Why do people caution against using sellers own vet?

ycbm said:
Nobody is assuming all vets are dodgy.

The point is that it is absolutely known that at least one vet has in recent years been prosecuted for colluding with sellers to pass unfit horses. And nobody can easily tell from the outside which one of a thousand vets that bad apple is going to be. Which is why it is never absolutely safe to use the seller's vet unless you know the seller well, preferably both the vet and the seller, and not always even then.
.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. It is better to be safe than sorry.
 
It's not so much that dodgy dealers are in cahoots with dodgy vets. It's that any seller who sells a reasonable number of horses each year knows fine and well which local vets are very risk adverse when it comes to their vetting methodology and findings for vettings and which ones are more likely to put a pragmatic/optimistic spin on findings.
 
Last edited:
Depends on what I am buying, for how much, and from whom. I bought my schoolmistress from someone I knew, not much money and 1000 km from me, so had her vetted by their vet. That having been said I needed her only as a confidence giver, and knew that I would not be expecting much of her. The other 2 were seen by my own vet, who in 1 case was also vet for the seller. In the past when buying for more money I have always tried to have my own vet look at them, mainly because he will be the one caring for them, but when buying from abroad I have had local vets and paid my own to co-ordinate process / look at results / liaise with them. When selling I always offer option for buyer to have their vet be put in contact with mine, and I insist that they receive full history (vet just prints off records and I attach to contract) so that there cannot later be questions. That having been said horse insurance is not common here, in fact I do not know anyone who has it, so there is no problem with exclusions.
 
Sossigpoker said:
If a vet does a lot of vettings for a dealer , say, even if they're not dodgy, it's not in the vet's best interest, financially speaking , to be too critical. Sadly this happened to me. I have such excellent vets here that for following purchases I've paid them extra to come a bit further to look at prospective horses.
Click to expand...

The same is true for houses.

These days, in my neck of the woods, real estate agents have an inspector provide a report on the state of the house they are going to sell for their client. Presumably some buyers don't organise for their own inspection.
 
Or do you mean the vet passes a horse to keep a seller happy. Well maybe but I just think they are more professional than that. My vet certainly is,
 
I know someone who was badly stung by a seller and sellers vet during a vetting. Vet got official reprimand from the governing body as a result. It was very messy and buyer could not get money back despite trying via court. Seller was an event rider who competes at 5* level!!
 
It is a difficult one, and I would agree with Ample Prosecco that the vast majority of vets would be too professional to pass a horse just to keep the seller happy, but I do believe that my own vet is more likely to pay closer attention to what I want to do with the horse, and would therefore perhaps be more likely to suggest additional investigations if he had a 'niggle' over something. As an example when I bought my schoolmistress we did only a basic vetting. He knew that I had not ridden for 6 months, was not expecting much of her, and that I accepted that as an older horse she may become a pet. My others we did a more detailed check, because by this stage I wanted to do a bit more with them. I have never insured, but I do think think that this issue makes things very difficult for buyers. I like to know what I am buying, but if I had to insure would I be less keen on the basis that finding evidence of an old and irrelevant injury might result in exclusions? Not sure about this, but maybe yes.
 
The vet may not deliberately be favouring the seller but I think there's a danger of unconscious bias with using a vet who is familiar with a horse / seller. For example, Monty has a very strange action with one back leg - he sort of twists his hoof clockwise as it's on the ground before picking it up and putting it down straight again.

A vet who doesn't know him or me, looking at him completely objectively might well fail him for that but a vet who knows us might (unconsciously) think 'oh that's just Monty and his odd way of going and I know he's doing well at riding club and Annagain's a decent, responsible owner who would have brought him to me if she thought it was a problem so it must be ok.' That doesn't make him/her a dodgy vet, just human. There would be nothing to declare on that leg (as it never has been a problem) either so there would be no benefit to having his history.
 
I would usually recommend not to use the vendors vet - however on my last purchase we both used the same vet practice, Rossdales, the vendor was on the Racing side and I am on the Sport/Leisure horse side. I was vetting mainly for insurance purposes so I was not too bothered. I also was able to get full disclosure of the vet records because the owner gave permission. I knew that this would mean that I would have an exclusion on her knees but I wanted to see the x-rays of those. We were able to make a better decision on her being fit for my purpose with these and it saved me paying more money to repeat X-rays that the practice already had on file. We did use different vets from the same practice so I was happy that the conflict of interest was low.
I also knew the vendor well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top