Goodness knows I couldn’t pass a flex test LOL
Goodness knows I couldn’t pass a flex test LOL
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by headsup:
But what does 100% mean to you? Does that mean flawless x rays, 0 on flex tests, not an issue on anything? Does a horse like that exist? I’ve vetted conformation hunters that had something somewhere…<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
it means the vet didn’t FIND anything, not that there wasn’t anything to find!!! 
LOL - well most sound horses don’t trot off sound after a flexion - it’s all about how quickly they RECOVER!!!
I on the other hand, would still be limping as I jogged back to the vet!
But I think that most experienced horse people understand that there are more 100s in the hunter ring than in pre-purchase exams. The problems come when less experienced people/newbies buy horses and a) ignore the vet’s explanation of what the pre-purchase means or b) are not part of it, because it was handled by the broker/trainer, and said broker/trainer doesn’t do a good job of explaining or c) all of the above.
Several years ago in pursuit for an event horse we found a WONDERFUL preliminary level part wb gelding who my sister fell in love with. This was one of the coolest and most amazing horses I have ever seen! Anyways the vet failed him in the vet check (flexion tests) and advised us not to buy him, even though we would have downgraded him a level and use him for dressage as well.
Well he was bought cheaply by somebody else who decided to take a risk because they couldn’t pass up the opportunity to own such a well trained and schooled horse. Years later he was winning 3 day events up to the Advanced level then continued a very successful dressage career… BUM! still kicking ourselves for passing up that horse!
I agree with DMK, that the intelligent, experienced horse person knows that no horse will ever vet 100%, and also knows to ask what the vet’s bottom line opinion is on predictable future health. I expect a vet check to give me information about a horse so that I can make a more informed decision on whether or not to buy, based on a reasonable assessment of the animal’s physical abilities, strengths and weaknesses as they relate to the intended use of the horse. I think the inexperienced and/or ignorant also have a mistaken idea that a vet check is some sort of guarantee of soundness no matter what, beyond the point where the vet turns his/her back.
And then we have the “vets” that won’t pass anything for fear of recourse. I have yet to find one that would be super Mr. Clean.
It is a dilemma, what you can live with and what you can gamble on. Goes back to that not gambling with guilty money I guess.
“The older I get, the better I used to be.”
I just ask as I had one on my sale horses vetted yesterday and was listening to the vet through the vetting. Of course there were things I liked as well as things I didn’t like about his procedure(flexing 8 times on each leg was excessive in my opinion), but I found him thorough in his exam. But as I watched the buyer(who was present for the entire exam) I wondered if she understood that this was ONE vet’s educated opinion for ONE day of this horses’ life…
If I’m talking about that unbacked 2-year-old, then yes, 100% means clean x-rays, 0s on the flexions and hoof testers, and otherwise excellent health. If all the horse has done is stand in the field and grow, then I do expect its vetting to be totally clean.
As I said though, a horse that’s had even moderate work would and should not be held to that standard.
Bottom line, its a crap shoot–I had a friend whose horse had picture perfect legs and conformation and passed its vet beuatifully, and was mysteriously lame for 8 of the nine years she owned him. I had another friend who vetted a horse and was told it had the worst navicular x-rays the vet had ever seen. Bought the horse for half the asking price andended up competing it at preliminary level for 5 years BAREFOOT including two one-stars.
You just never know.
I think it depends on how experienced the buyer is, too.
You know, I always get a thorough vet check including xrays and the works, but it’s all such a crapshoot. I had a horse who just floored the vet. Apparently never saw one with legs so clean. Barely had anything to say. Had him a long time, went lame just once with a digital flexor problem. Died after a colic surgery. 
My friend has a GP horse that the vet told her flat out not to buy (especially for six figures!). HUGE holes in the navicular, along with other problems. Horse hasn’t taken a lame step and has been doing his job for years.
It’s nice to know what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT become an issue, but talk about no guarantees! 
To me, a vet check is simply an evaluation of the horse’s present condition. It is not a pass/fail thing. I compare the wear and tear on his joints to what the owner claims the horse has done, factor in age and whether or not he’s raced.
Flex tests should be used for comparison purposes only. If you’re looking at a 7 year old, who was broke at 3, been jumping since he was 4 and has miles on the A-circuit, then I would expect that he take several off steps in a flex test. The number of uneven steps should be comparable in each pair of legs, i.e. if he takes 3-4 bad steps on the left front, he should take 3-4 on the right front.
Excessive variation would concern me more, i.e. two bad steps on the left front and 8 bad steps on the right. Why are the joints/soft tissues in the right front not wearing like the joints/soft tissues in the left front. Was there an injury? Was the horse drilled constantly to the right because of stiffness? Is the horse dreadfully one-sided? Is the one-sidedness because both horse and rider are weak on the same side? Is it because the horse was ridden while injured and the horse overused the joints on the right fore to compensate for pain in the left fore?
Age and history are also factors. I would not expect any unevenness or excessive recovery times (past 1-2 steps) for a 2 year old. I would suspect duplicity from the owner (masking drugs)if a 12 year old seasoned campaigner had but one bad step. Those would be red flags and make me more leery of the horse than 5-6 recovery steps on each front and hind leg. If I really liked the horse, then I would investigate further as to why the unevenness (i.e. X-rays), otherwise, I’d say, “Stop” Thanks for your time, and cut my losses.
It is sort of like a car. If someone says it is 2 years old and has 30,000 original miles, mostly highway on it and nothing has been replaced, I’d expect to see fairly worn tires, somewhat worn brakes, not a lot of wear on the gas or brake pedal, and no leaks. If I see a car with a heavily worn brake pedal, plentiful tread and a pool of transmission fluid under the car, then I would suspect the stated useage (experience) and maintenance (care) were not as represented. The car would either have more miles than stated, the tires have been replaced to hide something (worn front end parts??) and either the driver rose with his foot on the brake pedal down the highway, or the car was an NYC taxicab.
What I do, I do for my horse, and thus I do for myself~me
My present horse was clean legged due to no work when I looked at him as a coming five year old. My Vet was able to warn me of what problems he might experience due to his conformation. This was very helpful at stemming any future problems.
To me its all about the total history and the percentage game–as well as what you and your sport can “put up with”.
If I’m buying an unbacked two year old (which I’ve done) sorry, but he better vet 100%. If I’m buying a going event horse (done that too) then I’m going to be more understanding of imperfect x-rays or flexion tests.
Similarly, we have horses that get sold out of the event circuit because they “aren’t sound enough” but end up having long and frutiful careers as, for instance, hunters. In this case, they aren;t sound enough to do CCIs anymore, but three fott courses are a breeze.
Conversely, I had an interesting experience when I was vetting the track horse I bought in Feb. I told the vet I wanted a horse that could stay sound enough to do lower level eventing–ideally a CCI*, but since this horse was about me getting back into the competitive swing of things (and getting a confidence boost)if it never went above novice or training, that was fine too. Well, the vet heard the word “eventing” and almost didn’t even want to look at the horse. It was like all she could envision was the stress that the Olympic level horses compete under. This horse was 6, had raced 40 times, and “passed” the hoof testers, flexions, and x-rays. He had some cosmetic edema on his front ankles (no correspongind problem on the x-rays) and his hock x-rays “showed wear”. Despite the fact that her exact words were “I couldn’t make him lame”, she was sure he wouldn’t work. I was like, dude, he raced 40 TIMES and he passes the vet?! Nothing I ask of him will EVER be that hard on him.
She just couldn’t believe it. I had my vet (who is a friend and knows exactly what I want to with the horse) the x-rays, and she was like BUY HIM.
So I did, and he’s been great.
But what does 100% mean to you? Does that mean flawless x rays, 0 on flex tests, not an issue on anything? Does a horse like that exist? I’ve vetted conformation hunters that had something somewhere…
I am old enough to remember when that was the standard we vetted for (of course that was back in the good old days when vets would routinely give you an actual opinion - yes, I would recommend buying this horse, or no, don’t buy it!)
Serviceably sound meant that you could be reasonably certain that the horse would hold up to the work you were going to do (as described to the vet.) It did NOT mean 100% sound, perfect xrays, 0 flexion tests etc… It was assumed that a horse that would be suitable for one discipline might not be suitable, soundness-wise, for something more demanding.
My current horse raced til he was 6, with moderate success. He was retired from the track with some jewelry on his left hind ankle which has never bothered him (although he did tell an animal communicator, when asked whether he LIKED being a racehorse - that he liked it except for when they put wrapped his LH really tight, hmmm!)
He “failed” the vetting I did based on having poor feet (typical shelly, thin walled TB feet, two of which are WHITE.) My godlike current farrier has done wonders with him over the last seven years and his feet now LOOK super… as long as he is wearing shoes. They look much better than they actually ARE… but still, have had no problems to speak of. We went through some hock soreness a few years ago, which I treated with injections twice before the hocks fused - have had no problems since.
He is generally quite sound even on aggressive flexion tests; certainly much sounder than I am. It is possible to make him take a sore step in front if you really work at it, but it lasts no more than a step or two. Not bad for a horse that flunked!!!
