I would think that if the vet who examined your horse
passed it to go on, another vet should not have gotten into the act, but I may
be wrong. The second vet was not the one who made the decision to pass the
horse, he or she merely pointed out something to you. After this,
you wisely pulled the horse. This then would be an RO-L.
On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Barbara McCrary wrote:
RO is a code for the rider only. In the Mt. Laguna
scenario, the code should have been L, not RO or RO-L. The vet
discovered the irregularity at the VC.
But
at Mt. Laguna I did pass the vet check. The vet that I was presenting for said
the horse was sound and passed us (and by the lameness definition in the AERC
rules, she was
6.2.1.4 There will be no gait aberration that is
consistently observable under all circumstances that results in
pain or threatens immediate athletic performance.)
I
could hear her footfalls and they sounded perfectly normal and my crew saw no
problem
It was one of the other vets, who had seen the horse at other
rides, who called me over and showed me the problem that he probably picked up
as a subtle difference in her way of going.
So we didn't meet the
criteria for an L pull. I could have gone on and my card reflected that, but I
would have been stupid if I had.
Lynn
Kinsky, Santa Ynez,
CA http://www.silcom.com/~lkinsky/ http://www.dslextreme.com/~napha/JoyOfRiding/index.htm
