Check it Out!
Re: RC: RO
In a message dated Tue, 9 Oct 2001 2:46:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Susan Young Casey <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> In your experience, and in the experience of all
> others, what would be some good explainations of RO?
> We could say RO-L or RO-M. I can see a real nightmare
> for AERC on this one as far as keeping statistics
> goes. The bottom line is, the most of us are
> "amature" vets and make a choice not to push the issue
> with our horses when we feel something off. We could
> be wrong though. How reliable would the statistics be
I still don't see any reason to separate L and M based on who made the decision. Even if the rider makes the call and is sometimes not accurate as to exactly WHAT is going on, likely the stats would still be far more accurate than they currently are, where far too many L and M pulls are listed as RO simply because it was the rider who made the decision. I believe that the resolution would be far simpler by renaming the RO code to be more explicit in describing that it is a code for something wrong with the rider, NOT the horse. Again, the whole system is there to try to see why horses don't complete, NOT to indicate who pulled them.
Heck, if RO meant that the rider made the choice, then for most of us vets who try to be diplomatic, almost ALL the pulls would be RO pulls! A lot of our best ride vets will start off the discussion of a lame horse, for instance, with a phrase like, "Gee, I sure don't like what I'm seeing in that left front," or "Gosh, if this was my horse, I wouldn't want to continue on this way," so that the rider ALWAYS has the opportunity to "do the right thing" and pull the horse before the vet has to become a policeman. And it has been my experience that 99% of riders will step up to the plate and say, "Gosh, no, I'm not going on like that." So do those ALL become RO pulls?? Heck, no! But good ride vets will continue doing that, so that riders will feel good that THEY made the right choice, and will continue to take the best possible care of their horses. Of course, if the rider can't recognize that there is a problem, then the vet has to make the choice and pull the horse. Meanwhile, they are what they are--eit
her lame or metabolic. (Or in some cases, injuries or surface factors, which is why we also need another category there.)
As to good explanations of RO pulls: Rider fell off and broke bones and got hauled off in an ambulance and therefore cannot finish. Rider is puking in the bushes and does not feel that he/she can get back on horse and continue. Rider's companion/spouse/sponsor/junior got pulled, and rider does not want to (or cannot) continue on without same. My one RO pull was a case of heat stroke on my part. THOSE are RO pulls... And yes, I've turned around out on the trail after leaving a check and have come back to camp and pulled my horse, even though the vet sent us out and deemed the horse to be just fine--but those are NOT RO pulls--in each case, there was either an offness or a sluggishness that was not right, and they should be coded accordingly.
- Re: RC: RO
- From: Susan Young Casey <email@example.com>
Check it Out!
Back to TOC