ridecamp@endurance.net: Re: What should treatment Vets be paid?

Re: What should treatment Vets be paid?

Joe Long (jlong@mti.net)
Sat, 06 Dec 1997 17:55:12 -0700

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997 18:09:08 EST, RUN4BEAR <RUN4BEAR@aol.com> wrote:

>By the way, I heard that at a ride recently, a rider whose horse was in
>trouble refused treatment because she wanted completion and that the vet gave
>the completion then treated her horse. As far as I know, AERC had considered
>some ruling on this, but I don't think they made it official.

This sounds like a story garbled in retelling. The AERC policy clearly
states that if in the opinion of a ride vet a horse needs treatment prior
to passing the post-finish-line vet exam, *regardless of whether such
treatment is given*, the horse is disqualified. The policy was written
that way in part to prevent the kind of scenario you described.

The horse owner/rider has the right to refuse treatment. Neither the AERC
nor the ride vets have a legal right to force a horse to be treated. This
was clearly established in a protest some years ago. A head vet filed a
protest against a rider who refused treatement, seeking to get the rider
banned from competition. The AERC board and vet committee was sympathetic
to the vet's feelings, but under civil law our hands were tied.

BTW, it has always been my understanding (and some rides put it in writing)
that the horse owner is responsible for any costs for treatment, whether
the vet charges only for supplies used or charges a fee. I have seen vets
who served dual roles as ride and treatment vets charge their normal fee
for services for treatment, and I've never seen anything wrong with that.
The ride pays them to work the ride, not to treat horses, IMO that is the
horse owner's responsibility.

-- 


Joe Long <jlong@mti.net>
Business:  http://www.mti.net
Personal:  http://www.rnbw.com

Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff