It's Got A Fractured Sesamoid, But Don't Worry, It's Nothing

I wonder how many buyers at Magic Millions and Sydney ‘Easter’ will give x-rays the flick in light of the findings of the University of Melbourne’s study into yearling x-rays announced at last week’s International Breeders’ Meeting?

Not me, for one. My clients usually insist that the due diligence be done and I’m not about to start dissuading them.

The study, said to be the world’s largest, is reported to conclude that the most common bone abnormalities revealed in x-rays have no effect on subsequent racing performance as two- and three-year-olds. (Does this mean they also know the contributing reasons for horses’ non-performance or career-limiting problems?)

If one accepts this finding, then the value of x-ray scrutiny, surely, is to check for yearlings which have uncommon bone abnormalities, rather than leaving it to chance?

It’s all very well for the researchers to reach their conclusion, but they don’t have to come up with the readies to buy these things. Their conclusions are based on a broad sample and are not specific to the horse you’re just about to spend half a million on.

It's a long bow to suggest that cot-cases don't come to the sales any more. Unless the vendor disliked me (a possibility I admit) then why did one tell me outright in Melbourne last week that his horse had a serious problem on x-ray and that I should save myself the bother? (The yearling sold for a price consistent with its paper value).

With the major sales upon us, I can understand Aushorse jumping at the opportunity to echo these findings though I find it somewhat disingenuous. It sounds like Aushorse is giving good advice to would-be buyers but to my way of thinking its stance serves the interests of its constituents more than the buyers. I don’t see what it stands to gain by subtly devaluing the worth of x-rays.

The way I read the press release, the study’s conclusions were equivocal. There were caveats attached to most of them and it seems to me the only way to know if those caveats apply is to actually look at the x-rays, especially if they reveal conditions for which “time” is the prescribed remedy – a commodity so many owners and trainers are unwilling to invest in. Many young horses are ruined by bad management and if x-ray analyses can prevent that happening then they are worth every cent we pay for them.

In my experience, most buyers get their vets to do both a clinical examination and an x-ray review prior to bidding on a horse likely to cost a substantial sum of money.

The key is how the information is dealt with, relying on the skill, experience and judgment of the practitioner together with the opinion of the intended trainer or experienced advisor.

Since x-rays became routinely available, we may have become over-sensitive to the effect of certain conditions; this study alerts us to that. Time and patience cure many things, and we are familiar with famous examples of x-ray-rejected yearlings, e.g. Elvstroem, Unbridled’s Song etc. But on the other hand would you prefer to buy a horse not knowing if there was a major skeletal problem? Experienced interpretation of x-rays at least gives you the choice. The vendor won’t always tell you.

It’s not a black-and-white matter. There are swings and roundabouts.

From recent personal experience, an adverse veterinary opinion led to my client and I not bidding on All American last year. By the same token I know of a buyer who won’t look at x-rays who paid a very substantial six-figure sum for a filly with a fractured joint, and that filly never raced. Perhaps it was just slow.

Veterinary opinion is subjective. A colt I selected at Sydney Easter last year was vetted by Vet A and ‘failed’ categorically. Because we were keen on the horse, I sought a second opinion from Vet B, without telling him that anyone else had looked at the colt. He reported back that the horse was a low risk pass. Then I asked, “would you be surprised if I told you that another vet had failed him?”. Vet B, one of Australia's best-known, said in his opinion there were no possible grounds for reaching that conclusion. So we had to make the call primarily on the basis of the relationship/history we had with each of the vets. We bought the colt. Time will tell. I’m heartened by the study’s findings!

The report on Breednet quoted researcher Dr Chris Whitton as saying, “There were 8 types of lesions that had no effect on performance including….sesamoid fractures”. It’ll be a great comfort to my client when I tell him I’ve bought a magnificent yearling “but, oh, by the way, it’s got a fractured sesamoid but don’t worry, it’s nothing.” Not every client is a university researcher who understands these things! Most would immediately think of a plaster cast, crutches or wheel-chair for the horse, and a contract killer for me!

For many who would like to know what the x-rays contain, vet fees are proving a disincentive. Often it's the add-on costs which people resent incurring and therefore they cut corners.

It's quite expensive to obtain a professional opinion and there are buyers who feel they are contributing, in effect, to a slush fund for vets.

At Karaka in January/February, I used two Australian vets to evaluate horses. One charged $125 per horse for clinical examination and x-ray review (and later provided a written report) whereas to use the services of a much larger practice cost me or, more correctly, my clients, $225 per horse. The larger practice had one vet doing the clinical and another in the repository reading the plates, so they had double the manpower but presumably they had double the demand on their services. If they've read the plates for Client #1, then get subsequent requests for an opinion on the same horse from several other clients, am I right in thinking they charge full freight each time when all they have to do is refer to their notes? Someone please tell me.

I'd like to see some discussion on standardisation of costs and services.