Check it Out!
Re: RC: Re: CRI
In a message dated 2/20/00 10:10:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, CMKSAGEHIL
<< The point is to STOP the driver before he kills himself or others. THAT
is the job of the ride vet.>
Is it? That's the underlying question. If the vets take their function that
seriously, which I think goes a bit beyond the pale, then they'd better get
serious about the tools they're using.
> We frequently do not have the tools in the field to make a definitive
diagnosis as to WHY the horse needs to be stopped, but we can, to a great
degree of accuracy, determine that he DOES need to be stopped!>
Not logical. You know better than the rider? Via what means? At the racetrack
there are many vets who supposedly can detect a lameness from 50 yards away.
When I encounter one of these I make a mental note never to let him, or his
needles close to my horses.
> The vets in the treatment barn or back at the rider's home clinic can do a
more complete workup and decide if this a serious situation or not, and quite
frankly, the goal on the course is to stop the horse BEFORE the situation
becomes so serious that the horse either becomes worthless (or dead) or has
to undergo a long layoff time. >
I'm trying to think of specific examples of lamenesses or illnesses where
this would actually be true. I'm hard pressed to do so. Give me some examples
where the rider wouldn't know that he was killing the horse or ruining its
career, but the vet at the vet check would. I mean, the melody of this tune
sounds great, but the orchestration seems thin.
> This is akin to your investigations of race horses that break down, and
very much like your own admitted efforts to minimize that from happening. >
There are two primary reasons why racehorses break down and/or die on the
racetrack: lack of fitness and veterinary "coverrup" medication--called
"normalization" by the AAEP. The track vets are just as full of homilies as
Heidi, with words that are just as lofty and meaningless. While it is true
that offtrack vets have a lot more integrity, you still run into similar
posturing. Once in a while, in both venues, you run into a genuine
practitioner of medicine.
>When one is having to make a split-second decision at Vet Check 3 as to
whether this horse can or cannot go on, it is immaterial to the immediate
decision whether the metabolic upset is a colic, a tie-up, or simply an
overridden horse. The important thing is to decide whether or not this horse
can go on. >
Colic can be diagnosed. Tie-up can be diagnosed. Overridden? Maybe. As soon
as you delve into something subjective like that, you introduce the
possibility of personality, politics, or plain stupidity taking over where
good medicine leaves off.
> And no, we are not out to "save" the horses from the "stupid" people. This
sport is sufficiently time intensive and complex that we really don't meet
very many "stupid" people out there--some that don't know much yet, sure, but
even most of those are striving to learn. Most actively participate in the
evaluations of their horses and in the decisions to pull them. However, like
most focused, driven athletes, sometimes even the most conscientious and
intelligent of endurance riders needs a little tap on the shoulder and a
suggestion to step back and look at the "big picture" regarding their horse.>
Again, via what criteria? Here on ridecamp you have a couple of religions at
play--witness the win vs finish controversy. And clearly, these religions are
worshipped by the vets in attendance in this group as well. Religion is not
science. Fantasy is not science.
>>Your comments on this subject further underscore your need to come out and
actually see what DOES happen at most of the rides.
If your comments are indicative of the knowledge gained from such experience,
maybe it's better that I don't get too close. As it is, I have no vested
interest in any of the politics of the game.
Check it Out!
Back to TOC