[QUOTE=Dune;3400221]
This is something that I hear time and time again. They can’t keep every top horse, and quite frankly, most of us going over there don’t need the “top” horse. There are plenty of very nice horses left over.
Actually the original point of the story WAS the OP’s purchasing in Europe story, not how to buy horses here in the US. I think that’s part of what is chapping folks’ hides. :yes:
Yes, insert my puzzled look here.
Ditto that.
There are some very valuable comments in this post.
No vet does a pass/fail type of PPE anymore. IF you are present they may SAY something to you, but typically your vet report is going to look like Bellfleur’s.[/QUOTE]
I am using the word pass as a proxy for a conclusion that there is nothing to indicate that the horse is not sound or has physical limitations.
I should restate, my vet does not pass/fail either, its more about what we can live with, and if the findings are in correlation to the age and experience of the horse.
But there is a big difference legally and in terms of the practice of veterinary medicine between saying something is not likely to be an issue at a certain level of performance and saying a horse passes a check.
No vet in my area will pass or fail a horse. They just do the exam and report what they find. If there is an issue about which more information might be needed, they might recommend other tests. But they don’t say a horse passes or fails.[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree, and really don’t want to get into a semantics argument. I have owned horses almost my whole life and have never seen a PPE report saying PASS or FAIL. I was using that terminology as a proxy. But I do hire vets to do PPES to (a) identify any issues; and (b) to the extent there are issues, advise me whether these are something to be worried about, or likely to become a problem, based on their experience.
My question is really simple, and no one has answered it. Would a vet report in Germany typically contain language that is more unequivocal than a declaration that the horse is “sound in limbs, etc” to indicate that the conclusion of the exam is that despite some findings, these findings are immaterial to the soundness of the horse under saddle?
Just wondering the age of the mare at purchase, and the year of purchase and if the buyer was able to get full mortality, major medical and loss of use insurance on the mare at time of purchase. Anyone?
Talloaks
Just wondering the age of the mare at purchase, and the year of purchase and if the buyer was able to get full mortality, major medical and loss of use insurance on the mare at time of purchase. Anyone?
That’s exactly the thing. No word of “loss of use insurance” was mentioned, buyers just think they should get reimbursed from their agent or the vet or whom ever…
If it was so easy to get reimbursed from an agent, vet, seller - nearly nobody would need a “loss of use” insurance anymore. It’s beyond me, why somebody would buy horses - not to talk expensive horses - and have no “loss of use”?!
Right then and there you’d even see if the insurance would accept the horse and I highly doubt it with this vet report.
My question is really simple, and no one has answered it. Would a vet report in Germany typically contain language that is more unequivocal than a declaration that the horse is “sound in limbs, etc” to indicate that the conclusion of the exam is that despite some findings, these findings are immaterial to the soundness of the horse under saddle?
Having had some experience reading medical reports in the US, not Germany, I interpret that to mean that the horse looks good at first glance; ie the cursory physical exam (eyes, ears, heart, lungs and limbs) have no obvious physical deformities or problems. It is the vet’s initial observations. This is a customary statement so the practitioner is not accused of doing tests inappropriately. For example, say the horse had a big piece of its hoof missing or a serious wound from an overreach, and proceeded to do a soundness exam that would be unlikely to give meaningful results for the the horse’s overall condition because of the obvious injury. Doctors make statements like this to build a record to protect themselves from the potential of future charges that they are performing unnecessary or inappropriate diagnostic procedures (bilking their patients). It is their standard of practice, entirely normal.
Having found no outward deformities or obvious injuries, the vet then moved on to a more specific tests, in this case a soundness examination and reported his findings.
Just wondering the age of the mare at purchase, and the year of purchase and if the buyer was able to get full mortality, major medical and loss of use insurance on the mare at time of purchase. Anyone?
Actually I think Bellfleur said she did purchase LoU insurance on the horse but that the company declined to pay because the vet report showed the problem to be pre-existing.
But Bellfleur already posted that that the insurance company, after she had paid her premium, denied coverage because they agreed with the US vets that the mare had preexisting conditions before her PPE in Germany. See one of Bellfleur’s last posts - she clearly states that the insurance was denied.
Another question. There has been no report of ultrasound for the tendons. I ASSume that the vet in question has one since he diagnosed Brentina?
We had a local vet send my less then $10,000 US filly to Morven (Equine Hospital - re: Va Tech) to have her tendon ultrasounded because he found a tiny, pea sized bump. He strongly stressed to the buyer that it needed to be done before continuing with the PPE to make sure it was not going to be an issue. I would think with the kind of money involved in this sale, any soft tissue finding, the buyer would have been given the same recommendation. WOW, vettings are SO much different in Europe!!! :eek: Talk about a lower standard!
[QUOTE=Horsejudge;3400355]
That’s exactly the thing. No word of “loss of use insurance” was mentioned, buyers just think they should get reimbursed from their agent or the vet or whom ever…[/QUOTE]
When I asked an equine insurance agent about loss of use insurance, I was told that no guarantees could be made–that the insurance company would make the decision as to whether the horse was really unable to be used, and what for, and might or might not pay off or how much. And if they did pay off, they would then own the horse. The insured might be able to buy it back at a salvage value, but maybe not, would be up to the insurance company.
So loss of use insurance, as it was described to me, may not be a panacea unless for a high-end competition horse without a lot of emotional attachment.
Except for that PPE reports are not written as they go. The vet goes back to his office, does a write-up from his notes, and that is what the client gets.
[QUOTE=Horsejudge;3400355]
That’s exactly the thing. No word of “loss of use insurance” was mentioned, buyers just think they should get reimbursed from their agent or the vet or whom ever…
If it was so easy to get reimbursed from an agent, vet, seller - nearly nobody would need a “loss of use” insurance anymore. It’s beyond me, why somebody would buy horses - not to talk expensive horses - and have no “loss of use”?!
Right then and there you’d even see if the insurance would accept the horse and I highly doubt it with this vet report. [/QUOTE]
I believe Bellfleur DID address the insurance issue, if you look back over her recent posts. According to Bellfleur, the horse was insured but the carrier denied coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, and told her that one cannot insure against fraud.
By the way, I recommend that anyone who can get insurance do so. I am a huge proponent of insuring horses.
Except for that PPE reports are not written as they go. The vet goes back to his office, does a write-up from his notes, and that is what the client gets.
True, sometimes but not always. My vet has a questionaire for both the buyer and the seller to fill out. And one that he does as the exam progresses. Sometimes what you get is a copy of those handwritten documents.
Regardless, that is the standard format for any medical report; initial observations to more detailed findings. It doesn’t matter when or where the report is written, that is how they are usually done.
I am sure a vet would do anything reasonable diagnostic procedure the client consented to, even in Europe
Not sure what you’re talking about, Fairview, or if you’re joking around - I could have had ultrasounds done on my horse in Europe, it was just a matter of did I want to pay for it or not. It wasn’t included in the base price for the PPE - but it isn’t included here, either, it’s an extra charge.
They DO have ultrasound machines in European veterinary clinics.
FWIW, “pedal osteitis” is a ‘description’; not a diagnosis.
Bellfluer, I am sorry for your expensive lesson. Regardless of what some of the posters here said you should have done, seen or interpreted from the vet report, thus their lack of sympathy, it was totally unethical for anyone to have put that mare on the market as a riding horse. She was represented to you as a riding horse and not a broodmare. Perhaps Dr. Cronou did not know her but I’m sure many of people involved with the sale knew she had suspensory injuries in the past that would affect her future soundness.
Suspensory injuries are tricky too. A horse can recover and be totally sound but it is never as strong as it used to be so easily reinjured. I learned my lesson about 10 years ago, importing a schoolmaster that was sound for the vetting but had an old suspensory injury in the hind leg. It was not swollen or palpable during the vetting. Horse went off after about 4 months with regular work and surprise! He had an old injury that was now worse.
I’ve have had some bad experiences myself on horses with very ‘good’ vet checks. I bought an auction horse that had three missing lower teeth and when he got home he hung his tongue out the side. He sure didn’t at the auction. And no, I didn’t look in his mouth before I bought him. Duh…what was I thinking? I was told it must have happened ‘en route’ because the vet over there ‘clearly would not have missed something like that.’ Well, the horse was only 3 and the teeth are small; the fact is that he did miss it. It’s a long story but the lesson that I learned is really, you have to know the horse you’re buying or be your own detective and once the money crosses the pond, that horse is YOURS.
On the other hand, as a seller, I am as honest as they come and disclose EVERYTHING I know about the horse. I have lost many sales because of this. In my sales agreement I state: there are no warranties, implied or expressed. This is to protect me, the seller. It goes both ways.
I very much appreciate you posting with candor about your horrible experience even though some of the responses have given you the ‘duh’. Perhaps you have opened several eyes to the fact that buyers should go to greater lengths to research their purchases and get more than one opinions on the PPE findings and interpretations.
That was nasty - I have no lack of sympathy for the person and I recognize that it could just have easily been me - i have, in fact, made many of the same mistakes she did. saying someone made a mistake doesn’t mean one has no sympathy - quite the opposite - but there is an awful lot of ASSumption going on on this bb lately. I’m saying what else she could have done and hoping it helps her not get ripped off again. and i DO have sympathy - i’ve done many of the same things and it is much better to have a process that protects you.
The point was, that HERE, a tiny bump on a less than $10k horse had the vet stopping the PPE, contacting the buyer, and recommending to ship to the EMC for an ultrasound to rule out a problem before continuing with the PPE. If that is not done in Germany for a $$$$$$ horse, that leads me to believe there is a MEGA difference in vetting standards. Of course it is not included. ALL vettings begin with a base, and if there is a question about something, the vet discusses the finding with the buyer, and recommends investigating the issue. Why was this not done, or IS not done in Germany with an Olympic Team vet?!?!?!
it was just a matter of did I want to pay for it or not
Do you really think if the Olympic Team vet recommended ultrasounding those tendons, Belfleur would have not spent the extra $50.?? In the US, that is what the VET’s job IS - to recommend addiitional tests if they have a question.
So this vet had no question about the flexions or the tendon findings on a $$$$$$ horse to not recommend further investigation? OR was he so comfortable with that finding that he did say it wouldn’t be a problem without an ultrasound?
Or did the vet really think he was stopping the vetting due to findings and the buyer would not go forward with the purchase? Do you guys believe this vet was telling the buyer in the report that the horse was not suitable? Why did the verbal not back up that then? Vets here are quick to say they don’t think a horse will hold up due to a finding. Why was that not done, but the opposite, verbally?
Sure seems awfully slimy to me… Or a very scary difference in vetting standards.
I don’t think that vets usually know the asking/selling price of the horse they are vetting, that is not part of the PPE. For all the vet knew the price could have been 20K. Also was the horse vetted for performance or for breeding?
In the US, they do ask what the horse has been doing & intended use. Showing at Grand Prix would have given a clue to the price tag. We are not talking about a BLM vet out west in the US.
