Previous Injury - Does this mean a failed vetting?

R

Rmarshmallow

Active Member
Joined
15 August 2015
Messages
31
Visit site
Hi

I am attending a second viewing for a 6 year old ex racer I am looking to buy this weekend. He has a lump on his off side fetlock which appears to be excess skin and scar tissue from an old field injury over a year and half ago. He appears completely sound and the owner says this does not affect him although at the moment his is only in light schooling and hacking work.
I would be wanting to buy him to do some low level RC events and jumping which the owner says the injury would not affect him.
I am thinking getting a 2 or 5 stage vetting to get a second opinion, however would he automatically fail just because of the previous injury even though he shows no signs of lameness at the moment?
The horse is valued under £2k so I wonder whether there is any point in splashing out on a 5 stage, but then I would also rather be aware of any health issues now before I buy him.
What do you think? - Polite opinions only please!
Thanks in advance
 
When I bought my young horse I had a 2 stage vetting and knew he had a lump on his hind leg. I was buying him off lady from our yard who had had him for about 18 months. He had come over from Ireland and we think he may have knocked himself on the trip over.
Vet said it was fine, not near any joints, hadn't caused him problem for 18 months and would only be an issue if I was going to show him. Have now had him 18 months and he has never been lame and it doesn't cause an issue.

So he won't automatically fail a vetting. If you are particularly worried about it you could get it x-rayed.
 
Get a vetting. The value of the horse is irrelevant as the vets bills are still the same whether the horse is £2K or £200K!. Also, the owners opinion is not really relevant - what come back would you have? It doesn't "sound" as if this is really an issue but I a: haven't seen the horse and b: and not a vet. While a vetting is no guarantee it means the vet can pick up things you won't or can't see.
 
Many horses with old scars pass a vetting with no issue, but the vet will still make a note of the scarring on the certificate, and it may be excluded from your insurance.

I would pay for the vetting if I were you, as it may save heartache later.
 
I would always get a vetting, just so that you are aware of any potential issues.

An old injury should not mean an automatic fail if it is just a blemish on the leg. Do you know how the injury occurred? If it is right on the joint I would be tempted to get an xray just to confirm that the joint isn't effected in any way tbh. A 6-yo with a joint issue could end up being an expensive field ornament in a very short space of time if it was to suddenly deteriorate.
 
On he basis that it costs as much to keep a lame horse as a sound one irrespective of the purchase price I would get at least a two stage vetting. Have a chat with your vet beforehand and ask them to specifically look at this old injury. There is no reason why an old injury should 'fail' a vetting but as Luci07 said, the owner's opinion of the likelihood of it causing a problem in the future is irrelevant.
 
Definitely get a five-stage done if you want one but aren't sure if it's worth it. Just because the horse is cheap that doesn't mean he's going to be healthy.

I sold one of mine for 1k and they got a five-stage done.

This horse's blemish sounds superficial rather than potentially problematic.
 
The value of the horse is relevant, if we are talking about insurance and exclusions - on a more expensive animal, the insurers would want to see the vetting and would probably make some exclusions based on this injury. For one less than (normally) about £4k, they will insure without seeing the vet certificate and so you may not have any exclusions. Depends on the insurer though.
 
I think the vet will only fail a horse if it is not up to what you intend to do with the horse.

So a horse who fails one vetting because the buyers wanted to do lots of jumping, could pass for a different buyer who only intended to hack.

IMO I would always get a vetting done (at least 2 stage) to find out if there is anything that I don't know about
 
Thanks for all your advice everyone. If the viewning goes well then I think I'll go ahead with the 5 stage vetting. It's only an extra £90 and could save me a lot more down the line if picks something up that a 2 stage won't.
Because the horse is under £2k I've been looking at insurers and you don't usually have to provide a vetting certificate, however if I do get him vetted am I obligied to provide the results of the vetting to the insurer even if he fails for whatever reason?
 
Rmarshmallow said:
Thanks for all your advice everyone. If the viewning goes well then I think I'll go ahead with the 5 stage vetting. It's only an extra £90 and could save me a lot more down the line if picks something up that a 2 stage won't.
Because the horse is under £2k I've been looking at insurers and you don't usually have to provide a vetting certificate, however if I do get him vetted am I obligied to provide the results of the vetting to the insurer even if he fails for whatever reason?
Click to expand...

Yes you are obliged and even if you didn't vet then the fetlock scarring would be pre-existing and not covered by insurance (unless committing fraud),

My advice is to vet. Then take the vets advice on whether the fetlock is likely to compromise the horse for the activities you want to do (or not).

Keep in mind that you will likely get an insurance exclusion related to it even if the horse passes vetting.
 
eggs said:
On he basis that it costs as much to keep a lame horse as a sound one irrespective of the purchase price I would get at least a two stage vetting. Have a chat with your vet beforehand and ask them to specifically look at this old injury. There is no reason why an old injury should 'fail' a vetting but as Luci07 said, the owner's opinion of the likelihood of it causing a problem in the future is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

This, they all cost the same to look after!
 
If you are worried about insurance exclusions, it might be worth talking to them before you arrange the vetting. For example if they want x-rays in order to avoid an exclusion it will be much cheaper to get them done at the same time as the vetting.

And probably important to make it clear to the vendor that your offer is conditional to results of vetting and x-rays being satisfactory to insurer.
 
I bought a 6 year old gelding with scar tissue from a wire fence incident 18 months earlier - he passed a 5 stage vetting and no exclusions were made on insurance (NFU).
 
Strictly speaking horses don't pass or fail vettings per se. The vet will give you his opinion on whether the horse is physically suitable for the job you want him to do. This would include comments on conformation if that is likely to lead to an issue that would prohibit the horse from fulfilling his purpose.

So whilst this horse might well "pass" a vetting for low level RC it is likely that it would "fail" a vetting to be event horse able to make it up the ranks to 3* for example.

You need to decide as to whether this horse is suitable for your needs if physically OK and then decide on whether you are happy to pay for a vetting and then walk away if the vet says it might not be OK for your planned use. If you like it so much that you think you might ignore any vets advice then its probably not worth paying for the vetting.
 
I disagree with Lizzie66.

A vetting is a 'benchmark' that your horse either achieves or it does not. The question of what you want the horse for does not come into it. The flexion tests, trot ups, lunging etc the horse either passes or fails, simple as that. If you actually have a vetting the vet will not commit himself to anything other than the animal achieving the standard or not. This is the unfair thing about vetting. Due to this many horses aren't sold because the animal fails a vetting but would actually be ideal for what the buyer wants. The whole system needs revising because the only people that win in this situation at the moment are vets. :(
 
Toby_Zaphod said:
I disagree with Lizzie66.

A vetting is a 'benchmark' that your horse either achieves or it does not. The question of what you want the horse for does not come into it. The flexion tests, trot ups, lunging etc the horse either passes or fails, simple as that. If you actually have a vetting the vet will not commit himself to anything other than the animal achieving the standard or not. This is the unfair thing about vetting. Due to this many horses aren't sold because the animal fails a vetting but would actually be ideal for what the buyer wants. The whole system needs revising because the only people that win in this situation at the moment are vets. :(
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case. A horse that 'passes' a vetting for use as a low level RC horse could perfectly well 'fail' a vetting for, say, a job as a serious dressage horse. The 'standard' the vet is assessing against is, or certainly should be, determined by the horse's intended purpose.
 
Toby_Zaphod said:
I disagree with Lizzie66.

A vetting is a 'benchmark' that your horse either achieves or it does not. The question of what you want the horse for does not come into it. The flexion tests, trot ups, lunging etc the horse either passes or fails, simple as that. If you actually have a vetting the vet will not commit himself to anything other than the animal achieving the standard or not. This is the unfair thing about vetting. Due to this many horses aren't sold because the animal fails a vetting but would actually be ideal for what the buyer wants. The whole system needs revising because the only people that win in this situation at the moment are vets. :(
Click to expand...

The horse does not pass or fail, unless it is obviously hopping lame and cannot be put through the vetting, it will be passed as fit for purpose, or not, so the job it is going to do will be taken into account, price should not be relevant in the vetting process as that is between the vendor and purchaser, there is nothing stopping the purchaser taking their own view on what may or may not be acceptable to them after the vetting.
I have had a few "fail" yet the vet has advised purchase as fit for the job, a vet should take into account what the horse is being sold as, a young potential event horse will be assessed slightly differently to an older schoolmaster, yes they both need to be sound but some minor wear and tear from an active life will be allowed in the older horse but not acceptable in the young one that has not yet started it's career.
 
My horse has a very similar injury. We dunno how he did it either but it still looks abnormal and other people have pointed it out before even though it's an old injury. He has zero issues with performance on anything but it makes his fetlock look ugly and the insurers make it an exclusion.They are pretty good about it though it's only excluded for that fetlock not the entire leg. I thought it would bethe whole leg since pet plan did that.

Get a vetting obviously though. Just because it's probably superficial doesn't mean it might not be.
 
Thanks for all your advice. Unfortunately the seller has pulled out as she doesn't want to sell him anymore. I'm gutted as he was a sweetie, but obviously not meant to be! :(
 
I told her I wanted a vetting last week during in the first viewing and she didn't flinch. I think she just genuinely doesn't want to sell anymore which is a shame, but hey what can you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top