showed that the rider
was astute enough to pull the horse before he really got into trouble. The
other code added was SF, surface factors...a cinch gall, a scraped knee due to a
fall, a small cut that was of concern to the rider, etc. Somehow, these
new codes do not seem to be accepted by some riders, at least that's the
impression I'm getting from these posts on ridecamp. I'm not exactly sure
why, because it seemed to me that this sort of code was indicating that the
rider was wise enough to pull his own horse, but the vets would be still be able
to glean some sort of information about what was happening to the
horse. Can anyone explain to me why RO-L and RO-M are not
satisfactory to some of the membership?
Barbara McCrary
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:44
AM
Subject: Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History
Books re: PULL CODES
I'm going to venture into psychology again, not
that I'm a psychologist, a psychology expert, nor do I play one on
TV.
This is based on what I've read on ridecamp, and
how I've seen people behave in the outside world.
I always had the impression, (based on what I've
read and skimmed here) that a ride code carried some sort of stigma, either
for the horse or the rider. The impression I got is that having a horse
pulled as RO means that the rider took it out either because the rider had a
problem (the casserole at the pre-ride potluck I hear about) or because of
concern for the horse. On the otherhand, having a horse go lame, or a
metabolic breakdown seems to carry a stigma. Lameness or metabolic
problems seems to imply that the rider wasn't careful and even hints
that the rider abused the horse. (NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THE RIDER ABUSED
THE HORSE IN REALITY). The unspoken message I've picked up is that if
the rider was more careful the horse wouldn't have gotten
hurt.
Charles
|
