Re: RC: Re: Horses requiring vet care at Tevis

[Lynne Glazer <lynne@glazer.org>]

Fact: when I left  Robinson Flat, at 11:30 am, 210 horses of 259 
entered had been through the vet check.  Two, and only two were on 
IVs.  Last year at this approximate time, about 7 horses were on 
fluids.

Fact #2: Jamie Kerr, head vet, mentioned to me at Michigan Bluff that 
the vets were suprised by a bunch of back-of-the pack myositis at RF.

My opinion is that the bulk of entrants were properly prepared and 
conditioned, that some people just had bad luck as can happen at any 
endurance ride, and that others weren't ready for the degree of 
difficulty of THIS ride.

Lynne


At 11:45 PM -0700 7/21/00, superpat wrote:
>I hesitate to throw this thought out to ride camp without pondering it
>further....but...here goes, guys. I would *guess* that a good percentage of
>the horses who required IV fluid therapy would be horses without proven
>endurance experience. Just a guess here worth exploring. If this proves to
>be the case, would it not seem that perhaps it might be prudent to examine
>whether there should be some pre-qualification requirements for those horses
>allowed to enter the competition? Having not ridden this ride, (having not
>even ridden a hundred miler), my impressions are based solely upon
>discussions with those who have and some of the articles I have read. I have
>the distinct impression that more than a few competitors aim for the Tevis
>ride as their sole competition. Such is the power of reputation for being
>*the* ride to distinguish horse and rider as *tough*. And if a horse and
>rider are truly qualified to attempt this ride, how hard would it be for
>them to demonstrate some experience and competence at this game? I cannot
>imagine that it would be difficult to fill the rider list even with some
>qualifying requirements. So there's my nickel's worth. Congratulations to
>all who completed.
>Pat Super
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Onefarmgirl@aol.com>
>To: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 3:41 PM
>Subject: RC: Horses requiring vet care at Tevis
>
>
>>  Well, some interesting responses to my question about this.   I heard from
>a
>>  half a dozen folks, all with essentially the same reply - somewhere in the
>>  vicinity of 25 horses required IV fluids and/or other relatively
>aggressive
>>  veterinary care.   That's about 10% of horses entered.
>>
>>  Disclaimer:  None of the folks who replied was a ride official, or one of
>the
>>  treating vets, so the fact that all seemed to have approximately the same
>>  number to offer still doesn't necessarily mean that this is accurate.
>(As
>>  we have seen on RC, sometimes "everyone" has the same WRONG information.)
>>
>>  Oddly enough, three of the six folks who replied included a comment to the
>>  effect that we probably wouldn't be able to confirm the actual number of
>>  treated horses, and two offered a disclaimer asking not to be quoted as
>the
>>  source of info.   Of course their request for privacy is completely fine,
>but
>>  the fact that they felt confidentiality might be necessary for some reason
>>  adds to my sense of unease.    Surely these numbers are known to the vets,
>>  and aren't a nasty little secret?
>>
>>  So.....  I'm inclined to open a discussion, based on a the apparently high
>>  number of horses requiring treatment.   Don't you folks think this is of
>>  special concern?   I understand it's a tough ride, but sheesh!     I can
>just
>>  imagine how some of us would respond if we heard that 10% of rodeo horses
>or
>>  track horses required IV therapy after an event.   I can just see one of
>>  those photos of a "line" of horses with jugs hanging published by PETA.
>>  Yikes!
>>
>>  Could the high number of treated horses just be representative of better
>or
>>  more available vet care?   Obviously, with a 49% completion rate, the vets
>>  were reasonably aggressive about pulling horses that didn't look good to
>go.
>>
>>  I'm sure willing to hear from anyone who wants to dispute these numbers.
>If
>>  the numbers are accurate, I'd really be interested in any input especially
>>  from those who were there or from the vets about what we are seeing here.
>>
>>  I don't want to leap too far without better confirmation of the facts, but
>if
>>  these numbers are correct, I think we all need to give this some long
>>  thought.   We seem to be learning more every day about the physiology and
>>  exercise metabolism of these horses - could it be that we aren't
>succeeding
>>  in making the sport safer for them?    Whadaya all think?
>>  pat farmer
>>
>>
>>  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>  Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
>>  Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
>>  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>
>>
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.   
>Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp  
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=