If you like to read about race horses (thoroughbreds) from a gifted writer and insider, do yourself a favor and follow Ray Paulick at his Paulick Report.

Today, he writes about Lookin at Lucky, the 2010 Preakness winner who was  a $35,000 buy back as a yearling in 2008. The colt was overlooked by many at auction due to "bad" radiographs, which got me thinking. . .

Might a grading "standard" for vet reports increase the chances that one horse who shows OCD lesions can be compared to another horse with OCD lesions? When vets judge a horse's overall physical condition, there is a standard scale of lameness, which you can see here

With a written/illustrated guidelines, there would be an across=the-board see more consistency; the type of straightforward info for horseman that doesn't depend on any particular vet and his opinions.

It could be a situation where the major consignors hope to "under-deliver" to avoid future litigation. In other words, their philosophy (consignors) about how to "spin" the radiographs and other objective measures be judged based on objective (as far as that is possible) radiograph reports

The bottom line is this: Lookin at Lucky overcame perceived physical abnormalities before he ever stepped on the track, and then set about showing us the kind of "heart" and perseverance that epitomizes the character of a race horse.