|
I
guess I don't agree with this. Lame is lame, 'worried about becoming lame' is
not the same. There are often grade 1 lame horses that are given placement, or
completion. Should these be listed as Lame instead? I understand that the intent
of Ride Option was to apply to problems that riders have, not horses. But that
still doesn't mean that a rider who has concerns about continuing a ride -
concerns related to the horse's condition - should pick one of the horse pull
categories as their reason for pulling - if the decision to pull was entirely up
to the rider. As far as garnering statistical information there are enough real
L, M pulls that we don't need to split hairs over cases where the rider thinks
the horse just doesn't feel right, or doesn't want to risk injury by
continuing.
Steph
Yes, you should have asked the vet to change the
card. The vet did not understand how the pull codes are used. Even
though the horse was deemed "sound enough to continue" by the vet, the reason
that made YOU choose to pull was an issue of soundness. "Rider option"
was perhaps poorly named--it should have been something like "rider issue" or
"rider incapacity" or something like that.
Heidi
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:10
PM
Subject: Re: [RC] RO
“RO” is
what the vet put on the card. Are you saying I should have made him
change the card? I believe that this issue is currently being
addressed as to what the reason is for the pull -- getting a better
definition of the RO pulls. Yes, it was Rider Option because the vet
declared him sound enough to
continue.
|
