Update post #38 - Done with New Vocations!!! Misrepresenting horses with ringbone!!!

[beowulf]

@JDW;8727825

I

WOW! Really? I AM the original adopter and I can completely guarantee you, I did not just say something to “dump the horse”.

I DO have X-rays AND a vet report. And they were all given to NV.

Just saying, I didn’t say you dumped him. I even pointed out up-thread that I doubted you were lying, but other people do and that ruins things for sellers. In case you missed it: [QUOTE=beowulf;8725805]I know from personal experience people lie to return horses - I’m not saying OP’s friend did (I doubt it) but other people have and that certainly ruins trust from a seller’s perspective. [/QUOTE]

Your story is a little different than OP’s, OP said you hadn’t provided the x-rays yet. The flack in this thread is directed to OP, not you for returning the horse… the return policy is there for a reason, and I’m glad you used it… NV is an absolutely fantastic organization that does incredible things for these horses, and I’m sorry it did not work out for you but most people have very positive experiences with NV and I can speak from personal experience that they are very forthcoming via email/phone when you inquire about a horse.

That being said, “osteophyte” is NOT synonymous with ringbone/degenerative joint disease, so the OP that started this thread should edit the title. It is quite literally extra bone growth - it doesn’t have to happen on pasterns, I’ve seen it on different structures in the lower limb. Having ‘osteophytes’ is no guarantee for lameness, as it isn’t a diagnosis – abnormalities on film do not always correlate to gait irregularities or lameness. Horses can get osteophytes from hitting a jump, playing too rough in the paddock, whacking a leg etc - again, it is not at all synonymous with ringbone. Osteophytes are not always an injury so “no apparent injuries” is appropriate in that horse’s case. Now, if this was an osteophyte in the joint/bone spur, then that would be worth mentioning.

That really explains the difference of opinions via the vets, though - as some vets are not as concerned about irregularities on films than other vets

It is entirely possible that NV did resolve the lameness of their own accord and it had nothing to do with what your vet found.

[JDW]

[QUOTE=beowulf;8728181]
Just saying, I didn’t say you dumped him. I even pointed out up-thread that I doubted you were lying, but other people do and that ruins things for sellers. In case you missed it:

Your story is a little different than OP’s, OP said you hadn’t provided the x-rays yet. The flack in this thread is directed to OP, not you for returning the horse… the return policy is there for a reason, and I’m glad you used it… NV is an absolutely fantastic organization that does incredible things for these horses, and I’m sorry it did not work out for you but most people have very positive experiences with NV and I can speak from personal experience that they are very forthcoming via email/phone when you inquire about a horse.

That being said, “osteophyte” is NOT synonymous with ringbone/degenerative joint disease, so the OP that started this thread should edit the title. It is quite literally extra bone growth - it doesn’t have to happen on pasterns, I’ve seen it on different structures in the lower limb. Having ‘osteophytes’ is no guarantee for lameness, as it isn’t a diagnosis – abnormalities on film do not always correlate to gait irregularities or lameness. Horses can get osteophytes from hitting a jump, playing too rough in the paddock, whacking a leg etc - again, it is not at all synonymous with ringbone. Osteophytes are not always an injury so “no apparent injuries” is appropriate in that horse’s case. Now, if this was an osteophyte in the joint/bone spur, then that would be worth mentioning.

That really explains the difference of opinions via the vets, though - as some vets are not as concerned about irregularities on films than other vets

It is entirely possible that NV did resolve the lameness of their own accord and it had nothing to do with what your vet found.[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure our stories are really different, she may just not have realized I provided the X-rays.

Vets wouldn’t use the term “ringbone” in their medical reports, the medical terminology in the vet report was “osteophyte to the RF pastern joint extending from the proximal anterior portion of P2” which is very technical. An osteophyte is a medical term for a bone spur and it was articulating (near the joint).

As I was researching this, a lot of articles stated that “ringbone” is the horseman’s term, while vets will use more of the term “osteoarthritis”. Google “horse osteophyte pastern joint” and see what comes up.

Osteophytes don’t carry equal significance amongst the various joints on a horse. In some joints they are significant and in some not a big deal. They are indicative of arthritic changes, though, and are more manageable in some locations than others. So maybe you’ve known horses with osteophytes in their hocks or something like that, but you can’t compare that experience to this. And again, this wasn’t just a bit of extra growth in the middle of the bone.

It WOULD actually be better if the bone spur was there from a one time injury. I asked NV if they would put me in touch with the former owner to see if that was the case, but neither NV or the former owner ever followed up with me.

The thing is that his desciption “no apparent injuries” and “suitable for all disciplines” would lead people to believe he has a completely clean bill of health as far as they know. Be honest, wouldn’t you think that if you read it? BUT he has an abnormality on his X-rays that was concerning to at least the multiple vets I talked to (that is, for the use for which I had adopted him). So maybe they would have eventually disclosed the X-rays, but why build it up like he’s squeaky clean in the ad?

No one has a crystal ball here. And obviously, the vets have differing opinions. I REALLY DO hope that it’s not an issue for the horse, he’s super good minded and has a great personality. Everyone was just raving about his brain. BUT, I can’t see how it would make any sense to blow this off like it doesn’t matter at all and not to monitor the joint for changes and try to take steps to discourage progression (like make sure he’s shod appropriately).

In reading Halpasser11’s comment about the treatment she received upon returning the horse, I can say I had a very similar experience. Which was disheartening because I would have pursued another adoption BUT felt from the treatment that i got when I returned him that I was not really welcomed back.

[Lord_Helpus]

This entire story would be non event if the buyer had allowed R&R to take x-rays when the vet recommended them.

If I am buying a horse, I a looking for a long term partner or a resale project. Either way, I want to know everything. When a vet recommends x-rays, I do not presume to know better; not spending the money is a very short-sighted attitude. 99% of sellers would not take the horse back. This horse’s front feet obviously raised a red flag that the buyer chose to ignore.

I know that this thread is “not about the purchase, but about the ad”, but I definitely raised my eyebrows at the buyer’s refusal to follow R&R’s recommendation. The ‘after the fact’ x-rays makes me more sympathetic to NV’s attitude when the horse was returned.

[LilyandBaron]

I can agree this is a cautionary tale to all adopters to x-ray extensively. However, it doesn’t explain the ethical dilemma of the self-admitted “mis-edit” of the ad that was pointed out to NV as soon as it was seen (last week), but wasn’t corrected until literally hours after this thread was posted. The issue was pursued at the lowest level possible first (buyer to the KY trainer), then to the main office for NV, and finally, after ample time to correct the mis-edit, put on this forum. Integrity is doing what’s right when no one is looking, or talking about it on COTH. lol.

[Sharon]

Publicly trashing when it was not you horse is a red flag to me…granted I am a lawyer and a sceptic. Your last casual “lol” is totally inappropriate and tells me that you are the one with the agenda.

[LilyandBaron]

Agenda was met - ad was edited to correct admitted “mis-edit”

[DQ_Foxhunter]

I know you started this thread to make New Vocations look bad, but really it is you that is looking small and vindictive.
People here have told you that they are upfront about their horses, Yet you still persist in trying to make a wonderful organization look bad.

[trubandloki]

[QUOTE=Sharon;8728956]
Publicly trashing when it was not you horse is a red flag to me…granted I am a lawyer and a sceptic. Your last casual “lol” is totally inappropriate and tells me that you are the one with the agenda.[/QUOTE]

What exactly is the difference between publicly trashing and giving others a heads up warning?
When should a person let others know about something they feel is a problem and it is OK versus when is it just publicly trashing?
Because the OP of the thread is not the person who had the involvement with the horse? So this would have been OK if the person writing the OP was the person who took the horse and returned it? Oh but wait, they would have been a first time poster so that would have made them a troll so that is not OK either…

Threads like this, to me, are a chance to know how this team works. If was thinking of adopting from NV I would now know that a very complete PPE is necessary and that they sometimes, like the average horse seller, exaggerate in their ads.
Good information to have.
I do not see it as a shoot the messenger situation.

[JDW]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8728853]
This entire story would be non event if the buyer had allowed R&R to take x-rays when the vet recommended them.

If I am buying a horse, I a looking for a long term partner or a resale project. Either way, I want to know everything. When a vet recommends x-rays, I do not presume to know better; not spending the money is a very short-sighted attitude. 99% of sellers would not take the horse back. This horse’s front feet obviously raised a red flag that the buyer chose to ignore.

I know that this thread is “not about the purchase, but about the ad”, but I definitely raised my eyebrows at the buyer’s refusal to follow R&R’s recommendation. The ‘after the fact’ x-rays makes me more sympathetic to NV’s attitude when the horse was returned.[/QUOTE]

At what point did I REFUSE R&R recommendations? Did you not read my initial posting? I followed them to the letter. He did flex completely negative in his front pasterns. The R&R vet was the one that said just Xray his feet at some point for the farrier when you get home - and the only reason was to help the farrier with his angles. There wasn’t any urgency that we needed to Xray at that moment because he might have a soundness issue. LOTS of TB are shod poorly coming from the track, it’s pretty common. And there are lots of situations when a vet says “well, just do this at some point.”

And as far as 99% of sellers wouldn’t take the horse back . . . NV HAS a 60 day return policy. They shouldn’t have it if they are going to be crappy about people using it. If you go to their website and check their FAQs there is an FAQ about, “Can I have my horse vet checked?” you’ll see THE VERY LAST SENTENCE in that whole long answer is “PLEASE NOTE OUR 60 DAY RETURN POLICY.”

They even talk about the fact that you can RETURN due to LATER found soundness issues a few FAQs above in the FAQ “What if I can’t handle my new horse?”

I didn’t stomp my feet and make them take the horse back when it wasn’t their policy to do so. I wish what would have happened was that they said “OK, that didn’t work out, we have new horses coming in all the time, please keep checking and hopefully we can find you something that does work out.” I obviously took very good care of the horse, have you seen the updated pictures they just posted? He was much thinner and ribby when I got him.

I THOUGHT that me returning the horse would result in him being adopted out to someone with a more appropriate work expectation and thought it would be better for him to end up with an adopter that has been thoroughly checked out, met certain requirements, had references, etc. If you read my initial post that he was adopted for 14 year old boy, you may understand why I didn’t think the situation with us wasn’t the best for him. I wasnt being flippant or irresponsible. Sometimes things really don’t work out for very valid reasons - I thought that’s why they had the 60 day policy.

[NCRider]

[QUOTE=JDW;8729053]
At what point did I REFUSE R&R recommendations? Did you not read my initial posting? I followed them to the letter. He did flex completely negative in his front pasterns. The R&R vet was the one that said just Xray his feet at some point for the farrier when you get home - and the only reason was to help the farrier with his angles. There wasn’t any urgency that we needed to Xray at that moment because he might have a soundness issue. LOTS of TB are shod poorly coming from the track, it’s pretty common. And there are lots of situations when a vet says “well, just do this at some point.”

And as far as 99% of sellers wouldn’t take the horse back . . . NV HAS a 60 day return policy. They shouldn’t have it if they are going to be crappy about people using it. If you go to their website and check their FAQs there is an FAQ about, “Can I have my horse vet checked?” you’ll see THE VERY LAST SENTENCE in that whole long answer is “PLEASE NOTE OUR 60 DAY RETURN POLICY.”

They even talk about the fact that you can RETURN due to LATER found soundness issues a few FAQs above in the FAQ “What if I can’t handle my new horse?”

I didn’t stomp my feet and make them take the horse back when it wasn’t their policy to do so. I wish what would have happened was that they said “OK, that didn’t work out, we have new horses coming in all the time, please keep checking and hopefully we can find you something that does work out.” I obviously took very good care of the horse, have you seen the updated pictures they just posted? He was much thinner and ribby when I got him.

I THOUGHT that me returning the horse would result in him being adopted out to someone with a more appropriate work expectation and thought it would be better for him to end up with an adopter that has been thoroughly checked out, met certain requirements, had references, etc. If you read my initial post that he was adopted for 14 year old boy, you may understand why I didn’t think the situation with us wasn’t the best for him. I wasnt being flippant or irresponsible. Sometimes things really don’t work out for very valid reasons - I thought that’s why they had the 60 day policy.[/QUOTE]

You don’t own the horse but you are still trying to enforce your personal belief/judgment about his future career based on your vet report which NV’s reputable vet disagrees with by coming on here and spreading the word about your vet’s opinion of a horse you no longer own.
No offense, but I see no reason they need to put the vet debate on the ad. I can’t think of a single seller who would. If someone calls on the horse, full disclosure seems to be the NV SOP at that point so why are you being such a drama lama? Because they didn’t advertise the horse as suitable for trail riding only? From what you’ve said, I’m not sure even your vet said that. That seems to be the conclusion you’ve reached on your own.
Is it because they weren’t warm and cuddly enough when you returned the horse?

The fact that this thread is your reaction alone would make me happy to see the end of you if I were NV. And I certainly wouldn’t want to adopt out another horse to you. What if a later vet said Horse #2 might have trouble staying sound at the upper levels, you returned it, they had their vet confirm that the horse is sound enough for jumping and they readvertised it as sound for jumping. In your expert opinion, that horse would be better served as a dressage horse so you get your friend to log onto COTH about NV misrepresenting yet another horse, naming the horse by name, and they can’t move it because no one looking for a lower level jumper/eventer wants to look at it.

[JDW]

[QUOTE=TheJenners;8725775]
Maybe they don’t want to accept the rads because they have no guarantee they are of the same horse? Just a guess. Would your friend be able to get a letter from her vet assuring the rads belong the (color) (marking) (breed) horse known as (reg name)? And she can send that all along? No point in keeping rads belonging to a horse she doesn’t own anyway, and might save some heartbreak down the road for someone else.[/QUOTE]

They did accept the X-rays. I originally sent them a medical link that would only be given to the person that paid for the X-rays and also sent them downloaded versions. X-rays are all electronic / digital theses day, they don’t give you the big film pictures anymore like they did 20 years ago.

The digital X-rays have my last name and the horses name on them. They were a series of 8 X-rays, hocks and front feet, it would be pretty hard to falsify all that. Certainly nothing that could be copied from the internet.

[JDW]

Y

[QUOTE=NCRider;8729116]
You don’t own the horse but you are still trying to enforce your personal belief/judgment about his future career based on your vet report which NV’s reputable vet disagrees with by coming on here and spreading the word about your vet’s opinion of a horse you no longer own.
No offense, but I see no reason they need to put the vet debate on the ad. I can’t think of a single seller who would. If someone calls on the horse, full disclosure seems to be the NV SOP at that point so why are you being such a drama lama? Because they didn’t advertise the horse as suitable for trail riding only? From what you’ve said, I’m not sure even your vet said that. That seems to be the conclusion you’ve reached on your own.
Is it because they weren’t warm and cuddly enough when you returned the horse?

The fact that this thread is your reaction alone would make me happy to see the end of you if I were NV. And I certainly wouldn’t want to adopt out another horse to you. What if a later vet said Horse #2 might have trouble staying sound at the upper levels, you returned it, they had their vet confirm that the horse is sound enough for jumping and they readvertised it as sound for jumping. In your expert opinion, that horse would be better served as a dressage horse so you get your friend to log onto COTH about NV misrepresenting yet another horse, naming the horse by name, and they can’t move it because no one looking for a lower level jumper/eventer wants to look at it.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean by “this thread was my initial reaction”. I was NOT the initial poster, did NOT start this thread and have not used the horse’s name. I didn’t post anything for a long time but felt the need to clear some things up when people started saying that I didnt have X-rays, proof, made stuff up, provided false X-rays, etc. And now that I used the horses’s name (please check, I have not) and that I put my friend up to this - again, absolutely did not, wasn’t even aware this was all going on until yesterday (check the date I joined, it was yesterday). And where, oh where did I state that that I came to the conclusion that the horse was only suitable for trail riding?

Seriously, just trying to clear the air and be honest. Lots of people making false accusations and assumptions with no basis.

Also, I’m not calling people names.

I had reputable (multiple) vets (R&R for one). If you read my posts, I never made any official judgement or statement on the horse, was just relaying what the multiple vets told me and why I made the decision I did. I said multiple times there were no crystal balls. I said it MAY OR MAY NOT ever be an issue. I don’t think ANY of the vets are going to give you a guarantee one way or another. I HOPE it’s never an issue, but there is an abnormality on the Xray, THAT is an indisputable fact - should that information just be tossed out an ignored. It seems more fair that the next adopter and their vets should make their decisions with as much information as possible. And should I just let it go that when people start saying there is no proof, made stuff up, used false X-rays, etc?

And the treatment by NV happened before any of these threads went out, so you can’t blame anything on here for treatment that happened weeks before. Other people on this thread had similar experiences with that location, so it’s not just me or anything I did in particular other than exercise their policy to accept returns. For the sake of the horses, it would be nice if that location was more understanding about returns and made efforts to try to continue working with interested adopters because that would get more horses placed. I’m sure that job isn’t easy, but when you are working with the public or other individuals there are going to be those kinds of challenges that come with the job.

Or, if the return policy is really causes that much aggregation for them, then they should just eliminate it.

[Sticky_Situation]

A couple of things that came to mind for me after reading this thread:

1. It’s entirely possible for 2 reputable vets to disagree as to the prognosis for future soundness based on radiograph findings. I have personally experienced this with respect to a horse I had a PPE done on in the past.

2. Maybe I misread the saga, but it sounds as though the minor lameness the horse exhibited was found to be some soreness in the hind end and unlikely to be caused by the findings on the radiographs. The osteophyte was an incidental finding when radiographs were obtained to help the farrier fix up the questionable shoeing job.

3. I’ve typically heard the term “ringbone” used to describe horses with advanced arthritis in the interphalangeal joints, to the point that the horse is visibly lame on it and the bony proliferation can be felt… Not to describe horses with very early changes visible on radiographs only.

4. It’s my understanding that neither OP’s friend’s vet nor NV’s vet diagnosed the horse with ringbone … They just noted some changes on the radiograph and seemingly disagreed as to the prognosis for soundness and career recommendations.

5. The ad has been edited to remove the part about ‘no injuries’ and the horse was accepted back, and it appears they looked into the situation further with their own vet. I’m not ready to wholly write off NV as a dishonest organization because they weren’t adequately apologetic when the horse was returned.

6. The horse sounds lovely. I hope he finds a great home and had a long, sound career ahead of him, whether it’s as an Eventer or a trail pony.

[SendenHorse]

I think somethings should stay private. This is one. Airing your personal dramas makes you look bad, if you ask me.

I think most of us are aware that vets disagree, and it is the buyer who needs to remain diligent. Course i am of the opinion that all horses have something “wrong” and there will always be something on a PPE. It is up to me as a buyer to consult with my vets and farrier to come to a decision that is best for me.

I would never defer to the seller to weight the pros and cons, or give me a guarantee. There is no way they can tell what is under the surface.

Many TBs are in desperate need of homes, so it is unfortunate that one person is trying to put roadblocks into the path of getting these horses adopted.

I hate these threads, there is no way to validate any of these statements. It’s a he said she said thing. That really can’t be resolved to any real conclusion.

An ad is just a start, it’s not a legal document or any sort of PPE.

[trubandloki]

@Sticky Situation;8729164

5. The ad has been edited to remove the part about ‘no injuries’ and the horse was accepted back, and it appears they looked into the situation further with their own vet. I’m not ready to wholly write off NV as a dishonest organization because they weren’t adequately apologetic when the horse was returned.

The way I read it, it has nothing to do with apologizing.
The thread was started because NV had not edited the ad and it still said the horse had no medical findings and was suitable for any job.

I am glad that NV decided to edit the ad and this horse can now find the perfect home. He does sound like a wonderful creature.

[NCRider]

[QUOTE=trubandloki;8729209]
The way I read it, it has nothing to do with apologizing.
The thread was started because NV had not edited the ad and it still said the horse had no medical findings and was suitable for any job.

I am glad that NV decided to edit the ad and this horse can now find the perfect home. He does sound like a wonderful creature.[/QUOTE]

Here’s the thing though. If I’m looking for a horse, I’m not calling and looking at this horse. Even if I just want to trail ride. And I’m not alone. So kudos to OP and her friend. You should feel great about yourselves. Two thumbs up. Awesome for you.

[trubandloki]

[QUOTE=NCRider;8729294]
Here’s the thing though. If I’m looking for a horse, I’m not calling and looking at this horse. Even if I just want to trail ride. And I’m not alone. So kudos to OP and her friend. You should feel great about yourselves. Two thumbs up. Awesome for you.[/QUOTE]

You would have rather gotten him and then found out there was something wrong with him?

You would rather sellers and rescues not tell you up front about problems?

It is not the fault of the OP that this horse has an issue.

[NCRider]

[QUOTE=trubandloki;8729321]
You would have rather gotten him and then found out there was something wrong with him?

You would rather sellers and rescues not tell you up front about problems?

It is not the fault of the OP that this horse has an issue.[/QUOTE]

No, I’m assuming that NV was going to do what it sounds like they always do, which is full disclosure if you call on the horse. Like most sellers.
If he was the perfect horse for me, I’d rather not miss out on him because they put something in an ad that made it smart/efficient to pass on even inquiring about the horse.

I’d rather call about him, be told about the issue, and decide for myself at that point whether it was worth going to look at the horse/ having my own vet look at the film, etc.
Particularly if their own vet disagrees with the Seller’s vet.

[trubandloki]

[QUOTE=NCRider;8729331]
No, I’m assuming that NV was going to do what it sounds like they always do, which is full disclosure if you call on the horse. Like most sellers.
If he was the perfect horse for me, I’d rather not miss out on him because they put something in an ad that made it smart/efficient to pass on even inquiring about the horse.

I’d rather call about him, be told about the issue, and decide for myself at that point whether it was worth going to look at the horse/ having my own vet look at the film, etc.
Particularly if their own vet disagrees with the Seller’s vet.[/QUOTE]
Have you read the ad?
It says nothing at all that would turn anyone away. So it is right up there where you want it.
Other than the bad typing there is nothing in the ad to make you think twice about calling on him. (Unless you do not want a cribber, though using your logic that should not be in there either.)

[MoreHorsesThanSense]

[QUOTE=NCRider;8729331]
No, I’m assuming that NV was going to do what it sounds like they always do, which is full disclosure if you call on the horse. Like most sellers. [/QUOTE]

This made me laugh out loud!!

I mean, looking at the VAST number of COTH threads about horses purchased/advertised via private sale that are VERY misrepresented (size, health, age, show record, soundness, training, and on and on), it is obvious that many sellers are looking after their own best interests, and not “fully disclosing” anything.

Most horses are not unicorns – they aren’t going to go win in the AO/Jr hunters at Devon with a beginner on their back, but no small number of advertisements make it sound like that is the case.

I think many horses are going to have some irregularities show up on rads even if there is no outward sign of soreness. Some of those irregularities are something to worry about and monitor, while some will be a non-event for a 15-yr performance career. And the one horse with perfect x-rays can get kicked or pull a tendon 2 days later.

However, NV and organizations like it, are
A: often used by people without deep pockets, and those people are often not going to put more-than-the-price of the horse towards an extensive PPE.
B: As “rescue” or “non-profit” type organization, the expectation is they are looking after the best situation for the horse, and are above the petty exaggerations about a horse’s training and soundness that a buyer sort of expects when looking at private sale horses. If other NV horse/locations post descriptions that say “XX has an old bow (or whatever) and is best suited for a flatwork home”, than I’d expect a horse from the same organization posted with “no limitations” as 100% sound and issue-free for me to aim for upper level whatever. In this horse’s case, I think something like “XX has been sound since he’s been here. However his rads do show a XXX and we’re happy to provide digital copies to any prospective buyer to show their vet”. Such transparency would restore my faith in the organization.

I don’t think anyone is trying to make the horse un-placeable. It’s a sad story that a wonderfully-brained horse didn’t work out for the adopter. But it is a cautionary tale that even non-profit org-represented ‘cheap’ horses should get a full PPE with rads. (said by someone who has vetted exactly 1 of her 6 current horses)