Re: [RC] Overridden and Fit to Continue - patty bass
i feel i just have to put this in. i haven't
done 1000's of miles but i haven't met a vet yet that didn't have their
own opinion and stick with it. ie if they think the horse should be pulled
it gets pulled. end of discussion at the ride. don't get me wrong,
that is good. i therefore think taliking to the vets is where
the major part of my "education" on rides comes from. i would feel so
intimidated if the vet didn't say something to me and ask how the ride
was going.
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????
