Re: RC: Vet Criteria (was Barney/Valerie)

[Lynn Kinsky <lkinsky@silcom.com>]

>K S SWIGART   katswig@earthlink.net
>
>Lynn Kinsky said:
>
>> I think it will be great if endurance is an Olympic sport, but the vet
>> criteria should be looked at and tightened so horses can get pulled
>before
>> they turn into a PR horror show.
>
>Just out of curiousity, in what way, exactly, do you think that
>vet criteria should be "tightened" so that "horses can get
>pulled" before they run into sufficient physical difficulties
>that it will look bad on TV?
>
>I am not interested in some "the vets need to do something to
>about this" answer.  What I am looking for is specific detailed
>changes to the veterinary criteria.
>
>If what we are doing now is allowing endurance horses to be
>turned into a "PR horror show" and you think that changing the
>vet criteria will keep this from happening, which vet criteria
>would you like to change and in EXACTLY which way?
>
>I, personally, think that this attitude about the vets and the
>veterinary criteria is totally wrong-headed in the application
>to endurance (and detrimental to the well being of horses, I
>might add).
>
>I do not think that the vets are at an endurance ride to judge
>the condition of the horses and keep overzealous riders (and
>horses, I might add, since riders cannot do it without
>connivance from the horse) from running horses into the ground.
>
>It would be far better for the horses, the riders, the vets, and
>the associated PR if the attitude, instead, were that the vets
>are not the judges to keep competitors from exceeding the
>veterinary criteria, but rather that the ride vets are part of
>the team that assists in getting the horse through the day
>(whether that means through the entire course or not) and to
>give their professional advice to riders.  While EVERYBODY
>understands that it is more important for the horse to get
>through the day than it is to get the horse through the course.
>
>And the way to do this is not by "tightening" the vet criteria,
>but rather by educating the riders, the vets, AND the horses, so
>that all the participants (the riders, the vets, and the horses)
>will listen to each other evaluating the SCADS of very subtle
>information in order to determine the condition of the horse and
>its fitness to continue.
>
>It is not tight veterinary criteria that will best help horses,
>it is educated and communicative participants.
>
>kat
>Orange County, Calif.

I don't disagree with you -- and I'm not a vet, hence can't offer specific
suggestions, esp vis a vis a 100 mile ride.

The vets are there as the back-up to what is first and foremost the rider
responsibility.  But if the rider fails in their duty, then the vet is
there to still protect the horse.  (I spent a dozen years of my aerospace
career in quality assurance in what I see as a very analogous situation:
manufacturing was responsible for making functional and reliable satellites
and rockets  -- and QA was part of the team to double check and inspect and
try to catch the occasional oops that could cause a multimillion dollar
failure and possibly some astronaut lives.  The higher the stakes the more
stringent the QA criteria and monitoring).


Lynn Kinsky (Santa Ynez, CA)
http://www.silcom.com/~lkinsky