After an elimination at the Pau CCI****, the author questions how well the system is working.

Being eliminated for dangerous riding at any level, in any discipline, is a serious offense.

So you can imagine that I was in total disbelief when stopped on course at the Pau CCI**** (France). Having had a good run and with only four fences left to jump, I was eliminated for “dangerous riding.’’

The irony is that the ground jury, and specifically Marilyn Payne, assured me that I at no time rode dangerously, but they did not like my horse’s inverted jumping style. I was told that if the brush fences we jumped had been tables we may have landed on the table.

My horse Extravagance never touched any of the tables. He is an experienced horse who knows to jump through brush. He never hit a solid fence, never caught a stifle, hung a leg nor twisted. In Extravagance’s entire career, he has only incurred cross-country jumping penalties twice, one of which was several years ago with his previous rider. His jumping style may not be classic, but it has served him well. There have been numerous successful event horses that have had unique jumping techniques.

In the nine months I have owned this special horse he has completed four FEI events (earning fourth and sixth at two of them) and three advanced horse trials, and never once has his jumping style been questioned. Indeed his jumping has improved significantly as he was purchased with a history of taking many show jumping rails; however, in his last two events (one being a CIC***) he jumped clean.

I would have liked to have show jumped at Pau. I was unfairly denied that opportunity.

I made safe, sensible decisions on course and never rode fast or dangerously. There were other riders who had questionable fences, but they were not stopped. When I asked about this, the ground jury stated that there was a rider they wanted to stop but could not! They also agreed that it was not possible to watch every rider at all times.

If a system is in place to eliminate riders it needs to be fair and applied to all riders, not just one like myself, who could be stopped. Further, there needs to be clarification regarding the “dangerous riding” rule. After all, I was charged with this but told I did not ride dangerously.

Not only did I find this perplexing and absurd, it also provoked concern from Capt. Mark Phillips who wrote, in part, in his Horse & Hound column, in the Oct. 29 issue:

“To Yellow Card Or Not? These days controversy never seems to be far away. The ground jury quite correctly stopped Allison Springer’s Destination Known from going across country at Pau—the horse was uncomfortable all over after its long journey from the U.S. However, Hilda Hick Donahue, after a similar journey, was stopped just four fences from home because Extravagance was jumping in an “upside down” shape. She was not going fast and sensibly had taken some long routes. And there was no yellow card for dangerous riding. In stark contrast Tim Price and Vortex hit a number of fences so hard that he was ejected out of the saddle more than once and it was only with extreme athleticism that he managed to stay on, yet he was not stopped.”

 Several yellow cards were issued at Pau. I did not receive one, yet I was eliminated. There was a strong belief at Pau that in the aftermath of the Burghley CCI**** (England), where a rider was not stopped and his horse ended up on a fence, the ground jury was on high alert to react.

I applaud all officials everywhere for their increasing attention to safety, and while the judgment of dangerous riding is a subjective one, it is important that it not be used to turn our sport into a style competition. Likewise, no individual should be granted permission to establish what he or she considers an “appropriate” jumping technique in cross-country. Nowhere in the rulebook is there mention of a horse’s jumping form being judged, yet my horse’s fashion is what got him eliminated.

At present, the Fédération Equestre Internationale defines dangerous riding and the penalties for it as follows:

Article 520
ABUSE OF HORSES AND DANGEROUS RIDING (see also “General Regulations”)

Any act or series of actions that in the opinion of the Ground Jury can be defined as abuse of a horse or dangerous riding shall be penalised by disqualification and such other penalties in accordance Art. 532.1 of the present Rules as the Ground Jury may determine. Such acts include, for example:

• rapping
• riding an exhausted horse
• excessive pressing of a tired horse
• riding an obviously lame hors
• excessive use of whip, bit and/or spurs (see para. 2 below)
• dangerous riding
• riding in an unsafe way or losing control of the horse
• series of dangerous jumps

Officials must report such actions as soon as possible to the Ground Jury through the Secretary of the Organising Committee or Control Centre of the event as appropriate, supported where possible by a statement from one or more witnesses. The Ground Jury must decide if there is a case to be answered.

Any individual member of the Ground Jury who observes such actions, has the right and the duty to disqualify the athlete forthwith on his own authority.

The consequences of my elimination are far reaching. Extravagance’s record is now tarnished. Explaining the Pau experience to supporters and sponsors does not portray our sport in a favorable manner, and as a result, interferes with my career. These costs are tremendous.

Dollars aside, I would never have subjected my special partner to the rigorous trip to Pau (we left Florida on Oct. 7) if I had known his jumping style was going to be scrutinized and would result in elimination. My veterinarian, Scott Langton, examined Extravagance right after he was eliminated, and he determined that Extravagance was unmarked, fit, and comfortable enough to continue on the course.

We all make mistakes in riding and life, and progress is dependent on being mature and honest enough to admit these mistakes and learn from them. This is certainly my philosophy. In this situation there seems to be no doubt that the ground jury made a mistake. Whether or not they admit this mistake will be an indication of what type of decisions we can expect from ground juries in the future and their willingness to learn.

I realize that officials do not have an easy job, and unlike some sports there is no instant replay in eventing. My request is made on behalf of all riders: while maintaining a watchful eye, officials must apply the rules consistently and fairly. Officials must con-tinue to work to clarify the definition of “dangerous riding” so that cross-country does not evolve into a situation where personal preferences determine competition results. As the FEI focuses more on safety and horse welfare, it is increasingly clear that officials are going to need more guidance from training videos and the like to become more consistent in their decisions.

At the end of the day I am so thrilled with my wonderful horse. He did, in essence, jump around a four-star track. He and I will continue on our program working with some of the best professionals available. I look forward to a safe and successful 2010. 

Hilda Donahue, who competes for Ireland, is a professional event rider based in Apopka, Fla.

Like This Article?
If you enjoyed this article and would like to read more like it, consider subscribing to The Chronicle Of The Horse. “Dangerous Riding Penalties Need To Be Applied Consistently And Fairly” ran in the Nov. 13 issue. Check out the table of contents to see what great stories are in the magazine this week.