What did you all think?H&H article today re; vetting/compo

S

seabiscuit

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 July 2005
Messages
6,228
Visit site
Do you think that the owners of the horse are right to be seeking compensation? Or do you think that the whole thing was just rotten luck?

Personally I think that reading the whole story it is absolute madness that they even considered to proceed further with the sale when it appears that it was lame for a good 3/4 months before they could get it to pass the vetting...on the other hand the vet must have been convinced that all its lameness probs were due to a simple overreach and thus told them that the horse was worth perservering with. Who knows what the whole story is
confused.gif


Have to say though, that that article really did strike a chord for me having used the same vet for a vetting in the past and horse was later useless
frown.gif
 
As I don't no the full story I can only comment on what I read which is why would you spend that much on a horse that has been lame for so long and had a heart murmur?
Though I don't no how it passed the vetting after all that but that is were we don't no the full story.
But as BE show the horse did compete in a 3* after it was bought, so something isn't quite right.
 
My uncle is a vet and recently I was chatting with him about vettings and the "compensation culture" we seem to be adopting more and more and it really is a worry for vets. I think in a few years time it will be quite difficult to get horses successfully through a vetting. My uncle was saying that if the vet picks up on something they are quite sure, in their profesional opinion, will NOT affect the horse for the job it is being sold to do, a few years ago they would simply mention it to the owner so that they were aware of whatever it was but now they have to report it / fail the horse completely for minnor things because it is too much of a risk not to pick up EVERYTHING. In a way it is safer for us but when it is something minor that the horse will be passed and you want to go ahead with the purchase, it is a pain to have exclusions on the insurance because of the vettings notes, when even the vet thinks there is almost nil chance of whatever it is being a problem.
I hate the compensation culture personally and believe that all a vetting does is provide a snapshot of that horse on that day - it does not guarentee health and soundness for life.

ETA: This is just a general response - not a direct response to the story in H&H
 
Kat the horse was called Glen Corran. Sold for £186k , after being lame for months and after having repeated vettings...it finally passed the vet so they bought it. (on the advice of the vet that had been examining it throughout)
confused.gif

After they bought the horse they did 2 events on it and then never went eventing again!
 
I think the value of horses has gone up enormously which makes it much more difficult. Its not as if people are spending £3k which you can write off if things go wrong.
There is something not being mentioned maybe the owners put lots of pressure on about the horse?
 
Well serves the muppet who brought its right then!! Surely it is obvious something isnt quite right with prolonged lameness...will read full story....
 
The thing is, a vet can only give an opinion on what they see before them that day. If it is passable, the vet has to pass it or you could say they are not doing their job properly (you pay them to come and look at a horse, pass horses that, as they stand before them, can do the job you have stated you are buying it for, and fail those they belive cannot. So surely, if on that day, the horse passed everything and seemed fine, the vet HAS to pass it??). So this is where common sense has to come into play. It is obvious to anyone (I would hope) that something has been going on with it and you are taking a risk whether it is better now or just temporarily improved on the day of the vetting? (or pay for more checks outside the scope of the vetting)
I personally would not keep going back to a horse that failed so many times, but if you do, and you ask the vet back, the vet has to look at the horse on each time fairly and if one day he passes, the vet has to pass him - they can't decide before hand not to pass the horse but keep going back and taking payment surely?
The owners may have eased workload etc to make sure the horse passed and if that worked and the horse gets through every stage, the vet can only warn the buyers but not fail the horse IMO because it PASSED.
My vet has passed a horse but mentioned suspisions to me afterwards. I could have bought it with a vet cert but didn't - I certainly wouldn't have seeked compensation if I had done and the horse went lame.
 
I agree Jem with all that youv'e said. Definately sounds like a case of pushy owners here wanting a horse at whatever cost or risk..
frown.gif

Oh well will be very interested to see how this case works out!
 
Looks to me like they were looking for someone to blame when it all went t**s up!

The Insurer hadn't been told the whole story so they were not paying out, so looks like the vet was the next on the list.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Oh well will be very interested to see how this case works out!

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too!
I think some people need to take some responsibility instead of putting it all onto the vet.
They were obviously going to keep getting it vetted until it passed - then when it does they blame the vet when it goes wrong
crazy.gif

Buying a new horse is always risky because the change in lifestyle can bring out issues that would not be obvious at all before so IMO they deserve what they get for loosing common sense and pursuing a horse that common sense would tell you not to! Not that i'm harsh or anything
wink.gif
 
personally feel quite sorry for jenny hall she has had a really hard time this year and who is to say thet the new owners didnt break the horse at the events they did run it at. Hope i get called as an expert witness....
 
I agree readyteddy,l really like and rate Jenny l use her practice for my horse,she always remembers everything about my horse,always asks how we are going and makes time to chat plus l think she is a bl***y good vet,l hope the claim will be chucked out
 
Found the article quite confusing as it stated at the beginning that the vet knew the horse had a heart murmur, but it didn't say whether she told the buyers.

Also, to my mind if the horse competed sound for 6 months I don't see they've got much of a leg to stand on. Well that's what I think, but the law is an ass. Do you remember a similar thing happening to the show jumper Rob Hoekstra?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top