Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
What nonsense. 1/5 isn't visibly lame. If you didn't know it before, you do now. You learned something. Possibly.
|
Hey, I only pointed out that the report said Havre de Grace was "lame". Your words were "the mare was not lame". Are we to believe you, or Dr. L.R. Bramlage (you know, the one who actually examined her) on this one?
Nevertheless, I'll take the bait:
Not "visibly" lame? What sort of "lame" is it?
What's the definition of lameness? An alteration in a horse's gait. How is this recognized if not by sight? Perhaps by taste? Smell?
Anyways, enough beating around the bush. Your precious AAEP defines a grade 1 lameness as "difficult to observe; not consistently apparent". It does not say it is imperceptible. Never mind that the report also notes that the horse was greater than grade 1 when trotted on a circle to the right. Don't you think that was that deduced visually?
It's this distortion of facts when pressed that makes you lose credibility on here. Just because you have a piece of paper that others here don't, doesn't mean you can pull the wool over their eyes. You might have a PhD or a degree in veterinary medicine, but the only thing you tend to throw around here is a lot of BS.