Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
I'm no fan of Riot but she explained what 1 / 5 lame is and she is correct.
|
She actually only played a semantics game in order to cover up her embarrassment.
What she is attempting to do, is use two different scales for grading lameness, one superimposed on another. The AAEP scale ranges from 0 to 5. "0" being no perceptable lameness, "5" being non-weight bearing lame. So clearly, any horse
exhibiting signs of lameness higher than "0", indeed can be classified as lame--hence the fucl<ing notation on the vet report that the horse was "1/5 lame". In fact, a grade 1 score is defined as "
lameness that is difficult to observe...". The AAEP is calling it a "lameness". What more do you need? Keep in mind, the issue is not the severity of the lameness, which is what Riot is attempting to use to in order to avoid admitting she was in error.
Over the AAEP scale, Riot is trying to use some sort of laymen's concept of lameness. If the horse isn't clearly head nodding, then it isn't lame. She's basically saying that horses with lameness grades 0, 1, 2, or 3 are not in fact lame. Only those with grades 4 or 5. Think about that for a minute.
Finally, look at her last post to me, where she basically said, ridiculously, that a lame horse is not lame if the lameness is difficult to see. She lists all sorts of changes to a horses way of going. These are all alterations in gait. The very definition of lameness.