Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Per Melissa's article, RO is to be used for the rider only.  In Susan's example, the rider had a heightened concern for the lameness of the horse, thus the RO-L pull code.  The horse was never lame in the example, but due to the increased potential for lameness due to the lost shoe in the example, the rider had elected to pull the horse.  I would agree that RO-L is the correct choice.  RO is RIDER ONLY (sick, injured, hurt, tired, etc).  If your pulling your horse due to concerns FOR THE HORSE, then it's a RO-L or RO-M pull code.

 

Here's another example:  My horse choked at a water stop on the trail at this year's Virginia City 100.  Thankfully we were able to get it resolved and cleared with a lot of water and a syringe, but it was a scary situation and put a lot of additional stress on my horse (and me!) that day.  When we finally made it to the official vet check, my horse was passed as fit to continue, but I was concerned for him, even though all his parameters were fine, so its a RO-M pull code on his record.  It would be the same in my mind if I pulled because my horse wasn't eating well during the break, or just didn't seem like himself out on the trail.  Those are both RO-M as well.

 

Unfortunately it seems that L and M pull codes have somewhat of a stigma attached with them so people are reluctant to use RO-L and RO-M as well, prefering a simple RO.  But for reporting purposes and "making the sport better" as Lisa mentions below, then really RO-L and RO-M are MORE accurate, not less.  In your example of 75% pulls for RO-L, yes, that is correct because 75% of the riders pulled their horse due to lameness concerns, even if they weren't truely lame.

 

~ Crysta

 

On 1/15/08, oddfarm <jsalas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.  

-- 
~ Crysta

"Those of us who finish near the back, make the rest of you look good."