Sarcoids on new purchase

P

ponykiss69

Active Member
Joined
18 May 2010
Messages
34
Visit site
Hi there
I have just purchased a horse from a breeder and after a month its coat fell off and she was covered in occult sarcoids.
The breeder had another horse, so rather than ask for my money back as I was not told of this horses condition, I suggested a swap. The new horse was 2500 more than the horse I had bought. Plus the horse with sarcoids was very poor, so I had blood test done, this registered a upped liver blood (not sure what it meant) just meant she was very poor and possible worm damage.
the breeder has accused me of wanting her other horse and so thinks I am fickle becasue I do not want the horse with sarcoids and at one point that I had made up the story so I couls bring back the horse. She has spoken to my vet who has confirmed they were indeed there prior to purchase. I have not asked for any of my money back for the 4 vet visits, the transportation etc. i am paying the extra money to get the other horse, plus the transportation of the first horse back to her and the new horse back to mine.
My question is, what is normal practice here, am I off my head to ask that she supplied me with a healthy horse?
I did get the horse vetted, it was a vetting by a vet she suggested to me and being un broken it was just a normal one.
If this other horse does not pass the vetting (5 stage) should I demand my money back, or is all lost?
Thanks
s:confused:
 
The vetting should have picked up on the sarcoids (and I'm shocked you didnt run a hand over her to feel for yourself!)
Your issue should be with the vet really, I don't see you getting very far with the seller
 
Thanks for that, shocked made me laugh a bit, she is an unhandled 3 year, face full off hoof is I had ran my hand inbetween her legs!
They are occult sarcoids, I suspect she had them last year and the seller knew they were there, they were covered in her winter coat and they are flat..
The vet should have got them to hold her down and ran his hands ovber her..
My mother breeds dogs, and most dog breeders have a care for their reputations. It seems horsey people want others to be responsible, but are scared to stand up for their rights as buyers, faulty goods are the same if its a horse, or a kettle or a car, the seller has a responsibility as well to make sure whatthey say is right, what they sell is not just passing on a problem..
 
a horse with sarcoids is not a faulty horse :(

if you, nor the vet, could touch the horse to feel the sarcoids then why do you presume the breeder was aware of them? i imagine she couldn't touch the horse either.

it sounds like the vet is more at fault than the breeder but i would think legal advice would be a good idea if you don't want the horse anymore.
 
Hmmm - I would have thought a horse with sarcoids was a faulty horse. Don't know where you stand legally though.
 
Thanks, not asking for money back, just exchange..
To be fair I am not sure where I stand either, do not want to pursue either vet nor breeder, just want a healthy horse..
Ta
;)
 
why is a horse with sarcoids NOT a healthy horse?

and if the horse was unhandled how did the vet perform the vetting? what exactly did he write on the forms are horses don't pass/fail vettings.
i would imagine if he couldn't touch the horse he would have written something to that effect on the report.
 
How can you be sure that the horse had the sarcoids prior to purchase and or indeed that the seller was aware of them? You had the horse vetted, surely this is something to take up with the vet and not the seller.

I can really sympathise with you on how gutted you must feel - my filly was diagnosed with Developmental Orthopaedic Disease within three weeks of me bringing her home. I was fortunate in that her breeder offered me a swap, which I did eventually and reluctantly take her up on, after trying to treat my filly's condition. I saw this as purely a good will gesture and would not have pushed for any more - the gelding that I ended up with was actually of lower value than the original price I paid for my filly but I was just relieved to have a 'healthy' horse - though he has proved that there are indeed no guarantees. If I were in the same situationn again, to be honest I would probably, after trying to treat the condition (if it were treatable) cut my losses and move on...

on another note... are you SURE it is sarcoids and not ringworm or another skin complaint?... i.e. have you had a biopsy done? A friends horse had a sarcoidy looking leision that even our very knowlegable and experienced vet was convinced was a sarcoid. Biopsy confirmed otherwise...
 
Mo has occult sarcoids & you dont need to run your hand anywhere to see them! She did not have them at 6/7yrs, but after she had a splint bone removed after a kick. They came out while on box rest, suspect all the upset triggered them.

I would treat it as faulty & I am also convinced that they are heriderity. Even though they have never been a problem, I would not accept a horse with them. They did go away only to return when she went to visit the stallion. Again I think it was the stress that triggered them.

You can see them all over her kneck.
MoRAFHalton5Apr09.jpg
 
For those of you who are saying a horse with sarcoids is not faulty - would you knowingly buy one with the condition? I wouldn't and I have seen posts on the forum where people are advised not to buy a horse with sarcoids.
To the op, it must be very upsetting, especially when you are having such problems with your other horse, and I do tend to think it is the vets responsibility to have picked up the sarcoids at vetting. I can understand why you are so disapponted and upset - you have my sympathy - not nuch help I know but I hope you get a resolution to the situation x
 
Thanks, sorry to hear about your horse, yes those are exactly like my horses, just round fur, some have black thicker skin in them also..
I did not know they were hereditary, nor that they were triggered by stress, so thanks for that. This really means that the vet should have noticed, but her coat was so thick...
This is why I asked the breeder to swap her, that way I was hoping it would be smoother and she did not have to give me my money back, which was probably spent!
I do think i should perhaps give up horses, seems I keep getting it wrong when I buy them, I am truley **** at buying horses, LOL!!:D
 
magic104 said:
I am also convinced that they are heriderity. Even though they have never been a problem, I would not accept a horse with them. They did go away only to return when she went to visit the stallion.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry?? You believe they are hereditary yet she visited a stallion??? i take it to get pregnant??! the mind boggles...
 
To the OP - If the horse was an unhandled 3 year old and you couldn't get close enough to run your hand along the coat I have a question..

How the hell did your vet manage to take blood??
 
I had the horse for a month and decided something was not right, by that time she was handled enough to get blood out of her..
Why the question?
What are you trying to say??
The horse is 3/4 yrs, its not completly handled, ie she is sensitive in her back area and no feet picking up without kicking etc.
You could not touch her stomach, nor her back end, she froze with fear then her natural reacton was to kick, but you couold get near her neck, answer your question, probalby not, looking for something suspsicous, something to have a pick at no doubt??
Maybe youa re a better horsewoman, maybe you think you can handle the stituation better, so you want my vets number to check it out??
You lot are bloody weird!!
 
OP

I have read both threads and replied on the other one.

Noone has accused you of neglecting your horse or anything of the sort. All anyone (most!) has said is they are sorry for the situation you are in, but to be honest it is just one of those things to put down to experience and if you should be mad at ANYONE it should be the vet.

I personally believe you are very lucky that the breeder is taking the horse back as a good will gesture. I don't think a lot would.

All you really wanted is for us all to say you are right, what a terrible breeder etc etc. But sorry, sometimes on forums people don't agree with the OPs. We've all been there!

I do genuinely hope you get it sorted and you are happy with your new horse.
 
I guess you are right...
most people at my yard who know me and the horse, have said to me they think she shoud take the horse back, but I have not asked her to do that. I am swapping with another horse, at an extra cost of 2.5k, not including vetting and transporting the horse back to her and piking up new horse, that is if it passes vetting.
What I am peed off with is the people asking why I did'nt pick it up, feel it, see it, why I didnnt know it was poor, or that young horses are poor when they grow, or why I bought it with sarcoids, or other inane questions, thats what's driven me mad, or asking if anyone smelt bull **** in one post..(trolly) as was called...
I came on this site to hear opiion on the situation not on my character, nor whether I was naive etc.. one person asked why I bought two crook horses and then was blaming someone else, erh????when my post already stated one was to replace my horse with ringbone for competition!!
Never again, not if I am going to get strange replies..
To the people who have given sound advise, like it should have been picked up by the vet, then, yes I think they are right, when I spoke to him, he agreed I might have a case..
Also not many mentioned their experiences, me thinks perhaps either lots of then have also been done over, or not many have any experience and have nothing consturctive to say..
Whatever, not much help apart from live with it and with this condition as I have read, its seems she does not stand much chance, so two dead horses, great, just whatI need, upset enough as it is with my other boy, thanks
 
Well the horse may eventually end up not being able to be ridden if the sarcoids get really bad, but from my knowledge, not many end up PTS.

The pony I mentioned in the other thread really is one giant sarcoid. Being only 12hh sometimes the underside of her does look interesting!! Has been treated every year to keep on top of them for 3 years now to keep on top of them. I would never recommend anyone buy a horse with them (why buy a problem?) but this little mare leads a useful life (in fact there a stream of kids whose lives would end if anything happened to her). They are getting worse year on year.... But even the vet said its rare for horses to suffer with them quite like she does.

Anyway, good luck! (and really, especially if he's admitted it, I persue the vet. Maybe he'll refind the cost of the vetting and/or not charge you for the next one .... if you want to use him again!)
 
OP I wasn't having a go at you and I am sorry if you think I was!

You had the horse vetted and IMO your/her/any vet should have picked this up. You relied on a vet as to whether this horse was fit for puchase and they have let you down.

I don't believe the stud should have to take the horse back or swap it as you had a vetting done and the horse presumably passed.

The fault is with the vet. I would seek redress from them especially as they seem to have admitted they should have noticed.

Good Luck and let us know how you get on.
 
mle22 said:
For those of you who are saying a horse with sarcoids is not faulty - would you knowingly buy one with the condition? I wouldn't and I have seen posts on the forum where people are advised not to buy a horse with sarcoids.
To the op, it must be very upsetting, especially when you are having such problems with your other horse, and I do tend to think it is the vets responsibility to have picked up the sarcoids at vetting. I can understand why you are so disapponted and upset - you have my sympathy - not nuch help I know but I hope you get a resolution to the situation x
Click to expand...

yes i would knowingly buy a horse with sarcoids and i have done.

some people on this forum love to be armchair critics and adore nothing more than to pick fault with potential purchases for other members for a huge number of reasons- sarcoids being one of them!

as for them being passed down from the sire/dam- proof please! :)
otherwise i'll put that bit of info in the urban myth bin along with stable vices being copied.

yes, sarcoids can be a pain in the arse but i think there is an awful lot of unwarranted hype and scaremongering.
 
Well millietiger, each to his own - I wouldn't. If they developed on a horse I already had I'd deal with it, but I wouldn't buy the problem.
 
I really feel for the OP. Its so exciting getting a new horse and such a dissapointment when this happens. I am not an expert on sarcoids but I have certainly seen them come up very, very quickly so it is possible they were not there at time of vetting. However, the vet should have stated on the vetting form that he/she could not do a full examination due to the horse not being sufficiently handled, and should have explained this to the OP when discussing the vetting. I have had vets declare fly bites as possible sarcoids in their report but tell me verbally they are pretty sure its a fly bite. They do need to protect themsleves so I am surprised the vet was not more careful. However it is done now and you need to think of the best way forward. A claim against the vet would possibly be difficult and expensive, but no harm in writing to them and seeing what sort of response you get.

Also are you are a BHS member? You can phone their helpline for legal advice. You need to think on a practical level what will be the best solution for you, whether you can swap the horse and would be happy with the replacement or whether you want to fight either the vet or the breeder and take the horse back to the breeder for a refund. Most people do not want the hassle of a legal case and for an easy life the breeder may take the horse back if you threaten them with court action.

I personally would not buy a horse with sarcoids unless the price was very, very good. I wouldn't panic too much if a current horse developed them, depending on the area and the type. I had a fantastic mare that had to be retired from work due to sarcoids. They were on her girth area and she simply couldn't wear a saddle as no matter how often they were treated they returned. I have had others that were successfully treated for sarcoids once in an unproblematic area and never looked back. Luck of the draw really.
 
CBFan said:
I'm sorry?? You believe they are hereditary yet she visited a stallion??? i take it to get pregnant??! the mind boggles...
Click to expand...

I didnt know at the time they might be hereditary for gods sake! Plus they had disapeared & it was not until they came back that they were identified as occult sarcoids. Even a vet mistook them for ringworm. The first I knew about occult sarcoids was when the TBF included an artical in one of their mags. Honestly some people on here are so quick to jump on people. Even now the camp is split, the only proof would be to know if any relatives had sarcoids.
 
relatives having sarcoids is not proof they are hereditary.

i am just concerned that like most urban myths one person plants the seed of doubt the next person along drops the 'may', 'possibly', 'could be' from the beginning of the sentence and it becomes fact.

as ponykiss69 said in response to your posting;
"I did not know they were hereditary, nor that they were triggered by stress, so thanks for that. This really means that the vet should have noticed, but her coat was so thick...
"
 
millitiger said:
as for them being passed down from the sire/dam- proof please! :)
otherwise i'll put that bit of info in the urban myth bin along with stable vices being copied.

yes, sarcoids can be a pain in the arse but i think there is an awful lot of unwarranted hype and scaremongering.
Click to expand...

Occult sarcoids are less troublsome on the whole then the other types. But as this text taken from a H&H article shows "Sarcoids can also appear as flat, slightly bumpy areas of skin with a dry, scaly appearance. This verrucose form of sarcoid is sometimes mistaken for ringworm, but it never clears up. Such plaques are often found on the neck and inner thigh. In time, they may develop into other forms of the tumour." Well Mo's did clear up after the op, she has now had them the 2nd time round for 4yrs. They have not changed much except she now has very small wart type nodulas on the inside of her thighs nr her teats. And when you read (another part of the text) "The most common skin tumour, sarcoids can be mistaken for a wart but should not be underestimated

Sarcoids are the most common skin tumour in horses and ponies and, although they may look like warts, they are locally destructive. ", then you can understand why people are/should be cautious.

We has a lovely WB at the yard who was plagued with them & it made riding him at times difficult because of where they were located & the size of them. So no I would not knowingly purchase a horse with them, nor would I knowingly breed from one (already explained Mo's circumstances in previous post). As it is thought of as a cancer then yes I also think a horse should fail its vetting (as I have seen them do), & some cancers are thought to be hereditary so why not sarcoids? They occasionally run in families so another reason to be wary of breeding from animals with them.
Text taken from Karen Coumbe's, MRCVS article in H&H
 
I am a bit :o at some of the replies you have received!

Regardless of the occult sarcoids (and for the record I would indeed be getting some legal advice as it is clear this poor mare has been sold incorrectly described) the fact she has liver damage would really concern me at 3 / 4 years old!

But sarcoids themself are a problem. They can make horses fail vettings (and yes, I know this first hand) and if found are immediately exempt from your insurance... There is so much research that is looking towards the cancerous nature... so a horse with skin cancer and liver issues to me is a poorly horse.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the Breeder should have to do anything. You looked at the horse and had it vetted. Your case is against the vet. As for trying to swop her for one that costs £2500 more, what planet are you on. Why should you expect the Breeder to loose out big time due to an inadequate vetting.
 
magic104 said:
Occult sarcoids are less troublsome on the whole then the other types. But as this text taken from a H&H article shows "Sarcoids can also appear as flat, slightly bumpy areas of skin with a dry, scaly appearance. This verrucose form of sarcoid is sometimes mistaken for ringworm, but it never clears up. Such plaques are often found on the neck and inner thigh. In time, they may develop into other forms of the tumour." Well Mo's did clear up after the op, she has now had them the 2nd time round for 4yrs. They have not changed much except she now has very small wart type nodulas on the inside of her thighs nr her teats. And when you read (another part of the text) "The most common skin tumour, sarcoids can be mistaken for a wart but should not be underestimated

Sarcoids are the most common skin tumour in horses and ponies and, although they may look like warts, they are locally destructive. ", then you can understand why people are/should be cautious.

We has a lovely WB at the yard who was plagued with them & it made riding him at times difficult because of where they were located & the size of them. So no I would not knowingly purchase a horse with them, nor would I knowingly breed from one (already explained Mo's circumstances in previous post). As it is thought of as a cancer then yes I also think a horse should fail its vetting (as I have seen them do), & some cancers are thought to be hereditary so why not sarcoids? They occasionally run in families so another reason to be wary of breeding from animals with them.
Text taken from Karen Coumbe's, MRCVS article in H&H
Click to expand...

is this quote from the vet or you? "some cancers are thought to be hereditary so why not sarcoids?"

i understand they shouldn't be underestimated (i have a horse with them :) ) but i also think there is a lot of misinformation flying around dressed as fact such as them being hereditary.

it is a cancer and most horses don't ever become sarcoid-free after having them but i do think there is unwarranted hysteria surrounding the whole subject- mainly as there is so little known about them and the elusive cure.

as for vettings- horses don't pass or fail.
yes, the vet should pick them up and note them in the report (assuming he can get close enough to the horse to examine ;)) but it doesn't mean the horse has failed- just that it won't be covered on subsequent insurance.
 
For those of you who are saying a horse with sarcoids is not faulty - would you knowingly buy one with the condition
Click to expand...

Yes I would - and have. My horse has an occult sarcoid on his inner thigh - and I purchased him fully aware of this.

I would suggest that most of us would avoid buying a horse that was showing evidence of a sarcoid on the face, head or girth areas. However, my feeling about them generally is that we tend to make more or a fuss about them than they really warrant.
 
Millitiger, the voice of reason, thankyou! There is no proof they are hereditary, and personally I do not believe they are.

With regards to the original post. People often moan about how much it costs to buy youngsters. I have no idea where you bought your horse from, but I would be deeply concerned about purchasing a 3 year old that is barely touched, seemingly too wild to be properly vetted, and is in poor condition to boot. Many of us responsible breeders spend a lot of time, money and care in producing horses that are worthy of the price tags that many deem to be 'unreasonable'. I would be mortified if I sold a horse described as above. I would also always try and keep my buyers happy and help in anyway I could if they reasonably found the horse to be unsuitable as I have a reputation to maintain - however, the person you bought this horse off does not appear to be that concerned about the stock so I am not surprised you are having trouble returning the animal.
As the horse does not appear to have been able to be properly vetted, I do not think you have a hope in hell of redress from either the vets or the seller I'm afraid. You have even less chance of getting an animal worth £2500 more than the original without paying the difference!
 
""most people at my yard who know me and the horse, have said to me they think she shoud take the horse back, but I have not asked her to do that. I am swapping with another horse, at an extra cost of 2.5k, not including vetting and transporting the horse back to her and piking up new horse, that is if it passes vetting.""

Youve bought a horse off a breeder who you are not happy with, you say in your other threads that it wasnt looked after properly, in poor condition, and you believe that the breeder has lied to you with this purchase about sarcoids and your buying another off her, AND giving her more money???

Am sorry i dont understand this. If i thought this Id be asking for my money back and going elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top