Would YOU (yes, you) pay more for safety?

[denny]

So I`ve been reading the frangible pins article on the USEA homepage, and here`s the problem, not just with this specific item, but with xc courses in general.
For the overworked and underpaid organizers to make the modifications that we are all clamoring for will be expensive.
I`m thinking about the modest little Area One and Two events near me, for example. They STRUGGLE to break even, and if they have to install those pins, maybe get rid of or dramatically modify their tables, whatever, I`m afraid some of them will just decide it isn`t worth it.
So, the question is: Would YOU pay more in entry fees to help them cover those costs?
How much will you/me put our money where our/my mouth is?

[pegasusmom]

Well, these responses will be interesting. . . particularly in light of recent assertions here by some that organizers are in it for the money and not the love of the sport (like in the good old days. . . which in my opinion weren't as good as folks seem to remember they were).

To answer your question Denny, hell yes, I'll put my money where my mouth is - and I think I do on a regular basis.

Anyone else??

[flutie1]

Already do.

[denny]

Oh yes, another idea from YEARS ago, that was shot down for lack of money, was to have the USEA hire a xc safety/xc course inspector to travel around the country, making recommendations/suggestions/imperatives, etc.
Is that an idea whose time has come? If so, who pays?

[ne900]

I would too. I'd also be willing to contribute to a fund designated for this purpose.

[JackW]

That is an interesting question at the lower levels because I think that I already do by supporting recognized events rather than unrecognized which in my area ARE unsafe. The real question you are asking is if we, the base, will further subsidize the upper level competitors?

[imapepper]

Oh yes, another idea from YEARS ago, that was shot down for lack of money, was to have the USEA hire a xc safety/xc course inspector to travel around the country, making recommendations/suggestions/imperatives, etc.
Is that an idea whose time has come? If so, who pays?

The obvious answer would be USEA members. If I felt that I was getting something more for my membership, I would gladly pay more. Coming from h/j land, I still think that eventing is a bargain. I do think USEA would need to make sure that the improvements touched ALL levels from BN to the the top since the bulk of the membership competes in the smaller stuff.

I also think that horse shows in general need to have more positive press and start drawing some spectators. I think that could possibly be a good way for grounds to continue to make improvements.

[CBudFrggy]

How much more? If there are 200 or more exhibitors per event, isn't that like $5.00 more per entrant? That's $1000.00 for a $70.00 pin--of course, more than one pin is used--what's five more dollars? Of course I'd pay.

It's not like the price of gas or diesel is really going to go down, is it? :D

[pegasusmom]

It's not just the cost of frangible pins. Here in NC, the average cost for a portable fence, table or otherwise, runs anywhere from $1000-$3000-ish for material and labor.

[annikak]

Sure....of course.

Isn't there already a safety person that goes to the events to inspect? Might have that wrong- but I thought that I heard Kay and Bob Wilmarth donate at the USEA meeting a few years ago and then have other join in. I believe that Karen and a few others spoke strongly in favor of such a person. Denny, you were there...?

[JER]

So, the question is: Would YOU pay more in entry fees to help them cover those costs?
How much will you/me put our money where our/my mouth is?

Yes. I'd rather contribute directly to a fund to pay for the pins for the venue than do it on the entry fees but as the USEA is SIX YEARS behind in adopting the pins, either way is fine with me. Although I really think the direct contribution is preferable to the USEA administrative network.

Oh yes, another idea from YEARS ago, that was shot down for lack of money, was to have the USEA hire a xc safety/xc course inspector to travel around the country, making recommendations/suggestions/imperatives, etc.
Is that an idea whose time has come? If so, who pays?

The horses and riders pay if it doesn't happen. So yes, I think we need to do this.

That said, I want a safety person who's a real safety person. I don't care if they're a UL rider or a judge or a TD. We already have people trained in those positions. I want someone whose job is safety.

I don't think it needs to be one person. We could train a group of people who come from safety-oriented backgrounds. They could earn a safety certificate and do the job for a fee or volunteer. It doesn't matter to me.

I've seen a number of situations where riders could use a safety advocate. What I've seen far too often is BN riders timidly questioning a TD/CD/organizer about a BN fence that's difficult for the level and the TD/CD/organizer waving a measuring stick and admonishing them: "It's only 2'4", I can make it 2'7" if I want!" Or tree branches interfering with a jump and the TD/CD/organizer saying "40 people jumped it last year and it was fine." That kind of thinking is not good for the sport.

I'm an EMT and would definitely be interested in doing something like this.

[flutie1]

Oh yes, another idea from YEARS ago, that was shot down for lack of money, was to have the USEA hire a xc safety/xc course inspector to travel around the country, making recommendations/suggestions/imperatives, etc.
Is that an idea whose time has come? If so, who pays?

Isn't that what course advisors and technical delegates are supposed to do?

[ss3777]

I would definitely pay for this. I know that the jumps I am jumping at the lower levels don't usually need this technology but I am willing to do my part to benefit the sport. Perhaps a sliding scale for the levels, more $ for upper levels that will utilize this and less for lower levels. Also, it would be an much easier "sell" if there is some sort of guarantee that the $$ is going directly to safer XC jumps.

[flutie1]

Sure....of course.

Isn't there already a safety person that goes to the events to inspect? Might have that wrong- but I thought that I heard Kay and Bob Wilmarth donate at the USEA meeting a few years ago and then have other join in. I believe that Karen and a few others spoke strongly in favor of such a person. Denny, you were there...?

The donation you refer to was to fund the course advisors and was raised from organizers of advanced events.

[annikak]

The donation you refer to was to fund the course advisors and was raised from organizers of advanced events.

Thanks, Flutie- it was an impressive effort- and indeed, money where their (all of you that supported it...) mouths were. Nice!! So, as one that supported it, does it happen? Did it help??

[deltawave]

Yes, I would. I wouldn't mind seeing another $5-10 (or whatever) fee tacked on to entries (like the EMS fee, etc.) to build a fund to add frangible pins and/or new, safer fences.

[pwynnnorman]

Oh yes, another idea from YEARS ago, that was shot down for lack of money, was to have the USEA hire a xc safety/xc course inspector to travel around the country, making recommendations/suggestions/imperatives, etc.
Is that an idea whose time has come? If so, who pays?
Isn't that what course advisors and technical delegates are supposed to do?

Yeah, super "well, duh" there. And the fact that Denny felt the need to add that recommendation clearly shows that someone isn't doing their job.

IMO, we just HAVE to tighten up on responsibility here! Course designers should be able to justify every single "question" they ask in a course, at every level. The TD should know and AGREE with the CDs justifications. For example, would it be cheaper AND provide a decent record if the CD were required to complete a form covering each fence and each course, sending it to the CD and USEA -- the former for review and the later for filing? If that happened along with the fence-by-fence statistics which (I think) are being proposed for additional data collection, imagine how KNOWLEDGEABLE everyone would become about what works and what doesn't. And, of course, the TD could act as a second opinion in terms of the CDs plans.

It's like writing a book without an editor. Everyone needs an editor. Why don't TDs edit more? Imagine tying all this stuff to the feedback forms, too? It's not that someone would have to enter all the data and analyse it. You put it in a file and use it when needed, when there's a question or when a study does become required.

Y'now, this may seem OT, but it isn't, in my opinion, because all the suggestions people are making are little more than a shot in the dark if there's no data. It's all just guesswork -- and potentially expensive guesswork, like frangible pin costs. And it'll continue to be guesswork if data isn't collected.

What happens to all those jump judge and scorer sheets anyway? Are they thrown out? Y'know, if they aren't thrown out, some data could even be collected right now, retroactively.

I think I'd be more willing to pay for a more visible, more accessible, more widely used planning paper trail, plus data collection, that for any other hit-or-miss proposals. Indeed, I've thought for the longest while that what a bunch of increasingly complex, yet continuingly volunteer-based (and thus not "as" professionally run) organizations like USEA need is a COMMUNCATIONS AUDIT.

I once got such a LOOK when I critiqued a press release that was designed to justify controversial actions. I said it needed to include convincing evidence, preferrably in an attention-getting bulleted list, before the third paragraph. I don't know if the look I got was because the person hadn't thought that way before or because the person thought I was just being an arrogant academic. But whatever they felt, their release WAS ineffective because they probably had no clue how a good release is structured.

A communications audit can examine all documents and communication standard operating procedures (like how releases are structured) and make suggestions (including user-friendly "cheat sheets") for improving or supplementing them so communication is clearer AND records are truly useful. Alas, though, just as with the term "crisis management," I fear "communication audit" is unfamiliar and therefore not considered as a valuable practice. (It's sad because "strategic management" IS bandied about, so that concept from the non-horsey professional realm has found its way to the inside. Would that other, equally useful concepts could, too.)

[Ugh. Why am I writing this? I'll leave it here, but I know no one will really care. Gosh, how I wish I were involved in a professional profession. The kind of deliberation that goes on in the horse world just doesn't suit my personality at all.]

[AppJumpr08]

Absolutely.

I'd MUCH rather be paying for safety efforts over drug testing fees at the lower levels...
Would there be a way to combine fence safety and drug testing fees into one "safety fee"? Any money that doesn't go towards random drug testing goes towards fence safety? Or would it be easier to just have two separate fees?

I honestly don't know how much it costs for drug testing, but it seems (at first thought, to my uneducated mind) that perhaps the drug fees collected at every event must leave some money left over? Does it really cost that much to do a random test or two that it uses up all the money from every competitor at every event?


Even if it ends up being a separate fee, I'd be MORE then happy to pay for it... you may end up paying for the pin that saves your life.

[annikak]

Totally agree.... It must be there- anyone could enter the data, and some smart person could look at it.

Yup- totally agree with the last part, too.




Yeah, super "well, duh" there. And the fact that Denny felt the need to add that recommendation clearly shows that someone isn't doing their job.


<<<snip out!>>>

Y'now, this may seem OT, but it isn't, in my opinion, because all the suggestions people are making are little more than a shot in the dark if there's no data. It's all just guesswork -- and potentially expensive guesswork, like frangible pin costs. And it'll continue to be guesswork if data isn't collected.

What happens to all those jump judge and scorer sheets anyway? Are they thrown out? Y'know, if they aren't thrown out, some data could even be collected right now, retroactively.

I think I'd be more willing to pay for a more visible, more accessible, more widely used planning paper trail, plus data collection, that for any other hit-or-miss proposals. Indeed, I've thought for the longest while that what a bunch of increasingly complex, yet continuingly volunteer-based (and thus not "as" professionally run) organizations like USEA need is a COMMUNCATIONS AUDIT.

I once got such a LOOK when I critiqued a press release that was designed to justify controversial actions. I said it needed to include convincing evidence, preferrably in an attention-getting bulleted list, before the third paragraph. I don't know if the look I got was because the person hadn't thought that way before or because the person thought I was just being an arrogant academic. But whatever they felt, their release WAS ineffective because they probably had no clue how a good release is structured.

A communications audit can examine all documents and communication standard operating procedures (like how releases are structured) and make suggestions (including user-friendly "cheat sheets") for improving or supplementing them so communication is clearer AND records are truly useful. Alas, though, just as with the term "crisis management," I fear "communication audit" is unfamiliar and therefore not considered as a valuable practice. (It's sad because "strategic management" IS bandied about, so that concept from the non-horsey professional realm has found its way to the inside. Would that other, equally useful concepts could, too.)

[Ugh. Why am I writing this? I'll leave it here, but I know no one will really care. Gosh, how I wish I were involved in a professional profession. The kind of deliberation that goes on in the horse world just doesn't suit my personality at all.]

[barnrat]

I would gladly pay higher entry fees to have frangible pins in more fences. However, it seems that we have a large problem that requires a multi-tiered response. If organizers were required to use frangible pins in new fences from this point on, then that would help the problem but not solve it. There needs to be information on trainers that is readily available to parents of young riders and adults learning to ride. People need to know what to look for in a trainer- how many horses has he made? what success has he had? how do his students fare, etc.? Trainers need to be accountable for their students, and students must be accountable for their own riding. However, I will have to say that there are some positive changes going on in eventing right now as we speak. As a result of the accidents that have occured during the past two years, tds are enforcing the dangerous riding rule more often.

[Jazzy Lady]

Oh yes, another idea from YEARS ago, that was shot down for lack of money, was to have the USEA hire a xc safety/xc course inspector to travel around the country, making recommendations/suggestions/imperatives, etc.
Is that an idea whose time has come? If so, who pays?

That's an excellent suggestion. Something like that could be covered by an addition to the entry, no? Maybe they need to enroll MES since he's stepping down from course design (sadly :() It would be great to continue to have his imput. Hopefully he will continue with clinics and what not. He is well versed with the frangible pin.

Up here in Ontario we have a fee called "one event at a time". Every event everyone pays $6 extra (or something around that). This money gets put in a pot and distributed for course improvements. I think last year they raised about $15,000 that way and considering our small eventing population compared to the US, this is a pretty good amount.

[flutie1]

Thanks, Flutie- it was an impressive effort- and indeed, money where their (all of you that supported it...) mouths were. Nice!! So, as one that supported it, does it happen? Did it help??

Yes, I believe it has greatly helped the three "upper" levels, A, I and P become more standardized, and by osmosis, the "lower" levels have been helped also.
Yes, I know the argument will come up that Mark Phillips is one of the advisors. To that I will reiterate what I've posted elsewhere - I think there are two Mark Phillips. As an advisor, he is extremely informative and often "softens" questions he sees. He adjusts distances that he feels are wonky, and the results are 99% effective. The other Mark Phillips ia the designer who recommended the apparently "tricky" stuff at Red Hills including the infamous cheese wedge.


Flutie

[mbarrett]

I you want to play, you have to pay.

Yes, I would happily pay for safety at ALL levels.

I think that course design standards for all levels need to be revamped. I think the USEA, course desginers and organizers need to look really hard at the people who ride at each level and design accordingly.

Lower levels need straight forward, simple fences/courses. Fences/courses should gradually become more difficult, with appropriate questions being asked, as the levels go up. Yes, I know that is the theory of course designing, but is it really being practiced in the real world?

From the posts here, TD's and CD's need to lighten up and give the lower level riders some respect and take their concerns seriously! Besides, who made TS's and CD" god anyway?

[annikak]

Flutie- I have heard that more then once. I am glad it has helped, and I would fully support continuing to fund this, as well as creating additional funding.

[pegasusmom]

Just for what is it worth (and as I have brought this up more than one time apparently it's not worth much. . . ) the President of the Ground Jury has the final say so over what is on a course and how it is presented. Not the TD. Not the CD. And fence by fence statistics are available - and get submitted. I am able and HAVE gone back and taken a hard look at fences on my courses as far back as six years ago to provide data for an inquiry. Edited to add: this information is readily and easily available at the touch of a finger tip for any event that utilizes the Horse Show Manager program from Event Entries. I have no doubt that minds much cleverer than mine have also managed to get that information from "home grown" software as well.

What makes anyone think that course design isn't looked at from the standpoint of the competitors at the individual event? I do it at every event I run. Surely I am not the only organizer who does so.

Where does our responsibility as riders and parents of riders start?

[annikak]

BRAVO!!!!!

Good reminder. On all points.:yes:


Just for what is it worth (and as I have brought this up more than one time apparently it's not worth much. . . ) the President of the Ground Jury has the final say so over what is on a course and how it is presented. Not the TD. Not the CD. And fence by fence statistics are available - and get submitted. I am able and HAVE gone back and taken a hard look fences on my courses as far back as six years ago to provide data for an inquiry.

What makes anyone think that course design isn't looked at from the standpoint of the competitors at the individual event? I do it at every event I run. Surely I am not the only organizer who does so.

Where does our responsibility as riders and parents of riders start?

[LLDM]

I (yes, me) would pay more for my horse and I to be safer. How much will I pay to keep the upper levels safer? That's another question.

If I am going to be charged extra fees at events for safer fences, it damn well better include the fences I am paying to jump. I don't mind if it ALSO pays for other fences - but if NONE of that money goes to my fences, you bet I will be PISSED OFF.

Are we really SURE that Frangible Pins save human and horse lives? Are the results we have statistically significant?

I would much rather my "safety" money go toward good quality studies and much improved data gathering & analysis which could better answer a wide range of issues than to rebuilding a bunch of jumps with frangible pins that *might* turn out to be unsafe anyway (I mean their design, for example). However, if Frangible Pins have really been proven in the field - then I am ALL FOR THEM!

Ditto with *someone* to travel around the country. That just sounds like an expensive person who will never get as far as the venues I ride. How about a bunch of part time regional volunteers who go to these venues anyway? Maybe the membership could nominate a couple of respected trainers, judges, officials, horsemen, whomever, from each Area and they could get free training at the next convention?

I mean really, who doesn't have an opinion about the safety each XC jump? Isn't that what we do on course walks? Try to figure out how to safely negotiate each fence? I also think that most organizers take the feedback they get to heart and try to make improvements each year. Why not just make the process for consistent and formal? Let's grab our most respected local people and listen to the good advice they have anyway! Heck, we could PAY them too - no problem there - just as consultants to keep costs & expenses down and quality & diversity up.

SCFarm

[gully's pilot]

I'd been eventing about two years when I arrived at the Lumber River HT--a one-day when the temps were in the mid-90s. I looked at my very heavy, non-ventilated xc vest, and went and bought a new model from the tack trailer, When I asked my husband if he minded, he said, "why would I ever mind if you spent money to make yourself safer?"

What he said. I'd pay.

[arnika]

Are we really SURE that Frangible Pins save human and horse lives? Are the results we have statistically significant?


I'm doing this from recall but the British did studies prior to and during the designing process and proved that the frangible pins dropped the fences several inches when hit. This allowed horses that chested the fence or hit with their forearms to slide over the fence instead of flipping. They have been proven since their implementation to decrease significantly the number of rotational falls and rider injuries.

[TB or not TB?]

Short answer: yes

Long answer: I don't know how much really NEEDS to be done with frangible pins and whatnot at the BN/N level, because the jumps aren't really high enough to cause rotational falls.

Now, if I were building a new fence and it was eligible for the frangible pin, I would definitely use it no matter how big or small the jump was. But for organizers who are just scraping by and only offer BN-N, I don't know how much they need to do with renovation.

For T+ it would be more of a necessity, and if you only increased the fees for these levels, you might avoid a lot of scorn about "why am I paying more just so Suzie Prelim can have better fences?"

[Janet]

Oh yes, another idea from YEARS ago, that was shot down for lack of money, was to have the USEA hire a xc safety/xc course inspector to travel around the country, making recommendations/suggestions/imperatives, etc.
Is that an idea whose time has come? If so, who pays?
Would this be an extension of the course advisor program (USEF).

It is already part of the responsibility of the Pres of GJ. Would having another set of eyes (already been through the CD and the TD before the Pres of GJ gets to it) make a significant difference?

[Janet]

?

From the posts here, TD's and CD's need to lighten up and give the lower level riders some respect and take their concerns seriously! I have never met a TD who did not take my concerns seriously. They may not agree with me, but they do seriously consider what I (and all the other riders I know) say.

[denny]

I don`t think we`d be where we are right now if the system we currently have in place was working. Does anyone think that?

[flutie1]

"... the Ground Jury has the final say so over what is on a course and how it is presented. Not the TD. Not the CD."

This is true. However, and I quote from EV173 f. "until he" [the T.D.] "has reported to the Ground Jury that he is satisfied with all arrangements, the authority of the Technical Delegate ... shall be absolute." The T.D. is the first line of defense about safety aspects, among other things. In an ideal world, there are adequate safety checks and balances without adding another layer. In the real world, the system is only as strong as the weakest link.

flutie

[JackW]

The system is broke, but where? Until someone can show me the statistics where there have been deaths at the lower levels, not just stops, I believe we are looking at different issues. Until recently with the 1/2 star, there has never been long format competitions below the preliminary level. We have always had horse trials and should continue those competitions. I have evented in area 1, 2, and 8 for many years (BN-T) and have been satisfied with the questions asked on cross country and the care that has gone into making the courses safe---not refusal proof! Yes the questions at these levels have gotten harder, but with the increasing competance shown by competitors---dressage scores going form the 30's to the 20's---is that bad????

[3horsemom]

as a mom of an eventer, you bet i would!
i do have a question about the frangible pin. my understanding is that the fp allows the jump to collapse when hit. can the pin be used on all xc jump designs?
if this is a stupid question i apologize. NEVER in my life did i think my child would be competing at prelim. i just thought that if she wanted to learn to ride, eventing was a good place to start because imho, you can't call yourself a real rider until you can control a horse in an open field.

[pegasusmom]

"... the Ground Jury has the final say so over what is on a course and how it is presented. Not the TD. Not the CD."

This is true. However, and I quote from EV173 f. "until he" [the T.D.] "has reported to the Ground Jury that he is satisfied with all arrangements, the authority of the Technical Delegate ... shall be absolute." The T.D. is the first line of defense about safety aspects, among other things. In an ideal world, there are adequate safety checks and balances without adding another layer. In the real world, the system is only as strong as the weakest link.

flutie

But who is the weakest link? Or are there many weak links? I am a little with JackW's post, the system may be broke, but I am not sure where and how much. And. . . I'll ask again, as collectively we have skewered course designers, TDs, CMP, organizers and just about everyone else we can think of. . . where does our responsiblity as riders start?

And Denny - where is it, exactly, that we are right now? I hope, that next weekend, you and I will have the opportunity to chat about some of this and other concerns I have between your rounds. And I do hope that you have managed to find someone to braid for you - I regret I shall be otherwise occupied or Andrew might be tempted to loan me out to preserve one of the greats. . .

[Gnep]

I am already doing it.

Pegasusmom, 1000 to 3000 per portable, are they made out of gold, silverplating ?
Is that the correct number ?


But if people want to spent their money on savety, as in pins, than they should not just ask for one more fee to be added to the entries it might vanish in the big pot

We have a non profit for eventing, and one can specify for what the money is used and for which event etc.
The American Horse Trial Foundation, that would be the right place to raise the money to help organizer that want to make changes.

[pegasusmom]

Gnep - my husband and I donated the $$ to build five BN portables for the Carolina Horse Park about four years ago. The fences averaged about $400-$600 for materials here in NC. Plus labor - which we got donated to include teaching me how to run a chop saw and a grinder. I'd say some of the more elaborate upper level portables we have on course get far more pricey. Perhaps my estimate of $3000 (including labor) is high - and lumber costs have come down some.

[flutie1]

"... But who is the weakest link? Or are there many weak links? I am a little with JackW's post, the system may be broke, but I am not sure where and how much. And. . . I'll ask again, as collectively we have skewered course designers, TDs, CMP, organizers and just about everyone else we can think of. . . where does our responsiblity as riders start?"

Damn, Dana, if I had the answer to these excellent questions, I wouldn't be bustin' my a** in snowy, (yes, snowy but not a whole lot) Chicago! I think we are ALL responsible.

While on the soap box. There is IMHO a HUGE elephant in the room. In any of these accidents, no one has mentioned pilot error. I realize this is hugely sensitive. However, when a plane tanks, the pilot sure as hell isn't spared.

Thoughts???

Flutie

(And your estimate for portables is about right - $800 to $1000 for a lower level one, $1000 and up depending on the complexity.

[TB or not TB?]

The system is broke, but where? Until someone can show me the statistics where there have been deaths at the lower levels, not just stops, I believe we are looking at different issues. Until recently with the 1/2 star, there has never been long format competitions below the preliminary level. We have always had horse trials and should continue those competitions. I have evented in area 1, 2, and 8 for many years (BN-T) and have been satisfied with the questions asked on cross country and the care that has gone into making the courses safe---not refusal proof! Yes the questions at these levels have gotten harder, but with the increasing competance shown by competitors---dressage scores going form the 30's to the 20's---is that bad????

Death by level in the past 10 years:

BN: 0
Novice (that's USA novice) - 1 death, when a refusal caused the horse to flip.
Training level - 3 deaths, but only one from rotational fall (others were a heart attack and a non-jump related fall)
Prelim - 12+ deaths
I - 5 +
A - 6+

I use the + because I still can't find what level a few people were competing at - whether it was P I or A.

[Equibrit]

Frangible information;
http://www.barriersint.com/english/eventing/eventmain.htm

http://www.barriersint.com/english/eventing/pricelist01.htm

[TB or not TB?]

While on the soap box. There is IMHO a HUGE elephant in the room. In any of these accidents, no one has mentioned pilot error. I realize this is hugely sensitive. However, when a plane tanks, the pilot sure as hell isn't spared.

I probably sound like a broken record for those who have heard my opinion on this matter before. So, you know who you are, and pay this no mind. Everyone else, it's time to listen up. (Flutie, not picking on you solely either - this is a topic on everyone's mind and no one wants to address it)

I consulted a systems analyst with 40 years experience to see where eventing is broken. Here is the problem:

Mistakes are inevitable in any sport. As a competitive endeavor, we actually depend on the mistakes of the entrants in order to determine the results (we call them ribbons). We design the courses so that miscalculations will result in penalties. With horses as our partners, we virtually double the occurrence of mistakes since no horse is perfect all of the time. Usually, the allowed margin of error works exactly how it's supposed to.

For example, a rider misjudges the striding to the second element of a combination and the horse puts on the brakes. Or, a horse underestimates the spread of a triple bar and pulls a rail in the SJ. These are acceptable and encouraged mistakes, with acceptable consequences. Let's face it, we're even "OK" with having our riders break a bone here and there from their mistakes.

Yet not all mistakes have acceptable consequences. That same misjudgment of striding could just as easily result in the horse hitting the jump between his shoulder and forearm, which physically allows for no other option than a rotational fall, given the current design of the fences. Horse lands on rider and crushes him or her to death. Same mistake. UNACCEPTABLE consequence.

You CAN NOT USE rider error as a justification of unacceptable consequences (DEATH) when by the very nature of the sport you DEPEND on it. You have to allow for rider error in the design of the system, and make all the consequences of rider error into acceptable ones. That is where eventing is broken.

[denny]

"Where are the weak links?"
That`s the question of the hour, for sure.
Here are a few:
Bad/inept riding----
Riding at a too high level for you/your horse/whatever
Bad xc design/construction
Unsympathetic (to safety concerns of riders) officials
Poor horse selection, ie, not an appropriate match
Too high speeds for the conditions/complexity of the xc/weather/whatever. Example:
In 1962 xc was straightforward, prel speed was 520mm.
In 2008 xc can be pretty darn technical, prel speed is 520mm.
Bad/inept coaching/advice/whatever
And of course, if all else fails, blame the FEI, my personal favorite!!!

[bosox]

Why can't the OT be more like the hunter pace? The organizer has an idea of what their riders do the course in but once all the riders finish---why can't the "average of all the rides" be the correct time?

This would allow for those that ride too fast not to be awarded for coming in hairy scary and then those that ride w/the "correct" pace would know that it isn't some old number that isn't related to this particular course w/this particular ground, with this particular footing.

[Gnep]

Denny to return your question,
would you pay more, why not join Revenoak, Tuppysmom and me and ( we already made the pledges and knowing those people no empty pledges ) donate pins.
Three is a charm, I know, but 4 or 5 or 6 and so on sounds so much better, don't you think so.

Flutie, as I mentioned in the pin thread, I have spend hours and hours and hours watching videos of crashes, it always comes down to rider mistakes, every single time.

Disturbing the horses balance during the last 3 strides.

Running the horse towards the jump

Endless long rains and rider behind the balance in the chairseat ( rider and horse out of balance, horse strung out ).

What is realy disturbing, it is top riders that do it, over and over again. If smurfs ride that reckless and shity, they will get their ass chewed out, yellow carded and so on.

by the way your are not the only one with new snow, I understand your disgust.

[RunForIt]

Denny to return your question,
would you pay more, why not join Revenoak, Tuppysmom and me and ( we already made the pledges and knowing those people no empty pledges ) donate pins.
Three is a charm, I know, but 4 or 5 or 6 and so on sounds so much better, don't you think so.

Flutie, as I mentioned in the pin thread, I have spend hours and hours and hours watching videos of crashes, it always comes down to rider mistakes, every single time.

Disturbing the horses balance during the last 3 strides.

Running the horse towards the jump

Endless long rains and rider behind the balance in the chairseat ( rider and horse out of balance, horse strung out ).

What is realy disturbing, it is top riders that do it, over and over again. If smurfs ride that reckless and shity, they will get their ass chewed out, yellow carded and so on.

by the way your are not the only one with new snow, I understand your disgust.

I too offerred to donate pins - two sets to Pine Top. We can all give up a couple of lessons, and donate pins. SAVE OUR SPORT - NOW.

[flutie1]

"... You CAN NOT USE rider error as a justification of unacceptable consequences (DEATH) when by the very nature of the sport you DEPEND on it. You have to allow for rider error in the design of the system, and make all the consequences of rider error into acceptable ones. That is where eventing is broken."

Justification is hardly the word I intended in my post. I am simply adding pilot error to the list of problems, a subject I feel has not really been touched upon.

You make very good and thought provoking points.

Flutie__________________

[flutie1]

"... by the way your are not the only one with new snow, I understand your disgust."
__________________
... and you sent it to us. Thanks a lot!

[flutie1]

And please understand one thing. Frangible pins are a terrific invention and when properly installed, they can save and have saved lives. However, they are NOT A PANACEA. Sadly, they can not cure what ails us. They can help, yes. Cure, no.



flutie (stepping gracefully off her snowy soap box)

[TB or not TB?]

Justification is hardly the word I intended in my post. I am simply adding pilot error to the list of problems, a subject I feel has not really been touched upon.

I didn't mean "you" in particular - I should have used the word "one" :) Haha like I said, wasn't trying to single you out. It's a question on everyone's mind.

[TB or not TB?]

And please understand one thing. Frangible pins are a terrific invention and when properly installed, they can save and have saved lives. However, they are NOT A PANACEA. Sadly, they can not cure what ails us. They can help, yes. Cure, no

This I absolutely agree with. Gnep is coming up with some additional genius designs, and others are stretching their brains as well. We need a multi-pronged attack.

[ellebeaux]

You CAN NOT USE rider error as a justification of unacceptable consequences (DEATH) when by the very nature of the sport you DEPEND on it. You have to allow for rider error in the design of the system, and make all the consequences of rider error into acceptable ones. That is where eventing is broken.


Succint and brilliant. I like it.

[pegasusmom]

TB - an interesting and thought provoking argument.

Now. . . how do you protect the sport against stupidity, ego and greed??

[Gnep]

Pegasusmom,
The same way other sports, that deal with speed and can be considered dangerous, have done it.
Safety is a 2 layer system, you have passive safety and actife savety, actif would be education, sculling idiots, better riding skills, a more usefull rider Rep System, accountability of trainer and coaches, real accountability for riders by having a real stiff qualification system and penalty system ( red and yellow ), horse and rider friendly CD and so on.
Passiv, jumps that forgive mistakes either through shape or basic design ( pin, jumps that give, etc. ), equipment that allows survival, better helmets, better vests.

Flutie, we will never be able to prevent accidents, but we should be able to prevent the most sever consequences.
Human and horses will always make errors, thats what living beeings do, but we should be able to make the results of those errors accepteble

Would that cost money, sure probable a lot, but Eventing is a million dollar industrie, realy big money. Who is realy making the money, you the organizer ? the average coach ? not realy, even the so called BNs don't make the big money. CO, Tipperary, Dover, all the guys that produce the crap people stuff into their horses and so on, thats the real industry behind the horses, its time they are asked to open their check books.
Demand a Helmet that withstands a horse rolling over, change the testing and design criteria for eventing helmets.
Demand vests that have crash protection, by rule, Beta is 8 years old and nothing has changed, 8 yeras is light years in technology.
Demand neck protector, by rule.

What would happen if one demands by Date X that those things have to be changed, manufactures would open the drawer and get the product out.

[RunForIt]

Pegasusmom,
The same way other sports, that deal with speed and can be considered dangerous, have done it.
Safety is a 2 layer system, you have passive safety and actife savety, actif would be education, sculling idiots, better riding skills, a more usefull rider Rep System, accountability of trainer and coaches, real accountability for riders by having a real stiff qualification system and penalty system ( red and yellow ), horse and rider friendly CD and so on.
Passiv, jumps that forgive mistakes either through shape or basic design ( pin, jumps that give, etc. ), equipment that allows survival, better helmets, better vests.

Flutie, we will never be able to prevent accidents, but we should be able to prevent the most sever consequences.
Human and horses will always make errors, thats what living beeings do, but we should be able to make the results of those errors accepteble

Would that cost money, sure probable a lot, but Eventing is a million dollar industrie, realy big money. Who is realy making the money, you the organizer ? the average coach ? not realy, even the so called BNs don't make the big money. CO, Tipperary, Dover, all the guys that produce the crap people stuff into their horses and so on, thats the real industry behind the horses, its time they are asked to open their check books.
Demand a Helmet that withstands a horse rolling over, change the testing and design criteria for eventing helmets.
Demand vests that have crash protection, by rule, Beta is 8 years old and nothing has changed, 8 yeras is light years in technology.
Demand neck protector, by rule.

What would happen if one demands by Date X that those things have to be changed, manufactures would open the drawer and get the product out.

uuuuhhhmmmmm....absolutely NO ONE has given this a thought as of yet - what if we made a big list of all our suppliers - found the top 10 amongst the list and then began to talk with them...

Besides the fact that you do make me snort and laugh in the midst of a serious discussion, AND you are so on top of the big stuff in much of the big ideas about the problems that are facing eventing, AND you can build jumps that honor our horses and sport and are works of art...I do hope you're enjoying Saturday night.

[TB or not TB?]

TB - an interesting and thought provoking argument.

Now. . . how do you protect the sport against stupidity, ego and greed??

Selective breeding. :D

Hmm I'm not sure. One thing *I* want to do is create a small year end award for folks who take a TB off the track and through the levels themselves. I don't know how much I could afford, but I could probably scrounge up or fund-raise $1000 to give. That's not a whole lot, but could buy a nice used saddle for a kid who was on a shoe-string budget :yes: Just my way of bucking the trend.

[JER]

Now. . . how do you protect the sport against stupidity, ego and greed??

Humane traps. You know, the catch-and-release, have-a-heart variety.

Probably the kindest and most environmentally-sensitive release location would be an A-circuit H/J show. They'd adapt easily to their new habitat and would be readily accepted by the existing population.

:D

[tuppysmom]

Well, I don't remember the exact number of competitions that we have here in the USA, but it is quite a few. If each event runs 4 levels and each level has 5 or six jumps that are frangible pin friendly, we need to get pins in those jumps. No, It isn't the answer to all the fatalities, but it's a start.

Let's get going and install those pins as soon as we can.

[RunForIt]

Well, I don't remember the exact number of competitions that we have here in the USA, but it is quite a few. If each event runs 4 levels and each level has 5 or six jumps that are frangible pin friendly, we need to get pins in those jumps. No, It isn't the answer to all the fatalities, but it's a start.

Let's get going and install those pins as soon as we can.

so, maybe at all of the organizers' meetings next year, there can be a discussion of how many pins are needed per venue to "get started" and how many are needed to make things as they should be. Publish the needs and ask for help. We all benefit - we all chip in. This part is really simple - little else is.

[TB or not TB?]

Humane traps. You know, the catch-and-release, have-a-heart variety.

Probably the kindest and most environmentally-sensitive release location would be an A-circuit H/J show. They'd adapt easily to their new habitat and would be readily accepted by the existing population.

I laughed so hard I drooled. :D

[tulkas]

No, actually, the fact that Denny had to mention the issue of a "safety inspector who travels around" indicates that he continues to be out of touch with Eventing and stuck back in the 1970's.

The Course Adivisor program, paid for by USEF and USEA has been doing this since the mid-nineties for Adv. and Int. courses and was expanded to Prelim. shortly after 2000. The Program has paid huge dividends, to which Flutie will attest. As will as those Organizers who ponied up several years ago to keep the program alive.

The "good old days" weren't, the problem is that too many of you think of the "good old days" as the early nineties. Try the late sixties.

tulkas

[denny]

I was referring to a full time person whose only job would be to do nothing but examine xc courses at all levels throughout the country.
The program you refer to was the cheaper alternative we were obliged to come up with because we couldn`t afford our first choice.
Obviously, and I`ll repeat this, if our systems were working, we wouldn`t be where we are right now.
Incidentally, this year, 2008, marks my 47th consecutive year of competing at the preliminary level or higher in this sport, which nobody else in this country has done, so I don`t really feel that out of touch with the trench warfare mentality of actually strapping on my spurs and heading to the start box.

[annikak]

Publish the needs and ask for help. We all benefit - we all chip in. This part is really simple - little else is.

very true...how nice would it be to see that RunforIt sponsored the frangible pin on such and such jump? And then...see it work.

That's cheap and as you said, simple.:yes:

[blackwly]

If I was an organizer working on utilizing the pin technology, I'd add a $10 charge for every entry at the levels where I planned to use the pins (training and up, or prelim and up- I'm not sure.)

As an upper level rider, I'd be happy to pay it. And I don't think the BN riders who aren't going to jump those fences should have to.

[colliemom]

For example, would it be cheaper AND provide a decent record if the CD were required to complete a form covering each fence and each course, sending it to the CD and USEA -- the former for review and the later for filing? [/I]

I am a basic, lower level (BN-N-T) certified course designer. I design for my one local Horse Park venue, and we run 2 recognized events each hear.

I DO THIS.

For every course I present (and I try very hard to change something for every HT so it does not become stagnant and boring), I create a chart of the entire course at each level -- every jump is decribed, each jump shape is shown so you can get a good feel of the flow, height dimensions are specified (for digging in purposes), a brief description of it's placement (uphill, downhill, edge of woods, etc) is included, and I explain the question I am trying to ask with the jump, both individually and within the context of the rest of the course.

This chart is given to the Decorations Committee (I also include specific notes on what I want for decorations where it's critical to the jump and the question), and to the Course Set Up Committee (our Maintenance Staff is wonderful -- they put the entire course together the week before the event.) It has helped to educate all of them to the nuances of the course, and to help them help ME by making suggestions based on conditions at the time as they set up.

I also shared this with my TD at the last event, and it went over very well. I plan to continue doing this. Our event in particular is difficult to have any kind of six week review, because it is a public horse park, and we can't put the course together that early or it would be trashed by the time the event comes around (and no, taping the jumps off doesn't work -- people have actually taken the tape down, jumped the jumps, and put the tapes back up! Don't get me started... :no: ) Our repeat TD's are familiar with our grounds and what we do, but new ones are not, so any assistance I can offer them I do.

Does this take a bit of extra effort on my part? Yes, but I find it well worth it from the overall cohesiveness it brings to my extended team, and to educating everyone.

I think it's a great idea!

[BBowen]

Well, I am a lower level, adult ammie that hasn't been able to compete in a few years, so from a competitor's standpoint, I don't have a dog in this hunt. But, I love this sport and when I do start competing again, I have no problem in paying an additional fee to help defray costs for safety. Even if the frangible pins are not used on the courses I ride, I will gladly pay it. Since I don't compete at this time, I would be happy to make a contribution toward safety. But, there are so many factors involved with where our sport is today, not just one.

Everything costs more and it gets harder and harder to stretch our dollars. Guess we just have to get a little more creative in our budget plans.

[purplnurpl]

If I was an organizer working on utilizing the pin technology, I'd add a $10 charge for every entry at the levels where I planned to use the pins (training and up, or prelim and up- I'm not sure.)

As an upper level rider, I'd be happy to pay it. And I don't think the BN riders who aren't going to jump those fences should have to.

I agree with this.

I'd also like to add that at some point if things keep going the way they have been with increased entries and such I will not be able to afford to event. Now we are only talking 10 bucks an entry which is no biggy. But then it will we 20 bucks an entry. and 100 bucks for a USEA membership. And some other MSIC charge for something. I'm sure I'm not the only one that lives pay check to pay check.
We would all love to give give give, but eventually it's all give and no get.

I'm not sure what I'm saying. I just know that I am at the edge of the cliff when it comes to affordability.
sucks.

[colliemom]

But who is the weakest link? Or are there many weak links? I am a little with JackW's post, the system may be broke, but I am not sure where and how much. And. . . I'll ask again, as collectively we have skewered course designers, TDs, CMP, organizers and just about everyone else we can think of. . . where does our responsiblity as riders start?


I think one of the "weakest link" points is in the inconsistency of course interpretation by different individuals serving in the Technical Delegate and PGJ roles.

I have had different TD's have vastly differing opinions on the difficulty of various questions on my courses.

I have had PGJ's who are primarily dressage judges (do not event at all, may have never evented at all) who have blanched at questions on my course that were perfectly appropriate.

Any time something is open to interpretation, you will get interpretations. Some of those may be weak or even wrong. It's hard to predict. This is also why I think competitor free form reviews of courses will be of little value. What is "extremely difficult" to one competitor may be "not at all challenging" to another.

[colliemom]

Well, I don't remember the exact number of competitions that we have here in the USA, but it is quite a few. If each event runs 4 levels and each level has 5 or six jumps that are frangible pin friendly, we need to get pins in those jumps. No, It isn't the answer to all the fatalities, but it's a start.

Let's get going and install those pins as soon as we can.

According to the current Cross Country Obstacle Design Guidelines, Frangible Pins are "not appropriate" for Novice and Training levels. They don't come into play (because of the jump heights) until Prelim.

I don't know if this is going to change with the newest Rule Change Proposal or not.

I've been re-reading all of these guidelines and the Frangible Pin handout again, to see where we can incorporate them on our courses this year, but since we only run up to Training, I don't see where I can do it.

[flutie1]

"I don't know if this is going to change with the newest Rule Change Proposal or not."

Frangibles have to have a certain "fall" distance to work right. Below Prelim, the fences are too low.

[colliemom]

"I don't know if this is going to change with the newest Rule Change Proposal or not."

Frangibles have to have a certain "fall" distance to work right. Below Prelim, the fences are too low.

That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation!

[denny]

I think the silver lining to all this furor is that safety concerns are front and center in most eventers minds, and also that it`s ok to be concerned about safety.
We (our sport, collectively) had seemingly developed this macho ethic that made you a whimp if you questioned things. Like the famous line from "The Charge of the Light Brigade"----"Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do or die----"
That sort of thinking has pervaded eventing for as long as I`ve been around, and from talking with Gen. Burton, long before that.
But our sport has reached a crossroads where that ethic will destroy it, if taken too far.
Yes, you still have to be gutsy, but you can be gutsy and not stupid!

[AUeventer]

I haven't read all of the responses (I'm supposed to be studying right now...) but I will say that I can barely afford to event as it is. If it's five or ten bucks, yeah I probably won't miss that, but it is already so expensive. Yes, I understand events are expensive to run, but I am stretched too thin when you add up the cost of the entry fee, DIESEL DIESEL DIESEL, hotel, monthly board, shoes (aluminum fronts, clips all around, stud holes, + friend discount=$150 with just one horse), lessons, training, new and replaced equipment, vet... One event can easily creep up close to $1000. That's insane! I already live on mac and cheese and Great Value products, but I can't cut too many more corners!!

[silver pine]

I have not read all the responses. But as a lower level rider (who was told by the ULR on the platform that Prelim was not a resonable goal for a novice rider) I am happy to pay an extra ammount on my entry- like the drug testing fee. That fee should stay with the farmhosting the event. so in my Area 1 if Apple Knoll has 150 riders for an event and only charges an extra $10 thats $1500, two events a year and your talking $3000. That should be enough to get started? Right?

As a BN an N level rider I have no problem paying an extra few bucks for changes to prelim and above level courses.

Small price to pay for the health and well being of our UL horses and riders.

FYI I find it emensley encouraging just how "In Touch" Denny is. For those of us who work full time to support our expensive little equine way of life its wonderful to hear someone say hey what about those "smurfs"! Thanks Denny, keep asking teh good questions!

[Hidden]

Absolutely.. but not thru dues. I think it should be thru the entry fees. I worry that if the money goes to USEA that it will not go to the intended funding. Now I love the USEA right now, but like a tax, once it's there.. well after a few years it is just money to cover whatever you need it too, and people forget why it was there in the first place.

[RAyers]

Y'now, this may seem OT, but it isn't, in my opinion, because all the suggestions people are making are little more than a shot in the dark if there's no data. It's all just guesswork -- and potentially expensive guesswork, like frangible pin costs. And it'll continue to be guesswork if data isn't collected.

What happens to all those jump judge and scorer sheets anyway? Are they thrown out? Y'know, if they aren't thrown out, some data could even be collected right now, retroactively.

I think I'd be more willing to pay for a more visible, more accessible, more widely used planning paper trail, plus data collection, that for any other hit-or-miss proposals. Indeed, I've thought for the longest while that what a bunch of increasingly complex, yet continuingly volunteer-based (and thus not "as" professionally run) organizations like USEA need is a COMMUNCATIONS AUDIT.

A communications audit can examine all documents and communication standard operating procedures (like how releases are structured) and make suggestions (including user-friendly "cheat sheets") for improving or supplementing them so communication is clearer AND records are truly useful. Alas, though, just as with the term "crisis management," I fear "communication audit" is unfamiliar and therefore not considered as a valuable practice. (It's sad because "strategic management" IS bandied about, so that concept from the non-horsey professional realm has found its way to the inside. Would that other, equally useful concepts could, too.)

[Ugh. Why am I writing this? I'll leave it here, but I know no one will really care. Gosh, how I wish I were involved in a professional profession. The kind of deliberation that goes on in the horse world just doesn't suit my personality at all.]

We are doing that as you write. IFG, on this BB is working with JO Whitehouse and KB to collect data for analysis. The killer is that it will take time.

Reed

[LLDM]

Just to clarify my earlier post - I don't want to HAVE TO pay for Frangible Pins that I (apparently) don't need and won't jump.

However... I am happy to donate to the cause. In other words, I will contribute willingly if given an option, but will be pissed if I HAVE TO subsidize the upper levels. Sorry - but it's the truth.

I can also tell you that folks are much more likely to donate if they get their names carved into the jump! :lol: As a board member of a long standing non-profit (a real charity) I can tell you that folks like to be acknowledged for their generosity - no matter what they say.

Next order of business is to start collecting some real data on the lower levels and even unrecognized HTs. I'll bet you real $$$$ that there you will find the beginnings of the safety issues that get so deadly for horse and rider at the higher levels.

There are MANY great thoughts, ideas and perspectives here on this forum. Many are dead on. But Denny ask where is was broken. I think it is broken quite a bit at the lower levels - it just isn't obvious there. But if we fix it there, it will (hopefully) start to sort itself out at the upper levels too.

What I really think we need to be doing is stating the obvious. Things like "kick on" are really not always appropriate. Moving up - if you aren't sure - then don't. Even if you are sure, make sure someone else (qualified, thinks you are more than ready also - hopefully someone who has actually seen you compete in all 3 phases. If you even think your horse is lame, or tired, or just plain off - get off and go home. Let's do those directives for ALL the levels. Let's limit the number of rides per event (I mean really, what are working students for?)

PS - Is everyone sure that running SJ in front of XC is not part of the problem? It just bothers the crap outta me and really, to me, makes the whole experience very different. I really think it changes how the lower levels ride - how you warm up and plan. It's just very odd to me still.

SCFarm

[pwynnnorman]

We are doing that as you write. IFG, on this BB is working with JO Whitehouse and KB to collect data for analysis. The killer is that it will take time.

Reed

But Reed, I'm not talking about the past as much as the future. Build the data into the system. It's like what Collimom does and what Horse and Hound publishes. Why can't we make note of what is done and works elsewhere and use some of it? I was blown away by the special feature in H&H where the courses were analyzed by division. And after each major competition, the way Eventing (UK) publishes the jump-by-jump stats is just awesome. BOTH of these examples show that across the pond, they already have the data. We learned this sport from them. Why don't we pick up a few other things from them, too?

That said, I'd also like to express my appreciation for the work y'all are doing. My comments are not meant to detract from that effort in any way, shape or form.

[halla]

Moving up - if you aren't sure - then don't. Even if you are sure, make sure someone else (qualified, thinks you are more than ready also - hopefully someone who has actually seen you compete in all 3 phases.

This just gave me, not quite a thought, but made me think of something else. I don't event, have never evented, so take with a small salt mountain, of course.

I did play polo, very low level, for a few years. In polo, you get a handicap. Now, the point is to even the playing between teams, so the focus is on making sure players' handicaps aren't too low, which isn't what you are after. But what LLDM's comment made me think of was the process of receiving a handicap. Basically, three people must observe your play over a period of at least three months, and then advise what handicap you get. It's based on actual play, not just practice, and they emphasize that "Handicap recommendations are to be based on observed past performances, not in anticipation of future ability."

Obviously this is a very very different world than eventing, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case it prompted any thoughts for someone else.

USPA handicap guidelines here: http://www.us-polo.org/documents/handicap_guidelines.pdf

[ksbadger]

I`m thinking about the modest little Area One and Two events near me, for example. They STRUGGLE to break even, and if they have to install those pins, maybe get rid of or dramatically modify their tables, whatever, I`m afraid some of them will just decide it isn`t worth it.

Going back to the OP, I, too, worry about the smaller events. Area V has lost a lot of venues recently (I know - not all due to costs) and there are several in Area IV that run on under 50 rides. Out of these some have Prelim divisions of under 10 entries so, even with a large additional fee, the frangible pin costs may be out of reach - especially if only "Approved" course builders can install them. We need to be very careful about any rules we make or risk events becoming unrecognized or even losing the venue completely.

BTW in another life I could install similar pins on aircraft but per the rules I, or anyone like me, couldn't do so on a jump. I've looked at the instructions and the pins should be able to be installed by any competent woodworker - certainly by anyone capable of building a well-constructed jump.

[deltawave]

So who would cough up $150 for a pair (I assume they are used in pairs?) of frangible pins to donate to the HT of their choice? I would. How could this effort be gotten off the ground? Would the average HT even make use of them? If not, why? Is retrofitting appropriate fences something that's do-able, or do fences need to be specially made with the pins?

[pwynnnorman]

Those pins look at lot like some of the stuff you'd find on an aluminum trailer. I wonder if a trailer manufacturer might have a way to manufacture the pins and sponsor their purchase or some such thing. Who currently manufactures them? Is the design under trademark or patent protection?

[rivenoak]

So who would cough up $150 for a pair (I assume they are used in pairs?) of frangible pins to donate to the HT of their choice? I would. How could this effort be gotten off the ground? Would the average HT even make use of them? If not, why? Is retrofitting appropriate fences something that's do-able, or do fences need to be specially made with the pins?

Some of us have already said we would. I'm in for 3 pairs for Coconino this year (or to St Johns if Coco runs out of jumps on which they can be used). This may be an annual thing for me; we'll see. I'd like to see others step up, too.

And I'm not even competing these days. But you know what, as the secretary this year, it's my way of giving back to the sport. I want to know that I helped make "our" courses safer. Especially in case I ever get to ride over it.

I hope other people out there feel the same way about "their" courses. :yes:

Get everyone to chip in some dough, donate braiding fees, sell raffle tickets, whatever it takes to raise the money. I'd rather not see it be a USEA fee; I'd rather it be done on a grass-roots individual event level at first and then maybe a fee to fund the recognized events that couldn't raise the cash.

[Gnep]

Put your money were your mouth is folks.
There are 4 people who have said they would finance pins. Put up or shut up. PERIOD

PWY, aint that easy, just a piece of aluminum, you know the breaking weight, of the breaking point, you know how much give is in the wood, you know out of what grade of steel or alu this is made. Just of hand, as a welder, I known 8 differant steel grades ( not including the specials ) and 5 differant alu, and naturally its trade mark, what did ya think

It aint that easy

[JER]

I'll pay for pins. Just tell me where to send them as I have no particular allegiances at present.

That said, I'd want a guarantee that they would be installed and used, or at the very least be the back-ups for a fence with pins.

[CarrieK]

Put up or shut up. PERIOD
Sir yes sir!

[Kementari]

I would happily pay $5-$10 extra on my entry if I knew it would really go to safety - and preferably to the actual event I was entering. Of course, given that at the moment I'm not sure I can afford ANY events this year (with or without an extra $10), that may not be worth much... But when I have the money to compete at all, I certainly have an extra $10 to help make courses safer for everyone (and I'm not competing at a level where pins would be used, but I'd still be happy to chip in my pittance for the good of those who ARE at those levels).

Denny, all the crap about "they're just freak accidents" has had that line ("Theirs not to reason why...") running through my head for the past couple of weeks - it's funny that you should bring it up. It really does reflect the attitude of some, which is a real pity. Since we are NOT in the military, ours is most definitely to reason why when people and horses are being seriously injured and killed in our sport - and, after that, to reason how to fix it! :yes:

[BigRuss1996]

I'll donate a dozen.... is there a list somewhere of what events need/want them?

[Hoof1]

In the natural emotional responses to recent accidents everyone wants something to happen. However I have never seen any statistics that shows eventing to be unsafe. High Risk yes. Frangible pins are a definite plus at certain fences at the upper levels where heights and spreads are considerably more then say training. How many frangible pins would have save or prevented any of the serious accidents? At the lower levels they just might cause falls. If a horse at training suddenly stops at a frangible pin fence causing his neck to come down on the rail (as in a sudden last minute stop) and the pin breaks the horse might just fall down. We see it in the stadium all the time. What about the horse jumping a frangible pin oxer that hits the rail and the pin breaks. What will happen the next time? Will he hit a similar back rail of an oxer the next time because he doesn't show the proper respect. Do you really get rotational falls at the Training, Novice level?? Proposed safety fixes may turn into more problems?

[JER]

Hoof1, no one is recommending frangible pins for situations other than in which they have been tested and demonstrated to function properly. Frangible pins have been in use for some time now and at least in the UK, they've prevented potentially serious/fatal accidents.

A good amount of research went into developing these pins. You can do a search on this BB to find out more or you can go to the USEA's handbook on frangible pins (http://useventing.com/resources/files/docs/frangpin_handbook_v8.pdf).

[pwynnnorman]

Put your money were your mouth is folks.
It aint that easy

Well, not much worth fighting for is. Just a thought. They were designed in Europe, right? Anyone designing them here? If so, there's someone in need of encouragement and support (hence my manufacturer idea). The great thing about horse sports is that most riders are more than riders: they are someone else in "real life." Who knows how those "someone else's" might be able to help? I'm of the opinion that the membership may have a lot of hidden skills and resources to offer if folks are willing to think out of the box a bit.

[bip]

Would it be possible for each area to have a fund drive, then endow a "safety fund" that would be invested and the returns used to fund frangible pins and replacement fences? How much capital would be necessary to provide an annual yield of the amount needed? Would this be possible in the larger areas, allowing USEA to focus national resources on smaller areas where the cost would otherwise be spread over too few people?

[scubed]

I'll donate 4 pins, but let me know where they should go. Denny, some of those smaller events in Areas I or II that you spoke about, but with upper levels so the pins are appropriate. Having now put up, I'll say that I think this is a great way to kick start it, but building it into fees or something may be the way to go for sustainability in the long run. I also think investigating whether they can be made and sold less expensively if there are "friends of eventing" who have appropriate machine shop capabilities is also worth investigating

[pwynnnorman]

How about a "Safey Fund Fee"?

[JER]

Would it be possible for each area to have a fund drive, then endow a "safety fund" that would be invested and the returns used to fund frangible pins and replacement fences?

I'd be afraid that pins would be bought and not implemented.

These pins have been available since 2002 in the UK. Ok, so they didn't have a US distributor until this year but since when has that stopped people from buying things from the UK? If you don't believe me, go ask Amazon UK or eBay UK. There's no way shipping on these pins could have been cost-prohibitive.

Heck, riders with a serious interest in safety buy the EXO vest and have it shipped over from the UK. The EXO is $550 plus shipping. In other words, more than a pair of pins and bulkier.

So a 'Fund for Frangibles' could easily just lead to a stockpile of pins which won't be helping anyone.

I want to see the pins in use. It's been 6 years. Clearly, this isn't going to happen without a big push.

[scubed]

Is there anyway to find out who is certified in each area and then use some of the donated $$ to help get them to venues that need the pins inserted, but don't have anyone to do it?

[bip]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bip http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=3147388#post3147388)
Would it be possible for each area to have a fund drive, then endow a "safety fund" that would be invested and the returns used to fund frangible pins and replacement fences?

I'd be afraid that pins would be bought and not implemented.

Obviously the fund should pay for implementation as well! That's all the more reason to run it at the Area level, to avoid communication problems that would lead to a pile of pins sitting around not getting incorporated into our courses.

[BBowen]

I would be willing to sponsor some pins. There is a course right in my backyard that runs horse trials through levels that can utilize the pins.

[Janet]

In the natural emotional responses to recent accidents everyone wants something to happen. However I have never seen any statistics that shows eventing to be unsafe. High Risk yes. Frangible pins are a definite plus at certain fences at the upper levels where heights and spreads are considerably more then say training. How many frangible pins would have save or prevented any of the serious accidents? At the lower levels they just might cause falls. If a horse at training suddenly stops at a frangible pin fence causing his neck to come down on the rail (as in a sudden last minute stop) and the pin breaks the horse might just fall down. We see it in the stadium all the time. What about the horse jumping a frangible pin oxer that hits the rail and the pin breaks. What will happen the next time? Will he hit a similar back rail of an oxer the next time because he doesn't show the proper respect. Do you really get rotational falls at the Training, Novice level?? Proposed safety fixes may turn into more problems?
Please read the frangible pin handbook.

Frangible Pins are NOT recommended for anything below Prelim, and only then within quite narrow construction limits.

The frangible pin will only shear when there is a direct downward force by the whole weight of the horse. The weight of the horse's neck cannot shear the pin. A horse that hits the fence, without rotating to put the full downward force on the pin, will not shear the pin. None the less, the jump judges at fences with frangible pins are instructed to check the pin (for even very slight bending) any time a horse hits a fence. If here is even very slight bending, the pin will be replaced.

When I jump judged a fence with frangible pins (Fair Hill CCI***), several people hit it quite hard, but the pin never budged.

Yes, there are rotational falls at the lower levels- I had a rotational fall at Training many years ago. Luckily the 2x6 had a crack, and it broke, and both the horse and I were fine.

[BigRuss1996]

The one thing I don't understand is that these pins have been available since 02 and they said that they were too expensive at 70.00 a pin because of the shipping?....Well how many times has the TEAM been over there for competitions that they could have just brought them back with the horses?!.....

[bludini]

....If there are 200 or more exhibitors per event....

Oh but it were true. Like denny mentioned some events in his area struggle to break even, our event has worried every year to get 100 competitors. We hold other activities, mini events, schooling days, hunter paces, clinics, even a very fun and successful trivia night, ANY THING WE CAN THINK OF to raise money just to pay the fees to hold our recognized event. Mandatory equipment for safety dictated by the governing body? Fine. Crank up the ol' money machine ( I promised the US Treasury I'd stop doing that.... but for the love of my sport...)

We have an Intermediate course that we've decided to reallocate into "new" revamped jumps for other levels ( a log here, a shortened ramp there) due to lack of interest in that level. The last time we ran that course, we received frantic calls from riders in other areas realizing they could use our event as some qualifier, to please Please PLEASE run I. So we did...Yeah, TWO of them showed up. We spent THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars that year to upgrade our entire course. It just about ruined us, I mean we were ready to fold.

As I believe Janet said, the pin system is designed to allow the back rail to fall when a horse hits it with such force as to cause him to flip (and land on his rider). Table jumps cannot use the system, up banks 1 stride after a huge log cannot. It was a very interesting presentation, (Dan Stark, I think at the 2006 convention). Watch it if you can.

[melodiousaphony]

I would :)

Heck, if I were taught how, I'd help put them in!