alsiola
Well-Known Member
I'm still not sure why people are so against using the vendors vet... It's one thing I always do as they have a duty to disclose any visits, treatment etc the horse may have had.
In today's culture do you honestly think that a reputable vet would risk their reputation and licence just to get one through a vetting
The majority of vets (myself included) will decline to perform vettings on horses owned by their clients, for several reasons.
1) Owners of horses that fail vettings are more often than not somewhat unhappy with the vet. No sensible businessperson is going to take the chance of irritating their customers by failing their horses.
2) Although no vet (none that I have ever met anyway) would risk their reputation on passing a dodgy horse, vetting your own client's horses always leaves you open to this accusation.
3) If I agree to do the PPE, then it means the vendor is almost obliged to reveal the medical history of the horse, or appear to be hiding something. My clients will not thank me for putting them in this position.
4) It means I have to make a judgement call on not only my findings on the day, but also on the horse's entire medical history. Findings at PPE can be tricky enough to interpret at the best of times so why give yourself an even harder job to do, while leaving yourself more open to future legislation.
As an aside, the vet does not have to reveal the full medical history of the horse to the buyer. The new PPE certificates that came into action earlier this year have a specific section that essentially reads:
Do you know the seller? Yes/No
Do you know the horse? Yes/No
Is your knowledge of the horse likely to affect its suitability? Yes/Maybe/No
x