i'm not sure what you mean that it's not all about the horse. she'll get the best of care and mates that money can buy, regardless of who ends up with her. for him, it's all about owning racehorses. she's not one anymore.

If you don't get it don't worry about it. Just drop it.

Ok, fine. But is it at least "sort of lame"?

not noticable, I wouldnt even consider 1 / 5 to be lame... but if something showed up during diagnostics then its best if the horse isnt in training.

Really so the scale of lameness starts at 2..Gotcha

She actually only played a semantics game in order to cover up her embarrassment.

What she is attempting to do, is use two different scales for grading lameness, one superimposed on another. The AAEP scale ranges from 0 to 5. "0" being no perceptable lameness, "5" being non-weight bearing lame. So clearly, any horse exhibiting signs of lameness higher than "0", indeed can be classified as lame--hence the fucl<ing notation on the vet report that the horse was "1/5 lame". In fact, a grade 1 score is defined as "lameness that is difficult to observe...". The AAEP is calling it a "lameness". What more do you need? Keep in mind, the issue is not the severity of the lameness, which is what Riot is attempting to use to in order to avoid admitting she was in error.

Over the AAEP scale, Riot is trying to use some sort of laymen's concept of lameness. If the horse isn't clearly head nodding, then it isn't lame. She's basically saying that horses with lameness grades 0, 1, 2, or 3 are not in fact lame. Only those with grades 4 or 5. Think about that for a minute.

Finally, look at her last post to me, where she basically said, ridiculously, that a lame horse is not lame if the lameness is difficult to see. She lists all sorts of changes to a horses way of going. These are all alterations in gait. The very definition of lameness.

the vet isnt even recommending treatment like shock wave. Just 60 days stall rest and hand walking.

It is something that could have become a problem with more training and racing.

Dont worry about Havre de Grace.

Nothing Riot said in this thread was incorrect.

Freddy, congratulations. You just jumped straight into 3rd year vet student status. No need to attend the first two years. They are not really about veterinary medicine.

you guys should both pat yourselves on the back.

Grade 1: Difficult to observe; not consistently apparent regardless of circumstances (weight carrying, circling, inclines, hard surfaces, etc.)

Grade 2: Difficult to observe at the walk or trotting a straight line; consistently apparent under certain circumstances (weight carrying, circling, inclines, hard surfaces, etc.)

Grade 3: Consistently observable at a trot under all circumstances

Grade 4: Obvious lameness; marked nodding, hitching or shortened stride

Grade 5: Minimal weight bearing in motion and/or at rest; inability to move




I put 3, 4, and 5 in the "lets get worried" category

Hey, we get it. You're an insider who visits the barn area now and again. But please, as Freddy would say, "have a heart".

Even Riot would not be on board with this post. Actually, that might be a point in your favor.

Again, nothing is being said about severity. You're now evading the issue, too. If Havre De Grace was not exhibiting lameness, she would not have been given a grade 1.

I dont even understand what point you are trying to make.

I'm not an insider who visits barns now and again. Though I do view vet reports 5 days per week, mostly for show horses.

Well, you didn't review this one very well, did you?

wow that was a good one.

listen here smart guy.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I dont even know 1 /20th of what Riot does when it comes lameness evaluations. If you think you are a better judge of lameness than the professional (Riot), than have at it. But you are not.

This is like a political discussion only in the paddock. Awesome.

I know zero about lameness, but I know one thing, I'll take Rollo's opinion, expertise and general knowledge over about 99% of the people here. Plus he referenced Weekend at Bernie's and Office Space in the same post. Conversation should have ended there.

Just because someone doesn't line their posts with their professional achievements and resume does NOT mean they are clueless or have no idea what they are talking about.

This is ridiculous that I have to defend my arch enemy.

I'll give her crap all day long when she says things like her vet degree makes her an expert on climate change.

But when she talks about things like lameness exams and lasix use, she's not just pulling stuff out of her butt.

yay now dahoss is here to type words yet say nothing relevant to anything!

you showed up later than i thought you would

Interesting response. Especially considering I wasn't responding to you at all. Hopefully one day my contributions here will be able to match yours.

I doubt it though. I actually follow racing instead of just pretending to.

Again, evasion.

Let's clean this up nice and neat so you can be on your way.

You:
"the vet isnt even recommending treatment like shock wave. Just 60 days stall rest and hand walking."

The vet:
"In a lesser horse we would rehabilitate, probably using stem cell therapy, but it takes a year to fully resolve, and it usually reduces a horses quality...we should stop her racing career."

Yeah, he's not recommending any special treatment...just retirement.

As far evaluating lameness, again, you have been completely turned around and bent over a barrel by Riot.

Neither Riot nor anyone else in this thread was involved in the examination of Havre De Grace, so any purported skill in lameness evaulation is irrelevent. What is relevant is that the examining veterinarian noted that Havre De Grace was "1/5 lame" on his written report. Non-examining veterinarian Riot noted that Havre De Grace was "not lame" on her DT post.

Who exactly is trying to be a better judge than whom here?