Ridecamp: Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES

There has been a perception for a long time that it is the rider's fault ("he over-rode his horse") if the horse has been pulled for lameness, or PARTICULARLY for metabolic reasons. This is, of course, not always true, but I've heard riders complain because they didn't want the information made public (and thereby the criticism), so they chose RO. I thought the stigma could be reduced by adding some codes, namely RO-L and RO-M, meaning that the horse was lame or on his way to being so, the horse was just not right and might be on his way to a metabolic crash. Since it was the rider's option to pull, it showed that the rider was astute enough to pull the horse before he really got into trouble. The other code added was SF, surface factors...a cinch gall, a scraped knee due to a fall, a small cut that was of concern to the rider, etc. Somehow, these new codes do not seem to be accepted by some riders, at least that's the impression I'm getting from these posts on ridecamp. I'm not exactly sure why, because it seemed to me that this sort of code was indicating that the rider was wise enough to pull his own horse, but the vets would be still be able to glean some sort of information about what was happening to the horse. Can anyone explain to me why RO-L and RO-M are not satisfactory to some of the membership?

Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES - Jeanne Slominski