Re: [RC] Overridden and Fit to Continue - Howard Bramhall
Beating Heidi to the punch here on Ridecamp is a rare occurrence;
congratulations, Lynne, I think you did it. Must be that officer type
initiative. I salute you. lol. jk.
I think we're talking apples and oranges here. Your examples are
situations where the rider is most likely going to take their horse out of the
game anyway. They have stopped, in their minds, competing and need
validation from the vet for this decision. Or, the vet sees something
amiss with gut sounds, for example, and starts asking questions about whether or
not the horse is eating/drinking.
I'm really talking about the opposite type of rider here. The rider
who will exaggerate, make excuses, with the intention of completing this ride
and quite possibly top tenning. This type of rider will do his/her best to
influence the vet and have them allow the horse to continue on. This is
the interaction I would like to see eliminated. The problem is, how do you
do that without eliminating the interaction between the vet and the concerned
rider? There in lies the dilemma.
I guess my point is (do you have one?) that there are different types
of riders; some are more honest than others. Each rider has their own
personal goals they would like to see accomplished at a ride. I'm
inferring that we need to try and eliminate the vet/rider interaction to protect
the horse from those overzealous riders. If you're the type of rider who
will eliminate the horse on your own (RO) than, by all means, confer with the
vet.
The problem is, how do you tell the difference concerning what type of
rider a person is? I feel that the only way to stop the overzealous
rider from influencing the vet is to eliminate interaction between riders
and the vets if the rider's horse is "still in the game." If you're
in the position where the vet is going to hold your card, look at your
horse again, then the rules of not interacting no longer apply. You
are no longer a competitor and your best hope is for completion only.
Exit vet checks! If the
horse isn't ok at the end of the check, he is pulled. Period.
No baby-him-till-the-next-check.
I still think the rider needs to talk
to the vet, Howard. That the vet has the right to ask "has he been
EDPP", etc. If he is uncharacteristically not drinking when usually
he drinks like a fish, the exposure of that fact helps the RIDER make the
right decision on the part of the horse. Talking helps the rider
reason it out, with the vet's input
JMO, Lynne who has pulled
numerable times under RO conditions, which would be now better called RO-M
or RO-L
On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 07:55 AM, Howard Bramhall
wrote:
> OK, this is a viable argument and there have been times in
the past I > have thought this way, also. > > First, let
me say if a horse is in trouble, by all means, talk to the > vet. Tell
them everything you know. > > But, the competitive part of
endurance, the part where it's a > pass/fail test at the vet check
concerning lameness, heart rate and > anything else related to
completing the vet check should be as > objective as possible. For a
rider, who personally knows the vet or > vice-versa, this is where you
get caveats thrown into the game that > should not be there. For
example, a well known rider comes in with a > horse that appears to be
tired. The vet tells the rider that the > horse needs to go slow or
stop completely. The rider agrees and > promises to slow down the next
loop. The vet, because he/she knows > and trusts this person, allows
the horse to continue. > > The above situation should not happen.
Period. And, it does, more > often than one would like to see. To me,
the horse either passes the > vet check or he does not. No discussion
is really necessary. As many > endurance vets will tell you they've
heard every excuse under the sun > mentioned by riders who want to
continue on with their horse that is > borderline. After all, to finish
is to win. What does that imply if > you don't
finish????
