Re: RC: Pull information

[Teresa Van Hove <tvanhove@uswest.net>]

Heidi,

You didn't read my whole post :(  I said plainly
that its dead wrong to distinguish B vs C, though C's
do happen once in a while. But I do think it might be
useful to distinguish an A pull (passed VC but rider 
pulls anyway for subtle prob, or prob that shows up
during hold after the Vet examination) for vet education.
I've had B pulls and I feel no shame for presenting the
horse to the vet to get the "official call" on pulling.
I haven't had a C pull, but I have had vets imply that
I should pull or should slow way down and took their words
with a huge grain of salt, weighing the situation against 
previous experience and knowing that my horse is not one to
suck it up and continue in pain.  I also know there are a
handful of riders out there that make any pull a C pull.  

Teresa 
CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/28/00 6:44:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> tvanhove@uswest.net writes:
> 
> << A) horse passed the vet check but rider feels that
>  going on may aggravate condition and pulls anyway.
> 
>  B) rider knows horse will fail VC, either beforehand
>  or from hearing the parameters or watching horse out of
>  corner of eye at trot-out.  Mutual decision that horse
>  is a lameness or metabolic pull between rider and vet.
> 
>  C) horse fails VC.  Rider insists that "old Joe" always
>  does this and is fine, and badmouths vet for pulling
>  them anyway.  >>
> 
> My response to this is that this sort of distinction DOES get into
> finger-pointing and putting some sort of "brownie point" system on the
> rider's sense of responsibility.  That, IMO, WOULD lead to bad-mouthing, etc.
> if published.  As it is, the goal is to figure out WHY horses pull, not WHO
> pulled them, and I think that is an important distinction.  The question here
> is what causes horses not to get completions--are they lame, metabolic,
> overtime, or did the rider end up puking in the bushes and could not
> continue?  It does not matter WHO made this judgment call--only that it WAS
> MADE.  By hair splitting as to who makes the decision, then we DO get into
> patting "Jane" on the back for being responsible and "Sally" gets blacklisted
> for arguing with the vet.  And--I thought that was what we wanted to avoid
> here.
>