Nightmare vetting. Question.

[4faults]

Not sure why thatsmygirl I have sold a few horses and always had to ride. Last one was only a two stage and they asked me to ride her.

 

[ester]

afaik they don't need to be ridden as the reason for this is for wind/heart etc (my vetting sheet just says strenuous exercise). I would however imagine that if advising if fit for purpose the vet would prefer to see the animal ridden if possible in addition to the fact that some ailments won't show up unless ridden so they are best off covering their backs.

 

[zaminda]

I rode a horse for an owner at a vetting, and the vet did question whether the horse would be suitable for the prospective owner, as she had MS.
I also came across another vetting, in which the vet told the people the horse wouldn't be suitable for the purchasers, although to be fair he was right, and verypolite and professional about the way he said it.

 

[Luci07]

Had a 5* some 3 weeks ago and my new horse was ridden as well as being lunged, then checked again with flexions after ridden work. Vet was realistic ( horse was a green baby so 5 mins cantering would not have happened) but thorough. Vetting took best part of 2 hours and he passed with flying colours. Always had my horses ridden as part of the vetting but never had a vet try to point me elsewhere!

 

[glenruby]

Colivet - they would be far better off if they were injured themselves by falling off the horse they were vetting than the purchaser/vendor falling off! A friend of mine was successfully sued by a vendor who was kicked in the head while lunging her own horse - she owned it for about 4 years and lunged it a couple times a week!!

 

[be positive]

Colivet - they would be far better off if they were injured themselves by falling off the horse they were vetting than the purchaser/vendor falling off! A friend of mine was successfully sued by a vendor who was kicked in the head while lunging her own horse - she owned it for about 4 years and lunged it a couple times a week!!

On what grounds was this the vets fault

 

[TarrSteps]

I can see why when vetting for a childs pony that they would want to see the child handle the pony as they are supposed to advise on suitability.

Is that the case here, then?

Where I'm from the opposite is true - vets can only comment on behaviour as it pertains to the vetting and they are definitely advised NOT to give their opinions on things that aren't their area of speciality because they open themselves up to action from either the seller, annoyed at the loss of a deal, or the buyer if the horse turns out not to be suitable. Perhaps it works differently because most people buying also have a trainer or similar advising.

Which is not to say vets always bite their tongues. I was involved in the vetting of a young horse where the vet advised the purchaser (unknown to her) to pass on the horse as it was, essentially, too green for a woman of her advanced years. Buyer was a Joint MFH, general hard woman to hounds and could have ridden rings around all of us - she did not take kindly to this.

In another, the vet, as in the example above, scotched the vetting of a very expensive horse and then recommended a few others for sale by a friend of hers. That one did almost go to court.

Re the horse being ridden, I can certainly understand the reasoning but in my experience it's personal preference of the vet. I guess it depends on their own experiences.

 

[Sparkles]

Whilst I'm all for checking the pony being suitable etc....maybe I'm just being naive in thinking a vetting is just that, a vetting. Surely if wanting to be done properly, then have someone on the horse from the start to do the canter work thoroughly [bearing in mind child finds canter hard which was my original post]? It just seems more professional to me. If wanting to check suitability re rider/horse, then do it another time other than during the vetting...or after even, just when there isn't a 'job' to be done at hand.
That was only my thoughts anyway.
I value all the replies!