Re: [RC] Is my horse off? When vet opinions differ... - Mary Ann Spencer
Well to finish is to win is great. I had a
bad experience at the end of a ride at Biltmore. Could not feel anything
wrong but finished in good time but they would not give a finish. I think
of it was due to us riding barefoot.... much more controversial in 2000 than
now. BUT, we had to break hard enroute due to traffic accident so I think
she may have had a kink in a muscle. There was no problems later.
Seems being off can be both subjective and political. I think we were the
only barefoot horses. Was a great ride otherwise. I know we don't
want to harm our horses but there are times when things are nitpicking.
But then maybe that is due to my mostly riding in TX. I did not like
NATRAC due to the phoniness of it all... seemed more a place for ex show horses
to see a trail.. IMHO
Subject: Re: [RC] Is my horse off? When
vet opinions differ...
he asked if I knew my horse was off > behind.
I said "No, he felt fine all day." When my friend who was >
standing there offered to trot my horse for me so I could watch as >
well I was told by the vet, "I wouldn't do that. Just take your >
completion and go." I was TOTALLY FLOORED! Wow! That just
seemed > so rude.
That's not rude. That's called, "I
don't want to pull you at the finish". I have no idea about your horse, but
I love a vet who sees 8 good steps and turns his back at the finish. There
was a time when AERC did not have a "fit to continue" rule. Someone could
run their horse into the ground the last loop and if it could walk sound it
got a completion. That was bad. So, we started "fit to continue" which is
good. However, if you ever manage a ride you'll see concientious riders who
have done a good job all day, finished with a perfectly sound horse, then
it stands in the vet line, gets a little hitch and doesn't trot out very
well at the finish. Just a muscle tightening up...they'll look great in the
morning but it's enough to lose your fit to continue.
What I hate is
a vet who asks someone to trot twice for completion because they're not
sure...but they think they *might* have seen something. Come on! If you're
not sure, give them the darned completion. The point of "fit to continue"
was to protect the horses, not to cut down on the number of
finishers. My favorite vets are the ones who look carefully as the
horse trots away, see him give a good step on each leg, and immediately
turn their back to fill out the card. You know they have had to pull
someone they didn't want to pull at the finish before and they want to do
their job, but not pull if they don't have to.
On the vetting thing.
Jim Baldwin was at Biltmore one year and told my friend her horse had a
problem with his hocks. This horse had never had a problem, was going
*great* winning rides & getting BC. No vet had ever mentioned
*anything*. I honestly thought it was the "too many good vets in one
place trying to outdo each other with what they see" syndrome. Not long
after that her horse started getting a sore back. After trying to figure
out why the saddle he'd been wearing was becoming a problem her vet finally
figured out his *hocks* were sore. Hocks got injected, back got OK. Jim
Baldwin...you can say "I told you so". >g<
Moral is...if it was a
good enough vet, just keep what he said in the back of your mind and if
there's a problem later, that's a good place to start looking. Don't
mention what he said to other vets you want to ask about it until
*after* they watch your horse so they're able to judge without
predjudice...then after the first impression, you could mention what he
said and see if they know any tests to check for it. I've had vets be right
*and* wrong. I had a Walking Horse Vet swear Kaboot had stifle trouble
because he was swinging his hind leg wide rather than up and forward, but
it didn't react to any flexing. Chiro adjusted his hip and he quit. I guess
stuff like this is what makes this sport interesting.
