Re: RC: Pull codes

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:30:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Dot Wiggins" <dotwgns@ruralnetwork.net> writes:

> There was no question that the horse was pulled for lameness.  Was then
> surprized to see in ride results RO listed  under pull code.  Would this be
> because I brought the horse back after passing the vet check?
> Doesn't really matter, doesn't change much, just  not quite accurate in
> reasons for non-completions.
Unfortunately, it is still a common misconception about "RO"--managers will use it because the rider made the choice to pull.  The L and M codes have NOTHING to do with who made the choice--as you point out, they are supposed to be indicators of WHY the horse did not go on, not WHO made the decision.  The rider option code should be used ONLY for cases when there is NOTHING wrong with the horse, and the rider chooses to pull for personal reasons--got sick, broke arm, didn't want to go on because companion got pulled, that sort of thing.  My own last pull was an RO pull because I had heat stroke.  Many riders do the wise thing and pull their own horses because some minor thing is brewing, but those are still classified by whatever the problem is--lame or metabolic.  I DO wish we could add one more category, though--something for an injury that does not cause lameness.  This category is needed for things such as tack galls, lacerations that need attention but don't cause lameness, etc.  These problems don't fi
t the present categories, but do render enough pulls to have a category of their own, IMO.

Heidi