Replies

I was just commenting on that AAM said the "repair was perfect" It was not. This program showed his leg out of the cast and him walking down the center of the barn.

I'm sure they did learn alot...and I'm sure that is a good thing. I am not questioning anyones motives for trying to fix him either. I think everyone had what was best for the horse in mind. But I believe, especially after this program (and I don't know if this program is totally truthful, I believe very little about what I get from TV), that decisions about what to do with him were being made with emotions, and IMO, that is not a good thing.

BUT my questions here are that I don't believe the public was told the exact truth of what was going on, I've never thought it, and this program made me even more suspicious about how much the horse did suffer. Your comment but as long as he wasn't suffering"...didn't some of the things we were told at the time make you wonder about that? I did, and now I'm wondering even more. Since they made it such a public thing, I think we are entitled to the truth, and there is nothing wrong with questioning, when discrepancies show up. What if you find out he did suffer, have a lot of bad days, and then this sort of thing happened again, would you want them to try again? How can responsible decisions be made if we don't have facts to base them on, rather then raw emotion? If they make this sort of thing so public, then the public should be able to voice their opinion and ask questions, but those opinions should be educated. But to get an educated opinion we need to be told the truth. If they are not going give all the facts, then don't give any.

Becky

I guess it depends on what people call suffering. People and animals don’t have a right to be pain free. Recovery hurts sometimes but if pain is managed it isn’t suffering IMO. I would be curious to see his latest xrays. Anyway, what I was talking about was a depressed horse that gets worse instead of better and /or is in constant pain. I’m assuming that was where he was toward the end and they stopped. The Vets I know tend to want to save animals but are good at saying that is enough. Hopefully these guys were like that too.

I would believe the vet, who is a well though of, highly professional leader in his field, over a TV show that is obviously planned and edited to attract viewers. Best way to attract viewers is with controversy. Even better way is to suggest that there is some sort of cover up or conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories "sell". That's why there are so many fools who believe that President Bush brought down the Twin Towers.

So I wouldn't worry too much about the inconsistencies. The producers probably suggested as much as they thought they could get away with.