Failed vettings.

[Luci07]

This is not a pop at vets it's something I have seen recently. It used to be pretty rare for a horse to fail its vetting and now it seems to be becoming the norm. I appreciate that a vetting is not supposed to be definitive yes or no, more of a professional opinion, but I have personally seen a lot of people who are building up a string of failed vettings. Are vets being more cautious? Has veterinary science advanced to such a degree that more is picked up? It can be a chicken and egg situation..most insurers require a 5* for horses over £5k, owner really wants to have vet cover..

A good vet will give you the warts and all, but by discussing any possible weaknesses (stressing possible) this is then on the report and excluded.

Thoughts?

 

[Fides]

Lots more poor quality horses about now-a-days

Eta

And the good ones are drilled at 4 and broken by 8

 

[be positive]

I am seeing the same, a friend recently had her horse fail two vettings, totally different each time, he was over £5k, the first people pulled out the second took the risk and purchased at a reduced price, he has already been out BE with his new rider and they are extremely happy that they took the risk.

I have just sold a little cob but had a sensible vet, he found an unusual eye condition that he was unsure about, plus a very slight unlevelness in trot on the straight, no worse after flexions or on a circle, instead of failing he spoke to an eye specialist who gave the ok as the condition is not degenerative, the lameness he guessed was due to needing shoeing, it had been delayed as the vetting was booked in rather a rush, a quick trot up after new shoes were on and he went off happily to his new home, very refreshing to deal with a vet who actually told me what he found rather than keeping it to himself and worrying the purchaser when he contacted her, we could all work together rather than pulling apart which often happens.

Early this year a lovely teenage schoolmaster was vetted, the vet didn't speak to me, other than the essentials, she was negative from the start as when asked if he did flying changes I said no he didn't, this seemed to set the tone, she failed him on almost everything, he was stiff behind, probably because he didn't change without going through trot, he was lame in front which I couldn't see, he was not fit to go to a low level PC home, he was checked by our vet, totally fine, sold to a lovely home, passed a vetting with flying colours when the vet said how good he was especially after flexion tests as he expected to have to make some allowances for his age, is currently up at the RC champs with his happy new owners.

I think more vets are looking for reasons to fail, or not fit for purpose, rather than taking the view of looking at reasons to pass which used to be the case, some are still sensible about it but others seem to aim to find as many minor things as they can and a few even speculate on what may happen in the future, I had one who said a horse could have an arthritic spine, no reason for this, she also thought his hocks would become arthritic although he did not respond negatively with flexion testing, when she added that his front feet were probably also showing changes I wondered if she had xray vision, my vet found nothing, he had his feet xrayed and they were clear, I think she just wanted to impress with her amazing powers, another horse now in a super home with a sensible purchaser who bought without vetting with the veterinary history disclosed.

I could write a book on my experiences with vetting, some good, some bad but most were genuinely sound horses who have gone on to do well regardless.

 

[Murphy88]

In short, because vettings account for about 90% of all complaints against equine vets. So whereas in days gone by a vet could be sensible and discuss with the owner those small problems that may/may not cause a problem, nowadays it's not worth getting sued to pass a horse with little problems. Older vets with a long standing reputation will often be more willing to pass those questionable horses but for newer vets quite frankly its not worth the risk. An unfortunate consequence of today's litigation culture!

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

In short, because vettings account for about 90% of all complaints against equine vets. So whereas in days gone by a vet could be sensible and discuss with the owner those small problems that may/may not cause a problem, nowadays it's not worth getting sued to pass a horse with little problems. Older vets with a long standing reputation will often be more willing to pass those questionable horses but for newer vets quite frankly its not worth the risk. An unfortunate consequence of today's litigation culture!

Is it though, how many on here would take a vet to court? How would they prove something without another vet saying there was negligence, and they won't do that , I can assure you.
If something goes to court, all the vet says "in my professional opinion" and the case is thrown out.
Someone says ... horse is lame because shoes are overdue !!
One vet says horse is lame, next day another says it is sound ......... maybe it was, you can be sure vet 1 will say "in my professional opinion, on the occasion I examined it, the horse was lame"

 

[blitznbobs]

Is it though, how many on here would take a vet to court? How would they prove something without another vet saying there was negligence, and they won't do that , I can assure you.
If something goes to court, all the vet says "in my professional opinion" and the case is thrown out.
Someone says ... horse is lame because shoes are overdue !!
One vet says horse is lame, next day another says it is sound ......... maybe it was, you can be sure vet 1 will say "in my professional opinion, on the occasion I examined it, the horse was lame"

This may well be true but it doesn't stop someone taking you to court which must beg incredibly distressing whether you win or lose

 

[WelshD]

Whether the vet would win the case or not the hassle and time involved in dealing with even the most basic complaint must be a factor

A livestock vet near here is very experienced with horses but refuses to deal with them - he is professional enough not to comment on it but its often said locally that it was the owners not the horses that were behind that decision!

 

[Luci07]

I appreciate vets need to be cautious, particularly when you read complaints when the buyer assumes a 5*vetting means the horse is good for life!

These horses people were buying were in the 5-10k bracket. Put together nicely, did what was required yet I consistently see horses failing.

In the past, the vettings have been a 2 way process with the vet highlighting weaknesses balanced against what the new owner wanted the horse to do. I agree it can sometimes be down to horses being hot housed as babies but equally, see a lot who don't have that background. Talking to my vet, she said there are lot of top competiton horses who not pass a formal vetting, they have weaknesses which the owners work with or take into account..

Horses aren't really moving right now either so I do wonder at the long term impact on this market as well. We have already seen how a small breeder will really struggle to make money on a nicely produced youngster and while there are many bargains to be had now, I wonder if we will see a sea change and in the not to distant future,a real lack of mid market horses, those who are top level RC and play around the grassroots at affiliated competition.

 

[cbmcts]

Couple of reasons I think,

Buyers aren't prepared to buy horses that aren't 'perfect' at time of purchase especially in a £5k+ price bracket
Vet fees being what they are, the same people are worried that a less than perfect vetting will cause shedloads of exclusions when they insure.
Vets being cautious (understandably) - the last time I had a pony vetted, the vet was very concerned that I was aware that at his age and with a few old injuries, he wouldn't be a top flight competition pony anymore. That was fine, I was buying him as an aged light hack and confidence giver so the vetting was more for heart/lungs/eye problems not flawless flexion tests! This was my own vet BTW, I suspect that a vet I didn't know and who didn't know me would have being quicker to fail him rather than have a long pros and cons conversation.

Those 'mid market' horses are in a odd place at the moment. People are prepared to pay real, good money for the safe, steady type as they are rare and the potentially top competition horses - then there are the all the cheap/free/ problem animals that are dragging down the values of what I think of the home bred market. Those are the ones that won't set the world on fire as 4 or 5 year olds as untested for soundness and true ability which is why vets are so carefully CTA and they seem very expensive for what they are. But as the OP says, the great majority of these will be the useful hunters, amateur sjs and eventers of the future. I suspect that the small studs will need to get their youngsters out and about so keeping them a few years longer to get a proper return on their costs or continue to make a loss if they sell as just backed. It's a shame as these are the quality horses of the future.

 

[WindyStacks]

Is there an actual difference between "fail" and "not fit for purpose"?

 

[cbmcts]

Is there an actual difference between "fail" and "not fit for purpose"?

AFAIK a vet will not 'fail' a horse as such. They will stop a vetting to save a purchaser costs if a serious problem comes up early on ie lameness, blindness or a bad heart murmur so you only pay for a 2 stage rather than a 5 stage so IMO that would be a fit for purpose issue. Also, vets normally ask what you want the horse for so they will advise whether the horse is suitable for whatever you've said - hunting, showing, hack etc.

I've always understood that a horse has failed a vetting if something has shown that is enough to stop the sale proceeding - after all most purchasers are pretty committed by the time they pay £200-300 for a vetting...

 

[Luci07]

I agree buyers are committed. Chalking up a couple of failed vettings takes a massive chunk of your equine budget and I still maintain I am not pointing a finger at the vets. Do you think that buyers (generally,) and insurance companies requirements mean unreasonable expectations are set?. I really do understand all parties concerned really want to minimise risk and heartache but perhaps we have swing the pendulum too far?

 

[DiNozzo]

Do you not also think that buyers are not always honest with vets?

So, a buyer might ask the vet if Horse A is fit to do up to novice level BE, when all it will be used for is some unaffiliated dressage with the odd ODE thrown into the mix.

The horse may not be fit for purpose to be maintained at BE level, but might be perfectly happy doing the lower level stuff!

 

[Luci07]

But that's easy to disprove and why horses with affiliated competition records (decent records!) tend to command a higher premium. A horse truly capable of novice BE is prob around the £10-15k mark. Appreciate there are variances but they are around that mark. It's easy to check into the background and make your own mind up..

 

[GreedyGuts]

I completely agree that there are issues with purchasers being unrealistic/over ambitious in their intended use. Once this has been stated it becomes the criteria by which the vetting is conducted which puts a lot of onus on the vet. I can tell you whether a 2yo is sound and well put together but not whether it will make a GP dressage horse.

I also think that purchasers are unrealistic about how perfect a horse needs to be to do the job they want it to. As a vet you can give guidance, but I'd be a fool to talk anyone into buying an animal when they had reservations about something that had come up, and you do have to make sure the purchaser understands the significance of everything that does come up. This may come across as scare mongering, but as others have said, litigation-wise, this is the most risky thing I do!

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

This may well be true but it doesn't stop someone taking you to court which must beg incredibly distressing whether you win or lose

I hate to tell you it is incredibly distressing taking someone to court, vets work in practices they have support from colleagues, they are covered by insurance. The are trained in this, so for a layman to take a vet to court is massive.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

I am a bit confused, surely no vet is expected to to determine of a horse is capable of competing at the top level, I would expect that is up to the purchaser to decide before they make an offer, all I would expect to be told, is the horse sound or is it not? If I wanted a horse to compete and was spending megabucks , I might ask for extras .......... X rays are within budget, MRI is outside budget.
I have turned down a "perfect" pony on basis that my farrier informed me he cannot improve her feet, [grass cracks], and he would not buy her.
I had her on trial, took her out for an hours hunting [trotting on roads ?] and she came lame the next day ........ so he was correct. My vet would not recommend me to breed from her, so she went back.
I did not have her vetted as such, but if I had, I would expect vet to say, she is sound today but will not be capable of anything other than light hacking, and the fault is genetic.

 

[SO1]

I think the reason there seem to be more failed vettings is because more people are getting a 5 stage vetting before purchasing and there are more people who are not so confident with making their own assessments of a situation so won't take a risk in case the worst case scenario happens.

I also think diagnostics have improved so vets are more likely to pick something up esp with the rise of specialist equine practices rather than more general large animal practices.

It is not just that the vets risk being sued but also if their reputation is damaged then word soon gets out and they may end up loosing customers even if they win in court local horse owners may still be wary of using them.

 

[bonny]

I for one would never have a horse vetted and it amazes me how many people rely on a vet's opinion for a horse's suitability for what they want to do....unless you have a vet who is a horseman himself, they really aren't the right person to ask an for an opinion on for whether or not a horse is up to doing what you want to do. Beyond listening to a heart and checking eyes I don't see how they are any better than an experienced horse person at looking at the rest. A lot of horse/pet owners put far too much faith in your average vet imo.

 

[be positive]

I am a bit confused, surely no vet is expected to to determine of a horse is capable of competing at the top level, I would expect that is up to the purchaser to decide before they make an offer, all I would expect to be told, is the horse sound or is it not? If I wanted a horse to compete and was spending megabucks , I might ask for extras .......... X rays are within budget, MRI is outside budget.
/QUOTE]


I think that people do expect vets to make certain predictions, I have read articles that tell them ask the vet whether it would show for example, surely looking at movement and conformation is part of the purchasers job or their advisers, to offer to buy, get a vet then to pull out if it doesn't have good enough, in the vets opinion, conformation to go to HOYS is pointless and disappointing for everyone involved.

Vets will sometimes offer an unasked for opinion on potential, clients of mine found a really good horse with an excellent BE record at novice, they wanted to aim for JRNs but the vet tried to put them off buying as he felt it lacked quality, when pushed further he said he thought it was unlikely to go to 4*, they were only looking to go to 1* possibly 2 but Badminton was not the aim, they did buy it.

Fit for purpose should be exactly that, the pony you tried was not so you pulled out, if you had wanted a light hack and it was being sold as that then it would have been fit for purpose, I think vettings still have their place but do think that purchasers should be more clued up in what their expectations are.
I would like to see more people asking for veterinary histories, I know they can be fixed by using 2 vet practices but it would give a better picture of the genuine horses and sellers and possibly help weed out those trying to pass of a horse they have only owned briefly as being owned long term, I am surprised more people do not ask for any history to be available and also how rarely they really do homework on finding out what the horse has really been doing all its life.