RE: RC: Re: The Way We Win

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated Tue, 31 Jul 2001  3:00:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net> writes:

> If that is so, what is your answer. Let's get some rhetoric going here and
> post some other concepts. Just shooting holes is not producing.

Well, actually, I was not one of the ones shooting holes.  Our sport has evolved a great deal in the 30 or so years that I've been involved with it, and I don't think it is nearly as "broke" as some here would lead us to believe.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly strive for improvement--indeed, there is always room to do better and to learn more.

I did save Kat Swigart's post, with the intention of responding with a few specifics that I believe would help to improve the vetting aspect of the sport.  Again, as several have stated (and as the AERC rules state) the RIDER is the ultimate one responsible for the health and well being of the horse.  The vet is certainly there as the horse's advocate, but the vet is not the one out there feeling every stride, assessing every nuance of attitude, etc.  The vet can be a tremendous asset to the rider in making wise choices about the horse, and does, indeed, serve as a stop-gap when the rider is absolutely out in left field.  But the RIDER is the one on whom the true responsibility rests.

That said--I was greatly cheered to hear the head vet at the Hog Wild ride state that at the vet checks with longer holds, he has observed that he can more accurately assess the horses by having the veterinary exam toward the END of the hold, rather than immediately when the horse has pulsed down.  This is something I've felt strongly about for years, and must say we've had VERY few treatments on rides where we have implemented this system.  I hope that the fact that this concept is taking hold in other regions is the beginning of a positive change.  Frequently a horse will come in and present quite well right after he pulses down, but one has yet to see how he is eating, whether he is comfortable in his rest time, etc.  These are VERY important things to know before sending a horse back out on the trail.

Another change which greatly reduces treatment (and is, indeed, becoming more wide-spread as well) is a 60 pulse criterion.  Again, at Hog Wild, I was glad to hear that other vets are also dropping the pulse criterion to 56 when weather conditions are severe (ie hot and humid).

As someone pointed out, rides such as Tevis, ROC, FEI championships, etc., have a much higher treatment rate than do most AERC rides.  Many vets are beginning to recognize the effects of long hauls on subsequent endurance performance.  Although I don't think we are to the point yet of wanting to do such a thing for every AERC ride, I do feel that rides such as Tevis, Pan Am, etc., would do well to have a pre-ride blood draw to assess CPK and a great many other parameters, and that this be a part of the data used to determine whether horses even START the ride.  With the increase in portable technology that can be used in the field, and as such technology becomes more affordable, this might eventually be practical at "regular" events.

As to actual deaths--I haven't paid attention the past couple of years, but it seemed to me that the death rate at endurance rides was really quite low in comparison to other equine events.  Horses die, and sometimes they die while attending events.  The majority of deaths at rides have little or nothing to do with endurance riding, from what I've seen of the data and from what my experience has been in two decades of vetting rides.  The only acute death due to overriding that I've attended occurred back in 1983, and would not happen today with the changes we've made since then in rules and vetting procedures.  I did forewarn a very prominent rider early in the season several years ago that his horse was chronically over-conditioned and that he WOULD kill his horse if he persisted in campaigning him--which indeed he did later that year.  Other than those two, the only deaths at rides I've vetted (and I've vetted somewhere between 250 and 300) that I can recall off the top of m!
y head have been euthanasias due
 to fractures, or deaths due to non-endurance-related medical conditions that were undetected prior to the ride.  I did deal with one other death that was ride-related, but as a clinician, not as the ride vet--and that was a really tragic case as the rider was a novice rider and was concerned about her horse, but was urged on by the head vet.  Again, this was several years ago, and it is unlikely that the same circumstances would be repeated today.  We learned a lot from those and similar cases (btw, two of those three were necropsied), and it is through such situations that we gradually improve our knowledge both as vets and as riders.

It is a good thing to continue to learn, but again, prosecuting people based on specific necropsy results is hardly a step forward.

Heidi