|    Check it Out!    |
|[Date Prev]||[Date Next]||[Thread Prev]||[Thread Next]|
|[Date Index]||[Thread Index]||[Author Index]||[Subject Index]|
From: Barbara McCrary [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 9:29 AM
To: Kathy Mayeda
Subject: Re: RE: Pull codesI don't think a "metabolic" pull is anything to be ashamed of, nor would it go against the horse's record. It just shows a smart rider, not a compromised horse. Any horse can have a bad day, and a smart rider is one who pulls out before the "bad" becomes "worse." This has been the jinx against using the REAL reason a horse is pulled. Riders have been concerned that it would look bad on the horse's record. RO tells vets nothing, unless it is truly a code referring to the rider, who may be tired, injured or ill. The reason for pull codes is education, not punishment. How else can vets learn statistics about horses? If a given ride has a disproportionate number of L pulls or a disproportionate number of M pulls, then it tells the vets something, or the ride management. Perhaps the ride is unrealistically difficult, or the terrain is too punishing.BarbaraSent: Monday, October 08, 2001 8:21 AMSubject: RC: RE: Pull codes
I got an RO also, for bringing my horse back to the vet after passing the lunch vet check and he wasn’t “quite right”. I wonder if you took the RO option out of it and a metabolic would go against the horse, that people would continue under these circumstances anyway because they don’t want to have a “metabolic” pull against the horse’s record.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In a message dated Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:30:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Dot Wiggins" <email@example.com> 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 lamenes!
s, etc. These problems don't fi
t the present categories, but do render enough pulls to have a category of their own, IMO.
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
|    Check it Out!    |