Vetting horse when shoes just removed

G

GallopingGirl

New User
Joined
21 September 2018
Messages
5
Visit site
We viewed a horse a week ago and agreed to purchase subject to 5 stage vetting. Paid a £250 deposit. Seller said that they usually remove shoes (only shod on front) for winter however vet asked if shoes could be kept on for vetting. Plan was that farrier would visit on Tuesday and vetting would be on Friday (yesterday). Had a message from seller yesterday morning to say she wasn’t happy with job done by farrier as there was a nail that wasn’t sitting right and vetting was cancelled. Rearranged vetting for next Tuesday and she messaged last night to say that she’s had shoes taken off. I’m assuming if her feet were trimmed for her to be shod then they’ll be shorter than if it was intended she would be barefoot.
Is there any chance at all this horse could pass a vetting?
 
Not really sure what you're asking. As far as I know the 5 stage doesn't include depth of hooves so why are you so worried? If the horse is sound unshod then any trotting up/work won't be a problem. From the perspective of the seller, she must know how sound the horse is without shoes or else she would have kept the horse shod? She would want the horse to pass if she want's to sell. IMO if he horse passes without shoes all the better as shoes can mask many soundness issues in the foot.
 
Thanks Tallyho!, I’m just concerned that if shoes have just been removed she could be foot sore and vetting will be a waste of time and money. I would have thought she would have had a better chance of a successful vetting if she remained shod? Can’t understand why shoes removed as vet asked to leave them on 🤔
 
GallopingGirl said:
Thanks Tallyho!, I’m just concerned that if shoes have just been removed she could be foot sore and vetting will be a waste of time and money. I would have thought she would have had a better chance of a successful vetting if she remained shod? Can’t understand why shoes removed as vet asked to leave them on ��
Click to expand...

I’m with you.
I would not be wasting any money on vetting this horse until the front shoes are back on.
 
Is the horse local? If so you could go and see how sound she looks lunged on a hard surface without paying the vet to do it. If she is fine thenn proceed.
I assume the seller doesn't really want to sell the horse? Bizarre!
 
Yes, she’s local but not sure there is anywhere to lunge on hard surface. Could trot up though and considering asking for trot up to be videoed and can send to vet beforehand. I’m wondering too if she doesn’t really want to sell 😟
 
It does seem a bit odd. I'd be inclined to wonder whether there is a soundness issue, and seller has taken the shoes off so that she can blame foot soreness for any perceived unsoundness. Taking shoes off a shod horse just before a vetting seems very strange to me.
 
I would ask for the shoes to be put back on, but if they aren't, proceed on the basis that the seller pays for the retest after shoes are put back on if the horse is foot sore.

I agree that it sounds as if the seller is trying to mask a problem.
 
At a guess the "nail that wasn't sitting right" is another way of saying the horse was not totally sound after shoeing so they are risking taking them off in the hope any lameness is overlooked by the vet and considered to be due to having no shoes on, I am not sure that I would proceed and waste money on a vetting when the seller seems to be trying to hide something.
 
My suspicions would be raised. Firstly, if the horse was only due shoeing on the Tuesday and the vetting was Friday why on earth not leave the original shoes on?

That is what happened with the horse I bought in March. She was due re-shoeing, but left. Made it a bit less convenient for me when I had to arrange shoeing double quick when she arrived, but I can understand..


1 - The horse was sound when I tried her but rather long in the foot (not worryingly so but they had been on 7 weeks already) so a fair bit would have needed trimming off, so I can understand they did not want to risk anything changing.


2 - They did not want to pay for an extra set of shoes! (although, I would happily have paid for her to be shod before she left them, but no matter).


I would also understand if they re-shod so the horse was freshly shod at vetting, after waiting a day or two afterwards.

I really can't see what your vendor is playing at.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I find it all very strange and think will wait until I’ve had chance to speak to vet before making any decision. I feel if we walk away then we’ll lose our deposit and more importantly have a very heartbroken daughter as it’s taken nearly 3 months to find a suitable pony.
 
GallopingGirl said:
Thank you. I find it all very strange and think will wait until I’ve had chance to speak to vet before making any decision. I feel if we walk away then we’ll lose our deposit and more importantly have a very heartbroken daughter as it’s taken nearly 3 months to find a suitable pony.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten about the deposit, in that case you have 2 options really, 1 if you can be there at the vetting arrange for the vet to stop and make a bit of a fuss if the pony is not sound at any point, then demand a refund of the deposit while the vet is there or take someone else to back you up, if it is fine ensure bloods are taken just in case it it goes wrong once home. 2 ask them to shoe it and offer to pay for them if they are unhappy, take cash to the vetting and only pay for them if it passes.

Having sold plenty over the years I don't understand why they messed about shoeing it so close to a successful sale, unless they were in a really bad state the vetting could have been done by now with no extra expense for them.
 
why not just go and see the horse trotted up on a hard surface and if it looks footsore walk away or ask for it to be shod and have it vetted after a week or so.. does seem very odd to me....
 
Auslander said:
It does seem a bit odd. I'd be inclined to wonder whether there is a soundness issue, and seller has taken the shoes off so that she can blame foot soreness for any perceived unsoundness. Taking shoes off a shod horse just before a vetting seems very strange to me.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought when I read the OP!
 
Thanks all, I’ve now established that there was a nail in wrong place and horse is lame as a result of this. Vetting has been rearranged in 10 days time and will see if she is sound. Planning to get a video of her being trotted on hard ground before vetting so not wasting time if she’s clearly not sound. Thanks for all the advice/help!
 
GallopingGirl said:
Thanks all, I’ve now established that there was a nail in wrong place and horse is lame as a result of this. Vetting has been rearranged in 10 days time and will see if she is sound. Planning to get a video of her being trotted on hard ground before vetting so not wasting time if she’s clearly not sound. Thanks for all the advice/help!
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Would have helped if they'd said it from the start but maybe feared you'd immediately lose interest.
 
GallopingGirl said:
Thanks all, I’ve now established that there was a nail in wrong place and horse is lame as a result of this. Vetting has been rearranged in 10 days time and will see if she is sound. Planning to get a video of her being trotted on hard ground before vetting so not wasting time if she’s clearly not sound. Thanks for all the advice/help!
Click to expand...

Vetting rearranged for 10 days time with her shod or unshod?
Might be genuine and they just didn't know what to do for the best in the situation, but it is all a bit odd.
 
I would be suspicious that there's a known lameness on that leg and this is an elborate way of finding an excuse for it if its detected on vetting.
When people start messing around before vettings it's generally because they know the likely outcome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top