That describes ALL horses, sadly… Even those with perfect PPEs. 
5 Likes
Yes, this is how it worked. I’m sure the seller (who appears to have been at the PPE in person) wanted that deal to work and wasn’t the one who pushed that first buyer to walk away. After all, the seller disclosed to me the vet’s opinions about this lesion being operable or not… and odds of it making the horse lame in the future or not. I’ll bet it took the first buyer some time to research all that. So my guess is that the seller put the horse back on the market well after the original buyer had considered the findings in the PPE and later decided what they meant for him/her.
Splitting the cost seems fair and professional to me. After all, it is becoming (perhaps a tad) more common for sellers to offer horses for sale with a base-line set of x-rays. And here, I’m talking about 5-figure WBs on the West Coast. If that’s true, why should the first person to do a PPE fund the set of x-rays that another seller would have had on hand to show them?
I’m all for creating good relationship and allowing someone else to use something that has no value to me. But I think I’d feel like a sucker if not if the cost of those were great and an even more fair-minded seller would have already had those x-rays to show me. In short, I give back what I get. I’ll try to be the first guy to be nice, but to me, that would amount to offering to split the cost of those rads. And I’d assume that an honest seller would be happy with that deal. After all, I saved them 50% on that cost and, if they are honest, surely they’ll want to show those available x-rays to the next buyer, right?
hat is OCD’s do not disappear. The bone laid down will always look different from the rest of the bone. I have a lovely horse (the much discussed Goober) who had an OCD that had filled in by the time I had him vetted at 4. While the OCD never gave him a problem, he is now permanently unsound because of a suspensory breakdown on that leg.
[ While am absolutely sure that Goobs has a heredity disease (DLSD) the lab reported that they did not have enough nuchal ligament to confirm it. So, poor Goobs, has to have another surgery this week].
Even if he has DSLD, who is to say that the OCD did not have something to do with the suspensory breaking down. After all, we are talking about the same leg…
What are your plans for the horse/ If you want to trail ride and keep him forever, then go for it. If you want him to become a competitive jumper and are buying as a resale project, the walk away.
Wow. Really surprised at those withholding PPE from sellers just for spite.
Sure, you’re out the $2,500ish, but you’re out that anyway. The info might help the horse. What possible good does it do you to withhold it other than spite?
OP, I’m glad you dodged a bullet. Sounds like they were working the horse too hard too young, which alone will give you soundness issues down the road.
3 Likes
I agree. I am all for helping the horse, even if its handing over the xrays. If you aren’t buying the horse they are useless to you
3 Likes
It’s not for spite (at least in my case). If you’ll kindly re-read my post, I think you might appreciate why a buyer could see a seller who does not offer a set of x-rays to consider is similarly “not helpful.” All this is to say that I wouldn’t walk around accusing the other side… especially if you’d like to eventually get them to spend some money with you.
2 Likes
If I vet a horse and it does not “pass” for whatever reason I always disclose the Vet report to the seller. Often times I do believe that the seller’s do not honestly know anything is wrong. Particularly when radiographs disclose often hidden facts. My Vet will send electronically to the sellers Vet and then 2 weeks later they disappear. Not to be forwarded on nor copied onto Facebook etc. I have never had a seller refuse to accept those results. And no I do not charge them anything for those reports. The money I have spent is gone anyway. And as noted above I consider that of benefit to the horse for the owner to know.
1 Like
From a buyer’s perspective it is “helpful” if the seller has radiographs. From a seller’s perspective, electing to take a baseline set of radiographs and offering them to prospective buyers, may have some pros, but it has several cons.
Many of the “pros” are obvious. A buyer can run the films by his/her vet before making any investments in travel. It gives the buyer a higher level of comfort that a horse will pass a PPE. It can encourage buyers to travel greater distances to try a horse. If there are any issues on the radiographs, the seller can disclose them upfront; indicate the horse’s price takes the abnormalities into consideration; all but removing that topic from any price negotiations.
That said, there are plenty of reasons why many sellers don’t undertake the task of having radiographs available to offer to buyers.
-
First is the expense. The films might encourage more potential buyers to try the horse, but the value of the horse doesn’t go up despite the cost of the films.
-
Another downside is deciding what views to take. The seller might decide to offer a basic set of radiographs. However, if the seller omits certain views that the buyer decides to take in the PPE, (for example, stifles, knees, spine, etc.,) and those additional views show an issue, the buyer may (erroneously) conclude the seller tried to conceal a problem.
-
Another downside is if the buyer opts to take radiographs on let’s say January 1st, and the horse doesn’t sell right away, the date on the radiographs will draw attention to the fact that the horse has lingered on the market. The fact that the horse didn’t sell after a few months on the market may even cause some buyers to suspect something is “wrong” with the horse and discourage them from trying the horse, or at the very least, push the horse further down their list of mounts to try.
-
If the horse is a performance mount and is doing its intended job and remaining sound as evidenced by a consistent show record, having radiographs available is unlikely to generate meaningfully more buyer traffic.
-
If the seller PPE’d the horse before they purchased it and they have a strong management program, few unexpected surprises are likely to come up on a future PPE when it is time to sell the horse.
As a seller, there was a time we used to offer a baseline set of radiographs on anything priced above a certain five-figure level. We experienced all of the pros and cons mentioned above. IMO, proactively taking a 1.5Kish baseline set of radiographs before putting the horse up for sale, was not a good investment for all of the reasons mentioned above. In our experience, “the return on the investment” wasn’t there so we ceased the practice. Having said that, if we know the horse we are offering for sale doesn’t have a pristine vetting we disclose it. If a potential buyer vets one of our horses and walks away, and the PPE was released to us, we share the films with future prospective buyers. If a buyer walks away and doesn’t release the PPE to us, we’ll have views of the joint(s) in question taken and we will share them with future potential buyers.
Of course there are plenty of sellers who do pay for, and make radiographs available to prospective buyers. Sellers in Europe and some of the better sporthorse auctions come to mind.
As is often the case in the horse world, there is rarely a “once size fits all” approach. Just offering a perspective that some might find useful.
2 Likes
An interesting update on the more expansive topic of x-rays:
I asked a buddy of mine who grew up in Europe. She explained that the convention there is for the buyer to take whatever x-rays they want at the PPE. But! If the horse doesn’t pass, the seller buys those x-rays from the would-be buyer.
I love the convention of the onus for a horse’s soundness resting more squarely on the seller than the buyer. There’s so much less incentive for selling a horse to an unwitting buyer that what we have here in the states.
3 Likes
That is actually quite brilliant! Love that idea!
Interesting concept but I foresee problems applying that approach across the board.
Firstly it is helpful to note that vets in Europe tend to be a bit more forgiving than they are here in the US. You might be surprised by what may get a nod of approval in Europe versus the US.
Moving on to another issue, technically, most vets don’t really “pass” or “fail” horses. They interpret the radiographs and give opinions about the likelihood the horse will hold up for its intended use. Some veterinarians are harsher than others. One veterinarian may counsel a client to avoid a horse based on the radiographs. Another veterinarian could read the exact same radiographs and have a different opinion. Happens all the time. If the buyer’s vet advises the client to walk away while the seller’s vet thinks the radiographs are within an acceptable range, you’ll have a disagreement about who should pay for the radiographs.
Another potential issue could entail the extent and number of the films taken. Let me give you a real life example. Hunter prospect with some show mileage is offered for sale. Dressage rider likes her bloodlines, tries the mare with her trainer and decides to vet the mare. Vet starts with foot #1, notes an OCD chip and then continues to radiograph the rest of the horse. At the buyer’s direction, the number of films taken is quite exhaustive and includes the knees, stifles, neck, spine etc. The cost for the full set of radiographs is 3K and the total PPE runs over 4K including the clinical, farm call, bloodwork, etc. Later in the day, the attending vet advises against purchase of the horse based on the radiograph of foot #1. The horse is priced at 25K. Imagine how complicated this situation could become if the seller was expected to pay for the radiographs for a horse that didn’t “pass” the vet. Seller could argue the vet should have stopped at foot #1 and the seller would have a point. Meanwhile, the buyer would be miffed the seller doesn’t want to reimburse the 3-4K that was expended. Not sure you’ll find many savy business people willing to enter into an agreement wherein they are required to pay the bill while someone else calls the shots.
Finally, if sellers are required to absorb the cost of PPE radiographs from buyers that “walk away”, it will simply become another line item expense in the seller’s/breeder’s profit and loss statement. They will have no choice but to raise prices and pass that expense along to buyers. In business, there aren’t any free lunches.
Not sure if “unsoundness” in the comment above refers to the horse currently being unsound, or becoming unsound in the future. If the horse is currently unsound, conducting a PPE to include paying for radiographs seems a bit misguided so I’ll assume that isn’t what is meant here. If “unsoundness” refers to a condition that may occur in the future, we all know that radiographs don’t predict soundness. There are a lot of horses performing at the top of the sport with films that aren’t terrific. Unfortunately there are also plenty of pasture puffs with great radiographs that aren’t able to stay sound in work.
2 Likes
It seems to me that you write primarily from the seller’s perspective and with the most sympathy given to their risk. I suppose I do the opposite.
The case you mention-- buyer keeps x-raying even after foot #1 reveals an OCD. And the bill comes to $4k? That makes no sense to me… for either side. First, that’s a pretty extensive vetting. Second, that’s a lot of vetting for a horse with a problem that already (perhaps) marked the horse as “iffy.” Or perhaps OCD in foot #1 did not scare the PPE vet, such that the PPE was allowed to continue… and the buyer bailed for other reasons, but cited this one as the most unimpeachable of them.
I don’t know how this situation would have been handled in Europe. I will present it to my well-informed friend and see what she thinks. Off the top of my head, I suppose it would help for the seller to attend the PPE and maybe “pull over” and have a conversation with the potential buyer about the odds of her completing the deal at that point and the logic to taking so.many.more x-rays if the OCD found on an early view gives pause. Since the seller purchasing x-rays is a matter of social convention and not law, perhaps the seller here would be obligated to only buy the x-ray or views of the body part that broke the deal?
If I were selling this horse and the buyer had all those views and they all looked awesome, and the buyers vet, my vet and the horse’s soundness suggested that the buyer’s cited OCD wouldn’t scare off a more honest or more educated buyer, I’d purchase some of those x-rays. After all, I’d have to say the horse had been passed over once. But if I could offer all that evidence of a great-looking skeleton, and I believe that “the smart money” would be as unconcerned by the OCD as I, I’d be happy to have all that x-ray evidence to offer the next guy.
I think the reason to have the owner buy the x-rays is that, arguably, those show what the horse is for future buyers and, insofar as the seller still has that horse to sell, the next guy might as well know it. Otherwise, would you like it to be that a horse fails a PPE, no information about why or what found imperfection causes that… so that the next buyer goes through the same process to discover the same problem?
I am well aware that PPEs are not definitive and objective Pass/Fail things. I am aware that vets (and owners!) have different tolerances for perfection. It seems to me then, that the x-rays that were part of a failed PPE aren’t “incriminating” or not, by themselves. But they are part of what the next guy will do. If were buying a horse who had failed a PPE already, you can bet I’ll ask about why. Someone else bailing doesn’t scare me-- witness the case that inspired this thread. And I’ll want to see the x-rays. If you all don’t want to show me those, I have no chance to, say, bring my savvier vet who isn’t scared off by what the first one saw. Again, this is what I was trying to do. The horse is 2,000 miles from me, so it’s really impractical for me travel back there, find a vet with whom I have never worked before and now do a PPE on a horse that has some question marks. So, perhaps understandably, If the seller doesn’t want show me those x-rays, I’ll think twice before I pay to re-x-ray and end up exactly where the first buyer did.
1 Like
A very logical thought process ^ ^ ^ 
Two different situations: Vetted a mare with a slight club foot. Sound, good bred Trakehner mare, 6 yrs old. Seller offered access to a set of films done when she was 4. Comparison of the two showed rotation of significance in the club foot. I passed. I also gave the seller the relevant films because she was good enough to offer the earlier ones. Mare was taken off market, and retired a year or so later.
Fast forward 8 or 9 years, vetted another horse -lovely mover, looked sound, flexed a bit funny. OCD in stifle, not great location. Owner of this 6 yr old had shots from a couple years earlier that she thought were clean, and when I passed, she asked to buy my xrays. So I sold them to her.
IMO if seller interested in having them, why not work something out.
Absolutely. What I’m arguing for (and some of us are arguing about) is whether or not the seller should want those views and see them as worth paying for, either for their value in selling the horse with the (now required) disclosure to the next person who might ask if the horse has been through a PPE already, and in the interest of making horse trading a little bit less of a notorious business.
Just found a very new paper on the heritability and gene loci that may be implicated in Osteochrondrosis and OCD. It suggests that they may be different diseases. As I understand the previous theory was that OCD developed from OD over time. Most of the current research seems to take the tack that only a predisposition to OD and OCD is inherited; that other factors initiate the disease process. The genetics folks have also now separated bone fragments as being separate from OD and OCD in their research–or at least some of them have. That is to say that they do whole genome scans separately for OD, OCD, and OF (Osteo fragments) to look for genes that might be implicated.
1 Like
Yes, I was sharing a perspective that I thought wasn’t represented or was under-represented. We buy and sell, and have experience sitting on both sides of the table.
I would agree that it was an extensive vetting for a 25K horse. Not something I would do, but it happens. The point of the story was to illustrate that the “convention” of a seller being obliged to buy all the radiographs from a failed PPE, can be fraught with issues.
Completely agree with this. I think the point of difference might be the definition of the word “some”. If I were the seller, future buyers will be told the horse has OCD in the related foot. And I would offer radiographs of the foot. I might purchase the radiographs of that one foot from the buyer, but more likely, I’d have my own vet take new views. This way, the next buyer will have access to the films in question and be able to consult with my vet (if they choose to do so) in addition to consulting with their own vet.
I think we are largely in agreement. My only comment would be that a seller not offering to purchase all the radiographs from the buyer in a failed PPE does not mean the seller isn’t sharing what they know with the next buyer. It also doesn’t mean the seller won’t have films of the joint in question for the next buyer.
Honest sellers tell the buyers upfront what they know. Much like what happened with you and the 3-year old you mentioned in your original post.
Very interesting thread. Glad you started it.
BTW, it is a moot point, but if I were shopping for a personal horse, OCD in a hock wouldn’t scare me if it was in a non-weight bearing area and my vet signed off on it. Had one myself back in the day and he was super, super sound.
Well not buying those existing views paid for by the disappointed buyers, but paying to retake those yourself looks more like “spite” than anything I suggested. Why do that? There’s another problem relating to a conflict of interest, see below.
It seems to me that the rational and fair way to do this would be for the seller to buy the rads that caused the buyer to bail; buyer agrees to allow seller (and whoever the seller chooses) to also have full access to those rads and, I’d say, the written vet report that includes that vet’s interpretation of those x-rays. So the “some” problem isn’t as large as you make it. Rather, having the seller buy the “bad” rads and that vet’s interpretation serves all sides-- seller, disappointed buyer and next buyer-- for all to have access to that one x-ray (and perhaps the x-ray of the other foot, given the phenomenon of OCD and the questions it raises).
This way, the buyer gets a little consolation prize that perhaps eases the pain of having gotten her hopes up and spent a fair bit of money only to have nothing to show for it. It’s good business practice to have a disappointed customer leave with at least a good opinion of the seller. That second bit is the story that gets retold. But have an unhappy buyer leave with an equally unhappy opinion of the seller (and know that someone who spent 20% of a horse’s purchase price on a mere PPE is primed to be unhappy… regardless of who caused that), and you have a bad story that has legs. It seems to me that the person who spends this much on a PPE is very, very risk-averse. So being cavalier about risk is likely to go over badly as a “helpful” piece of advice. IMO, professionals and those who own land (for whom horses represent pre-tax income) and ammies who board are in very, very different positions. You will never convince “the other side” to be more or less careful and paranoid than you are; don’t bother trying… let them do the PPE their way.
Furthermore, the seller gets what she needs. if a seller told me that a horse failed a PPE, and told me why… but didn’t show me the offending X-ray but instead offered me a new x-ray complete with a glowing report from the DVM who was hired by the seller… how much do you think I’d think that x-ray and opinion were worth? I’m smart enough to know that DVMs’ opinions differ. I’m also smart enough to know that for some problems and some conformation, holding the plate at a different angle, or even using a different machine changes the appearance of fine bits of bone on an x-ray. For these reasons, it would be much better to show me the view and report of the Doubting Thomas who does not have a financial stake in evaluating the horse’s x-rays. Let me have the guy who works for me to tell me I’m wrong and the horse is A-OK. If my vet is confident that the kind of problem seen is no big deal, I don’t need to re-x-ray. If either of us is worried, I’ll pay to retake my own x-rays-- my vet, his machine and with me in attendance. Vet and I will (usually) satisfy ourselves that the particular x-ray we took is exactly the right view (or views) to get a firm handle on the problem.
1 Like
Just an add in on this matter:
This does not happen as commonly as one may think. It can still be rather patchy.
There does seem to be more horses in Europe than in the USA that come with a Tüv, x-rays, or other veterinary info. However, I have not shopped for a horse or been in the USA for about 10 years now, so much could have changed being that I only casually browse the US market.
If the seller knows of an issue they must disclose that to the buyer. It is also quite common in some countries such as Germany, the buyer can give the horse back if something is found deeming the horse unsuitable after the sale. So yes, there is more responsibility on the seller to accurately represent their horse I suppose. Horses still get sold to unwitting buyers all the time. Especially the Americans that buy sight unseen and are quite novice at doing so. I think the system is slightly better over here, but not totally better.
Even though many horses here come with a PPE and/or x-rays, I always have it redone by another vet, especially if the horse is for resale. I may be slightly paranoid, but “Ive seen some sh**” as one might say,
