Barbaro

Help Support CattleToday:

*Cowgirl*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
2,924
Reaction score
0
Location
Middle Tennessee
Saw on the news tonight that they put him down. He looked pretty bad. His leg looked horrible. Glad they did it. Hate to see a creature suffer. :(
 
Its too badit had to come to that. From what I heard on TV the vets thought he was doing better and improving, but lately there has just been complication after complication from the surgeries. Its a shame they had to put down a horse like that, but its better than the animal suffering.
 
VanC":g6ju86xu said:
Yes, it's a shame, but the right thing to do.

I agree, and think they should have put him down long ago.

I don't know of any horses who "Shattered" his leg bone and healed.
 
I agree that he should have been put down long ago. If it had been a mediocre (sp) horse, the owners would have wasted no time inserting the needle.

While I don't agree with the tree huggers about most things, I hate to see an animal suffer needlessly.
 
I hated to see him go, too, but he wasn't in good shape at all and there really is no need to see him suffer any longer. I kept hearing that he was better, so the news caught me off guard.
 
As much as I liked that he was improving, I just could see him getting better. The disease he had, sorry can't spell it, went into his front legs and we was in pain Sunday night. I'm glad I don't have to pay for that vet bill.
 
Save the sentiment. The insurance policy had a clause that required he be given a certain amount of time to recover before the policy would pay off. I'm sure the decision to put him down was much easier after that date passed.
 
easy":2xlfi4b4 said:
Save the sentiment. The insurance policy had a clause that required he be given a certain amount of time to recover before the policy would pay off. I'm sure the decision to put him down was much easier after that date passed.

Well that sucks! How do you know that?

Alice
 
Alice":3glo044x said:
easy":3glo044x said:
Save the sentiment. The insurance policy had a clause that required he be given a certain amount of time to recover before the policy would pay off. I'm sure the decision to put him down was much easier after that date passed.

Well that sucks! How do you know that?

Oh really. So it wasn't a matter of loving the horse. That stinks.

Alice
 
Policy that I was aware of is between 10 and 20 mil. I don't know if it was mortality or loss of use policy. Don't know if it was the only policy, either. Don't misunderstand me, I'm sure this was a very difficult situation and decision and I'm also sure that there was a lot of sentiment involved from some of the owners but ultimately the business aspect does come into play. Sure an unfortunate ending that no one wanted, that I'm certain of.
 
easy":3gltdyj8 said:
Save the sentiment. The insurance policy had a clause that required he be given a certain amount of time to recover before the policy would pay off. I'm sure the decision to put him down was much easier after that date passed.

I'm kinda sorry, not really, to throw the BS flag here, but I'm sure they could have got a number of "big name" vets to say put him down at the time of the injury. I'm sure, with the $ involved they had an insurance policy for millions.... they should have any way. But to say they had to try to keep him going because the policy said to, is hard ... impossible, to believe. As they say in MO... show me. What would happen if he got shot in by a drunk hunter? BS!

Alan
 
I bet his time at the Hospital was not all that bad...they most likely drew Semen evey day untill the end. At least there was a little distraction for him every day.
 
What would be the point of collecting semen?
He didn't get shot by a drunk hunter. Is that a common occurence in Missouri?
He broke his leg, an injury that some horses have been known to recover from, at least well enough to stand at stud. You say they could have found some 'big name vets' to put him down at the time of injury? Perhaps, but it never appeared that the owners wanted to do that. The injury was not life threatening and it is not an unusual condition in these policies that the animal be given time to recover before it would pay off. The premium would have reflected the conditions of the policyand this one would have reduced the premium. Don't kid yourself, Barbaro's value was on the track and then at the stud. It is very doubtful that the insurance policy, whatever the amount, will ever come close to what his future earnings could have been. I'm sure he was given every chance to recover, it just wasn't going to happen, and at that point business considerations had to be factored in along with the horses welfare. JMHO Good Luck
 
easy":p1q5bxld said:
Save the sentiment. The insurance policy had a clause that required he be given a certain amount of time to recover before the policy would pay off. I'm sure the decision to put him down was much easier after that date passed.

I was questioning the insurance company making the owners wait before putting him down. I don't think they had anything to say about making the owners wait. As a side note, I also think the insurance company would be more likely to say put him down or have the option of not paying all or any rehab cost.

I'm not doubting the value of the horse at all, just who made the decisions of putting him down and who paid the rehab cost. If you saw the video of the race and the close up of the break, this was no small fracture, his leg was flopping in the wind. The vets said they learned a lot but no horse has ever came back from this severe of a break. The doctors and owners were hoping new procedures would help the recovery.

As far as collecting semen, I also see little point. TB's are still all live cover, no AI. QH's can AI, and mybe able to use the semen, if the AQHA would accept him as a appendix stud. But with all the drugs and anti biotics in the horse's system I would have to think about the sperm quality.... maybe fine, but lots of outside influnces in horses system. And collecting his semen would be another issue.... how would you do it without hurting the horse.

JMO,
Alan
 
Alan,
I cant tell you how I know but this policy had a clause in it that required a certain amount of time to pass after an injury like this before the policy would perform.
 
easy":1qdewvr2 said:
Alan,
I cant tell you how I know but this policy had a clause in it that required a certain amount of time to pass after an injury like this before the policy would perform.

?
 

Latest posts

Top