Check it Out!    
RideCamp@endurance.net
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Re: RC: Something not quite right (was: RO)



In a message dated Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:26:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, guest@endurance.net writes:

> I cannot agree that it is not
> also meaningful to distinguish between a horse being disqualified
> (and therefor not allowed to go on...no matter who made the decision)
> and a horse being withdrawn by it's rider despite the fact that it
> would be allowed to go on.

I don't think anyone said that such a distinction is not "meaningful"--the issue is at least getting it noted as a horse problem, rather than being lumped in with the human problems, where it definitely does NOT belong.  I agree that differentiating about the severity of a problem is VERY meaningful.  And with vets who take the time to do a thorough job with the paperwork, this differentiation can be made.  Right now, the forms are not particularly conducive to it, however.

> Additionally, it is naive to think that "something not quite right"
> can easily be correctly allocated between Metabolic or Lame.  

While this is certainly true in some cases (is it a tie-up coming on, or a lameness), in most cases it really isn't that difficult.  In fact, a great many of these pulls ARE due to something that the vet CAN see, but just cannot sufficiently pinpoint, or have not reached a point of severity that the vet would pull the horse.  Example--an offness where one can pick out a specific leg, but it is not yet consistent, so has not reached a grade where the vet is "required" to pull the horse.  (In my experience as a vet, the majority of riders opt to pull at this point.)  Or, a borderline CRI, or a pulse still just at criteria when the horse goes out--clearly on the metabolic cusp, but still not something the vet would necessarily pull if all other parameters still looked good.  Far too many of such pulls are NOW listed as RO's, and these are the bulk of the pulls in question for being improperly coded.

> If the AERC is only concerned about horses (and not riders), it CAN lump
> all "rider problems" together; although an arguement COULD be made
> that knowing why riders elect not to continue might be as meaningful
> as why horses don't continue.  While this may be meaningful to endurance
> riders, it may not be of concern to the AERC (or at least not of
> sufficient
> concern to expend resources finding out).

The current pull code system was something put in place by the veterinary committee as a data source.  I agree that stats on why people pull would also be interesting, but my point about lumping them should have been expanded to say that that is not the focus of the veterinary committee.

Heidi



    Check it Out!    

Home    Events    Groups    Rider Directory    Market    RideCamp    Stuff

Back to TOC