 |
[RC] proposal--seriously - terreSue Garlinghouse has not only volunteered to crunch the numbers, she's jumping up and down by the computer applauding like crazy, Terre. BRAVO!!!! I would like to see something tangible come out of this very interesting discussion. I fully support all the calls for pre-ride blood testing and necropsies, but I think that in the 'real world' these things are difficult, if not impossible, to mandate. Not that we shouldn't make every effort; just that we are not in a position to make rules, etc, around some of these suggestions. But I think that this one IS doable--that a blood sample for hematocrit (and/or a protein marker for dehydration) be drawn on every TREATED horse, and the results sent *along with the rider card* to a committee (or Sue G) for evaluation. 1)Hct is not an expensive test, nor is it one that 'goes off' if not analysed immediately. The vet is going into the vein anyway, so the sample is easily obtained. I think the rider should be offered the option of a comprehensive workup, in which case the rider pays; if the rider doesn't want the analysis AERC should pay. 2)dealing with one test (hct or other marker) and one parameter (dehydration) is not horrendously labor intensive. Some kind of 'result' could be obtained in a fairly short time period; perhaps one season. 3)the important part is to compare the degree of clinical dehydration to the 'estimated' dehydration based on our current parameters as recorded on the card. If, as some of us suspect, our current protocols are not detecting dehydration in some horses we need to find new protocols. However, before we can even begin to do that, we need to demonstrate that this is indeed the case. I believe that a necropsy should absolutely be done on all deaths due to metabolic failure; I am not sure we could enforce such a policy. I think that pre-ride blood tests would be wonderful; but I can't see it ever being universally possible. I think that as far as blood analysis goes, we have plenty of data--I believe that Gayle Ecker has something in the nature of 5000 tests in her database; we know what is happening to the electrolytes, etc--what we don't know is how to prevent or predict problems in ALL cases. I absolutely agree with Heidi about CKs on horses with a recent tie-up in their history, but that seems to me to be truly a rider-education issue--vets both at rides and at home need to emphasize to their clients that tie-ups are not "over" when the symptoms go away and that before going to the expense of hauling, etc, riders should know that their enzyme levels have returned to normal. Some riders appear to be unable (or unwilling) to make the 'connection' between tie-ups (especially repeated tie-ups) and renal damage; this point needs to be made as forcibly as possible. Perhaps the logbook idea would be good here. But none of these things can be done TODAY--or even tomorrow. I think we CAN make a positive start at attempting to define "what goes wrong" at endurance rides if we begin with a definable, obtainable goal. We need: 1)a reporting system that will be complied with. There was a very poor return rate on the last Post Ride report requested by AERC. We need a form that is easily and quickly filled out at the ride, and a clear statement of whose responsibility it is to submit the form, and who to submit it to. We also need a copy of the riders card. I am afraid this is going to boil down to a question of integrity--do or do not the ridemanagers, vets, and riders support AERC's efforts to make the sport safer for horses? Or will they prefer to "not bother"? 2)an officially sanctioned committee to study the reports--Sue G and/or others. 3)some funds set aside to pay for tests where the owners choose not to participate. Unless we can encourage the vets to incorporate the blood test fee into their treatment bill! 4)a one- or two-year supply of NoDoze for SueG. terre
Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|