[RC] Vet proposal comment on resting pulse - Howard Bramhall
In the November issue of Endurance News, the article is titled "FEI Vets
Discuss Pan Ams and More," Dr. Beecher states," 90%, maybe 100% of all the
horses that get sick at a ride have given the rider some indication that they
are below par - an elevated heart rate, slower recoveries, not eating like
normal...the list goes on. Horses are living organisms with good days and
bad days. Even on bad days they will go to the wall for their rider.
Isn't it important we be cognizant of the changes in the horse and stand for
them before they become a statistic?"
The vet checks are there for the horse; it's their best protection.
Could you imagine what our rides would be like if we did not have them?
And, since we have them, and we're still losing horses in the sport, wouldn't it
be a good idea to lower the numbers (heart rate and pulse recovery
time) that will prevent some of these deaths? It's an idea whose time
has come.
I don't understand what some folks are afraid of here. This will save
a horse's life that was not properly prepared or is having a bad day. IF
you have a horse that is fit, in shape, and prepared to do the distance you are
asking from him, lower pulse rates and lower times will not stop you from
getting that completion. It will, however, stop a rider who is
willing to continue on even though the horse is telling them they should
not.
The horse has to come first here. If we're unwilling to change,
unwilling to make a sacrifice, what does that say about us? Changes like
this will not modify the intent of what endurance is. It will continue to
be challenging (this will even make it more so), it will continue to have no
minimum time limit for completion, and, it will continue to be
competitive. The reason changes are needed is because our death rate and
metabolic treatment rates are too high.
Those who resist change are now starting to compare our sport
to thoroughbred racing. They say, "Hey, look how many deaths are
occurring on the track. Our sport doesn't have near that many in
numbers. We're not doing all that badly. Death is part of our sport
and the only way to avoid that is to not compete."
I find that comparison abhorrent. Who on earth wants endurance to be
compared to the deaths that occur on the racetrack? Why would you even
want to put the two in the same sentence? If that is who we are going to
compare ourselves to we are in deep, deep trouble here.
Look, don't listen to me. I'm a nobody who will openly admit I'm off
the deep end when it comes to this issue. I only ask that you do listen to
Stagg Newman, Susan Garlinghouse, DVM, Nancy Loving, DVM, Matthew Mackay Smith,
DVM, Dane Frazier, DVM, and the vets mentioned in the FEI Vets
article. They have some ideas that would help correct all of this
today. The numbers (metabolic treatment, metabolic deaths) will start
to come down, if we do something. We can continue to study this for years,
but, if we don't start making changes, changes that we could do right now at
our vet checks that are already in place, those numbers will continue to
remain where they are. We just cannot allow that to continue. We are
not thoroughbred racing; we are better than that.
