Susan G. said, "here's an example of when an RO-L would be appropriate.
Let's say
a horse throws a shoe out on a loop and the owner puts on an easy boot to get
into the vet check. The horse is not lame and trots out
sound. The horse is judged fit to continue, though probably with a
comment to keep an eye on the easy booted foot."
At what point did the horse go lame? Just because
the horse has an easy boot doesn't mean it is lame. Just because the horse lost
a shoe doesn't mean it is lame. If the horse trots out and the vet deems it
sound, it isn't lame. So, when did it go lame? It is the rider's option to
pull. No one ever deemed the horse lame or unfit to continue and
it should not be assumed that is will happen if they go back out. The rider
may feel that going on is inappropriate even though the vet cleared
them, but that still doesn't make the horse lame. No one ever said the horse was
lame, but the rider still opted not to go back out. How can that be a RO-L and
not just a RO??
The purpose, I thought, of assigning pull codes was
to collect information that could possibly educate and prevent treatment
and deaths of horses. If it is not going to be used correctly and accurately,
what is the point?
If a ride of 100 horses shows a completion rate of
25 percent with the other 75 percent being RO-L but really most of the
RO-L were horses that lost a shoe or wore a boot and it was assumed
they might go lame and therefore were pulled by the rider, that is not accurate
reporting. Is it? While the 25 percent completion is still the same, the numbers
of pulls for lameness are deceptive at best. They weren't really lame, but they
might have been?
Members should care what kind of pull codes are
used and how because it is not about racing to see who can pull first, rider or
vet nor is it about "what other people might think". It is about making the
sport better for the welfare of the horse. Inaccurate information never serves
that purpose.
