Re: MECHANICAL FATIGUE

[CMKSAGEHIL <CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-05-15 10:41:44 EDT, madill@teleplex.net writes:

<< Well, it turned out that my "eyes" were actually finer tuned than the
 vet's, and, when he saw me nodding in accompaniment to a horse being
 trotted, he asked my opinion.  He took a second look at the animal in
 question and there went my experiment because he asked that I score the
 locomotion as well!   >>

Although it does not take a DVM degree to be good at evaluating motion (and
conversely a DVM degree is not a guarantee that the holder can properly
evaluate motion) I DO have a real problem with the veterinarians AND lay
people who try to find the absolute pickiest little details of locomotion and
then disqualify the horse.  (I know this is different than using the fine
details for scoring purposes.)  Someone else recently asked about
differentiating between non-pathological gait anomalies and lameness--this is
something that takes a great deal of practice, and is certainly not a black-
and-white differentiation, but I get truly upset when horses with mild gait
anomalies are DQ'ed, and also when lay people with a "good eye" picked up a
small gait anomaly and then get all over me because I did NOT pull the horse.
Also, in making the decision to allow a horse to go or not to go, the CAUSE of
a lameness is significant.  I vetted a ride several years ago where 4 or 5
horses were pulled at the outcheck by another vet for slight lamenesses that
appeared to be suspensory and/or tendon injuries coming on.  Good call!
Another horse that exhibited the same degree of lameness was allowed to go
on--he had stepped on the edge of a plate rock about half a mile before the
check, and had flipped it up into his cannon bone.  Ouch!  She duly noted the
problem on the card, and asked me to evaluate the horse at the next check.  He
was perfectly sound, and remained sound for the duration of the 100-miler and
the post-ride check.  Again, good call!   But boy, did she take heat for it!

Heidi