>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.
If the horse passed the vet check, then it was sound enough to
continue, and therefore not “Lame”. The “RO-L”
appellation more specifically defines the non-completion as a circumstance
where the horse passed vet exam, but the rider felt there was some issue
related very broadly to a lameness-type issue that warranted stopping their
ride; as opposed to a metabolic issue, a surface factor issue, etc.
>
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??
Because “RO” specifically refers to a problem with
the rider, and rider only. Example, I fell and broke my arm during a ride
a few months ago. The horse was fine, nor was her health in question in
any respect, but I wasn’t so okay. Therefore, I was assigned (I
assume) an “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?
I’m no mathematician, but seems to me that it does
that. And if used as described above, it *is* being used relatively
correctly and accurately. True, it would be more accurate if we offered a
couple hundred categories ranging from RO-Got Stung By a Bee to RO-This Saddle Still
Aint Right, but that might get a little confusing and us vets ain’t all
that bright to begin with.
>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?
So…just assigning them all a general and ambiguous RO,
with no subcategories whatsoever, is?
>
While the 25 percent completion is >still
the same, the numbers of pulls for lameness are deceptive at best.
Except with an RO-L *weren’t* pulled for lameness.
If they were assigned an RO-L, then it means it was some relatively minor issue
associated more closely with a lameness (or potential lameness) problem than
associated with a metabolic problem, or a rider injury problem, or a surface
factor problem. In ALL cases, it means the horse was Fit To Continue, but
the rider chose to withdraw, anyway. If the horse *is* pulled by a
vet for lameness (not RO-L), then the head vet’s report to AERC includes
some more specific information about the types of lameness, injury or metabolic
issue encountered, treatments, etc.---as it rightfully should, in order to
track actual clinical problems, as opposed to minor subcategories that might
just as well be categorized under “sh*t happens”.
>Members should care
what kind of pull codes are used
Which is why, IMO, I think the members should be pretty happy
with this evolution with the vetting process. It’s better than an
ambiguous RO would be. If individuals are getting offended over the
appellation attached to an RO-X code, then they don’t understand its use.
>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".
Frankly, a good ride vet doesn’t give a rat’s
patootie what anyone thinks (except maybe the other vets offering an opinion),
and knows enough about their job to stand by their decision and explain exactly
why that decision was made. And it *doesn’t* matter whether
it’s the rider or vet who first thinks “time to pull”,
because at that point in the process, the vet’s opinion is the only one
that matters.
>
It is about making the sport better for the welfare of the horse.
Done. I’ll pass along your appreciation to the very
hard-working members of the Vet Committee.
