Phillip Dutton's thoughts on Red Hills

[Eventer4life28]

From Phillip's blog (phillipdutton.com) :

Thoughts on Red Hills
Like everyone else in the event world, I have been following the controversy that was brought to a head because of the cross country day at Red Hills in March.

It seems that there is a percentage of eventers who have been frustrated with the way the cross country courses are designed and believe that it is related to the change to the short format three day event. It is ironic that the technical jumps were first introduced to actually make courses safer by slowing riding down. It also should be noted that the two deaths last year in Florida both occurred at galloping open jumps.

I personally feel it is very unfair to target Mark Phillips. His course at Red Hills did not work, however, he designs many courses in this country which overall ride well. If you look back over time, I think courses are much more safe and well thought out than ever before. There have been plenty of bad cross country days in the past and the designers have tried to learn from these.

As a sport we do need to look hard at the qualifications of horse and rider before moving up to the next level. Stronger qualification requirements, I feel, will have horses and riders better prepared for the next challenge.

The USEA President, Kevin Baumgardner's, statement on the USEA website I felt was very negative. He was obviously trying to appeal to some of the members who feel there needs to be radical change. We actually have a lot to be pleased with in the sport including record numbers of competitors with a very low accident rate. It is a shame this was not noted in press releases.

Since Red Hills in Area II, there have been two successful events that I attended. One at Southern Pines and one at The Fork. The Fork being one of the wettest events I have attended. I hope that Jim Cognell's farm recovers. We certainly appreciate all the effort that went in to coping with the inclement weather.

Now it is on to Rolex ...

[TB or not TB?]

Are THAT many people pointing fingers at CMP and blaming him for everything? I think many folks have expressed dislike for him, and he's not at all my favorite person, but hardly anyone is saying that it's ALL his fault. I know there was a thread that examined his ROLE in the changes (because let's face it, he does have a significant influence), but no one is saying he is solely responsible for the craptastic things happening. Actually the only one who called him the anti-christ was Cheese... ;)

Sigh. I feel like people are trying to come up with excuses not to listen, rather that admitting we may have a point. :sigh:

Also, it seems a little tacky to criticize Kevin after chastising folks for criticizing CMP.

[c_expresso]

This is not suprising... it seems most ULRs/BNRs do not miss the long format at all and it is infact the LLRs that miss it most.

[JER]

Phillip Dutton says:
There have been plenty of bad cross country days in the past and the designers have tried to learn from these.


But here's the problem. While CMP acknowledges Red Hills had a bad XC day, he doesn't think there was a problem with his course design.

So I suppose it's up to other designers to learn from CMP's mistakes?

[Snapdragon]

Well, I guess all is Ok then! Carry on!

But, let's make sure qualifications are put into place. Afterall, all the riders and horses killed and injured weren't meeting the qualifications.

[RAyers]

" We actually have a lot to be pleased with in the sport including record numbers of competitors with a very low accident rate."


This is a VERY unsubstantiated claim. Other works are showing that accident rates across the board, not just at FEI levels, are much higher than what is claimed. This is not new. It is just the FEI has UNDERESTIMATED the accidents by only focusing on FEI competitions and only focusing on riders, not horse injuries.

Reed

[TexasTB]

The USEA President, Kevin Baumgardner's, statement on the USEA website I felt was very negative. He was obviously trying to appeal to some of the members who feel there needs to be radical change.

Negative??? I'm not sure how he got that from his letter. The entire point of Kevin's letter was improving safety, opening up our courses, and encouraging ALL members to speak out and have their opinions be heard. I fail to see how this is a negative.

[TB or not TB?]

I fail to see how this is a negative.

Because clearly they don't want to hear it.

It's times like these that I want to give up on eventing. :(

[CookiePony]

It's times like these that I want to give up on eventing. :(

No, don't give up, we just got Kevin B.!

[eqsiu]

You can't please all people all of the time. I think there are pros and cons to what eventing is now. However, we lack the meticulous data that would help us evaluate safety. Unless every incident is taken into account, and every incident is recorded in detail (i.e. not just "fall"), then we can't make an educated statement about safety overall.

[Tuckertoo]

The USEA President, Kevin Baumgardner's, statement on the USEA website I felt was very negative. He was obviously trying to appeal to some of the members who feel there needs to be radical change.


I would like to know which statement/which part of which statement he's referring to. There have been quite a few.:lol:

And these people make up a majority of the membership. This sport doesn't (or at least shouldn't) cater to the few "elite"...which is what people have been saying all along.

I like Phillip, but these people just don't seem to get it.

Other than that, I like what he said.

[Clear Blue]

Kyle Carter made reference as well in his Rolex blog.

"I can only speak for myself in saying that Saturday night at the Fork I was ready to pull out and go home on Sunday if the footing had not improved dramatically. All of us riders make decisions based on our own experiences and it is always best to think what is right for one horse may not be the best for all. Certainly with that responsibility as upper level riders and trainers we should watch for unqualified voices being given heed and beware opinions of the untutored."

[denny]

What the current upper level riders seem to keep overlooking--- (and I specifically use the word "current", because upper level riders come and ALWAYS eventually go, to be replaced by others)---what they keep forgetting is that thousands of other people keep this sport afloat.
To knock Kevin Baumgardner`s efforts to make the sport safer and more enjoyable is just another example of how out of touch with the majority many of them are.
They don`t get it. Wealthy owners, strings of fabulous horses, accolades, you name it, shield and insulate them from what it`s like for most of the thousands of riders who keep them able to have a sport to be at the top of.
I`d be a lot more impressed if some of these riders would become USEA Board members, and use their abilities for the common good, than to slam Kevin`s thoughtful letter as "negative."

[Hannahsmom]

I`d be a lot more impressed if some of these riders would become USEA Board members, and use their abilities for the common good, than to slam Kevin`s thoughtful letter as "negative."

Agreed. It seems to me that few of the ULR's (either current or past) seem to be staying with the sport in an administrative capacity to help guide it for the future.

As far as Phillip Dutton's comments, well everyone gets to put their own opinions in their own blog. If people don't like it, they don't have to read it.

[boppin along]

Phillip Dutton has been my all time hero forever in the event world.
I am so dissappointed in his statements.
Now I have to find a new hero.... I think it will be Kevin B.
Denny hit the nail on the head, I have had many personal conversations with ULR lately and sad to say, they echoed Phillip's thoughts.
One in particular got quite defensive and angry when I asked her what her thoughts were on this whole controversey, she basically said she is sick of hearing "uneducated, uninformed people on COTH making all of this hysteria".
I too feel like giving up on eventing as our sport of choice and switching to Hunter Jumpers.

[BarbB]

It's too bad that the unwashed masses cannot spend their eventing dollars on improving and educating themselves and their smurf courses and let the ULRs who don't want to be bothered with all this finance their own courses, HTs and oh yeah, come up with replacement for the monies from the USEA and USEF that go toward financing the international team.

Honestly, if you feel that 'special' and entitled at least have the manners to shut up about it. Bad mouthing the people who FINANCE your sport is sooooooo classless.

I have long ago given up spending my money where it is
1. not appreciated...as in... 'Thank You"
2. taken for granted...as in.....these comments about the lower level riff-raff

and that includes stores, services, community organizations, sports organizations, charities....you name it.

[kt-rose]

To not listen seriously to the thoughts of a man who I would venture to guess rides more horses over more courses than almost anyone else in the world doesn't make sense to me...

[annikak]

To not listen seriously to the thoughts of a man who I would venture to guess rides more horses over more courses than almost anyone else in the world doesn't make sense to me...

:yes:

[JER]

They don`t get it. Wealthy owners, strings of fabulous horses, accolades, you name it, shield and insulate them from what it`s like for most of the thousands of riders who keep them able to have a sport to be at the top of.
I`d be a lot more impressed if some of these riders would become USEA Board members, and use their abilities for the common good, than to slam Kevin`s thoughtful letter as "negative."

It's the trophy wife conundrum. You've got everything you need/want to make you comfortable but you've lost your independence and you're afraid of losing what you have so it's easier to live in denial.

I also noticed that Phillip D. had not one word about being the rider rep for Red Hills. I thought it would be part of his perspective.

[RunForIt]

To not listen seriously to the thoughts of a man who I would venture to guess rides more horses over more courses than almost anyone else in the world doesn't make sense to me...

Discussion is all about agreeing to disagree in a civilized, respectful way.

I do listen seriously to Phillip; appreciate, no, actually marvel at his skill in bringing along horses and riding at the top levels. He seems to have good family values, is friendly to everyone at horse trials and clinics. He has had incredible rides over countless courses - XC and stadium and schooling for those courses. OF COURSE, we need to listen to his thoughts.

But dismissing Kevin Baumgardner's statement as mere reaction - "appeasement" to a group - does not merit admiration. I don't suddenly dislike Phillip or intend to disparage him on the BB. However, I will probably shoot him a note or email suggesting he speak directly to Kevin and inquire why he put the statements he did in his letter on the USEA website. The group of eventers to whom Phillip referred DOES provide the financial platform for him and his peers to engage in making a living that for the majority of the rest of us is a hobby...an expensive one that requires many of us to make sacrifices to participate.

[LisaB]

Phillip is known to be a jock. He's an incredible athlete. With that, comes a certain mindset that we (those of us who are not natural athletes) don't commiserate with. It is nice that he at least addresses his viewpoint in a 'safe' environment, his blog. It's his opinion. I don't want to call him a 'dumb jock' but just a jock in his own world. I find it hard to believe that he would have time to assess the entire situation and really read what we are expressing.

[BarbB]

To not listen seriously to the thoughts of a man who I would venture to guess rides more horses over more courses than almost anyone else in the world doesn't make sense to me...

I certainly am happy to listen to him. I wouldn't dream of questioning his ability or his experience or even his opinions. I'm sort of a fan, he is wonderful to watch.

I DO think that the general dismissal of the masses of people who finance this sport for everyone, donate money for injured riders funds, pay high prices for clinics with at least some notion of supporting as well as learning from the top riders, stick money in the begging envelopes from various horse sports organizations... is elitist and an irresponsible attitude toward the health and future of the sport.

If it was one rider or two or whatever I would be more willing to just shrug it off as a minority opinion, but it does not appear to be a minority opinion and I can hear the sound of my wallet snapping shut.

[kt-rose]

If it was one rider or two or whatever I would be more willing to just shrug it off as a minority opinion, but it does not appear to be a minority opinion ...

Then perhaps in the interest of our sport we should brush the collective chip off our shoulders and listen. We are fortunate enough to have a number of UL riders who ARE true horsemen and care about their horses as well as winning medals. We are fortunate to have Kevin B and the USEA taking our concerns about our sport seriously. We are fortunate to have any number of wonderful courses to ride and organizers who care a great deal about building good safe courses. I remember the courses 30-35 years ago and Phillip is right, we have much to be pleased about.

I agree Red Hills was a very bad day for eventing and a wake up call for the direction the sport is going. Much as I love eventing, I have always had questions as to whether or not the *** and **** levels were more than we should ask. And the older and more cautious I get, the more I worry about my horses going out there and contesting some of those courses. But the more I read and chat with the serious riders I know, the more convinced I am that so much of this is really just shouldering the resposibility we have to our horses. If you don't like the course, if it is not right for your horse or yourself on that day for whatever reason, what is he doing jumping it? Everyone involved in the sport has a responsibility to safeguard the horses, but no one more so than the rider and owner who decides what the horse does on a given day.

[mbarrett]

I find Phillip's comments interesting. Of course, Phillip entitled to his own opinion. It is how he sees the eventing world while sitting on the top of the pyramid, looking down at the "great unwashed masses" as many of us have called the ourselves, the LLR's.

I find it a contrast to Bruce Davidson's comments that were posted on the USEA's website. Bruce is also sitting on top of the pyramid, and he seeing the situation very different than Phillip does. Interesting. I have great deal of respect for Bruce D. and he has been around a long time. He has seen it all, and done it all, many times over. I think Bruce "gets it" and Phillip doesn't.

I think that many of the ULR's feel very threatened by the reaction of the unwashed masses and the outcry over the Red Hills situation. Even though a lot of our anger was directed at Mark Phillips, I think we are also reacting to the situation that we feel we have no control over. The way fences/courses are designed, the way we (LLR) are tossed scraps to keep us happy, etc., the list has been thoroughly hashed over on this BB.

I think the ULR's feel that a revolt is coming and they will certainly be affected by it. The USEA is a club that has many levels of riders that it must work for. I'm sure it's a big job to accommodate the BN riders, all the way up to the Advanced riders. But the majority of the members of the USEA are lower level riders and our needs must be met. The club is here for us, not for a handful of ULR's. It must accommodate ALL riders. I think the ULR's feel this is not necessary.

I am glad that Kevin B. is taking our concerns seriously. While Phillip thought his letter was negative, I don't think his letter had a negative tone at all. I am proud that the USEA is working toward making courses safe for all, as well as addressing the many other concerns that have come to the surface.

Phillip is one lucky man to have scores of super horses to ride, sponsors, owners falling all over him, and plenty of success. But he needs to step out of the box and look around. He might get a different perspective if he looks hard enough.

So, Phillip reads the COTH BB? I wonder if he has ever responded on any of the threads? Anyone konw. I'm glad he is a little nervous by the unwashed masses!

[vineyridge]

Here's what I think is wrong in what he says:

Most non-professional adult riders have a least a college education and responsible jobs or they couldn't afford the sport. (Okay, that may be a gross generalization). One thing additional education does is teach a person how to reason. It may be a specialized kind of reasoning, as in law or science, but we learn how to evaluate facts and come to conclusions. We are taught to look for holes in our arguments and to evaluate those.

Most professional riders don't have the benefit of this additional education. What they do is learn a sport and how to do the physical aspects well. They seem to me to live a great deal more in the moment than the rest of us, who maybe have a deeper sense of self preservation.

Why would anyone ever expect them to be deep thinkers about the future? If they were, would they even go at advanced levels? Why would they be expected to be administrators or managers? They haven't been equipped by their life experiences to be good at either.

JMHO

[austin]

I'm not sure I agree, he is my favorite to watch on cross country, but are you all saying:

the reason Phillip can ride so brilliantly is he is not using his brain cells for anything else? :)

[annikak]

I am not sure that PD Blog post means that he thinks the letter is negative in tone- rather that the quick reaction (which the LLR's appreciate) might not have been the best thing for the USEA/Kevin to do. I know that many appreciated the letter- so nuff said there.

What has come out of this entire thing is some very very good, IMO. The studies in EIPH and the safety micro glasses being put on...needed and appreciated by all in the sport I am sure. Inc PD- as no one wants a horse to drop dead under them...esp at Advanced Speeds.:eek:

What has come out that is negative is the bickering- I know opinions are just that, but some of the opinions may be pushing our sport into a corner.

A very wise person said to me that Kevins letter was a political, strategic move. OUr sport may be heading in 2 directions- is that so bad? 2 committees BN-TR/Prelim USEA and Prelim*-***, inc HT at those levels. Then there has to be some over seeing committee to make sure the goals don't stray to far for each side.

I guess that I am one that does not see the financial issues- I pay my entry to ride MY course- and I think out of the events I enter, any one of those courses would cost a hellofa lot more to build then my 200 bucks. Hell, that does not pay for a BN log! I actually think we get quite a bang for our buck in eventing. Honestly.

I like watching Phillip ride- every ride I watch of his is an education- so if I pay for that, okay. I am truly okay on that.

[LISailing]

I for one am thankful for Kevin B.'s efforts to reach the masses, no matter how lowly or godly they may be. It's an undauting effort that will hopefully produce some out-of-the-box ideas.

I didn't realize that only ULRs are able to have ideas that would be able to move the sport forward. That is what I'm hearing from CMP and Phillip, very sad.

I cliniced with Phillip once and must say that I really wasn't impressed (won't waste my hard earned money, time or energy again). However, I'd ride with Denny, Lucinda, or Bruce any day. They always have something to offer, even if I'm riding well and my horse is having a spectacular day.

[CiegoStar]

Phillip is a gifted rider. He is not a gifted communicator. Nuff said.

[pwynnnorman]

Here's what I think is wrong in what he says:

Most non-professional adult riders have a least a college education and responsible jobs or they couldn't afford the sport. (Okay, that may be a gross generalization). One thing additional education does is teach a person how to reason. It may be a specialized kind of reasoning, as in law or science, but we learn how to evaluate facts and come to conclusions. We are taught to look for holes in our arguments and to evaluate those.

Most professional riders don't have the benefit of this additional education. What they do is learn a sport and how to do the physical aspects well. They seem to me to live a great deal more in the moment than the rest of us, who maybe have a deeper sense of self preservation.

Why would anyone ever expect them to be deep thinkers about the future? If they were, would they even go at advanced levels? Why would they be expected to be administrators or managers? They haven't been equipped by their life experiences to be good at either.

JMHO

I think these are excellent points. I also think they justify the value of discussion on these BBs. You are so right, VV: ULRs have little time to think beyond the moment (or at least the next major competition). They have not, historically, retired into the leadership (at least not much--not much at all). That's a pretty telling trait. Some are involved while they are still riding, but not when they retire and none, except Denny and Jimmy, have reamained very visible (much less very vocal).

I also think this "live in the moment" mentality may be impacting the sport due to the long-term occupational, organizational and financial challenges that may not be fully anticipated or appreciated by busy ULRs--especially younger (and single and/or non-parent) ones (harkening back to what I said about "twenty-somethings" in a past thead).

It's not necessarily "elitist," but I don't think ULRs think the way ordinary people think at all. I think there are big gaps in their powers of observation and also their foresight, associations and reasoning (and, no, please--don't read me as saying ALL are like this!). It's not their fault, but it sounds like many top-level athletes (and other single-minded, ambitious sorts) have a tendency toward tunnel vision. They don't even see what is happening on the sidelines, much less understand it. They see the ball, the referees, the other players--and not much else.

Edited to add:
Then again, sometimes they don't see the referees either.

[TB or not TB?]

It's not necessarily "elitist," but I don't think ULRs think the way ordinary people think at all. I think there are big gaps in their powers of observation and also their foresight, associations and reasoning (and, no, please--don't read me as saying ALL are like this!). It's not their fault, but it sounds like many top-level athletes (and other single-minded, ambitious sorts) have a tendency toward tunnel vision. They don't even see what is happening on the sidelines, much less understand it. They see the ball, the referees, the other players--and not much else.

:yes::yes::yes: I was so upset yesterday for a number of reasons and Phillip's letter just took me over the edge - THIS is why. The answer actually came while I was sleeping, and this is exactly it.

[RAyers]

Why would anyone ever expect them to be deep thinkers about the future? If they were, would they even go at advanced levels? Why would they be expected to be administrators or managers? They haven't been equipped by their life experiences to be good at either.

JMHO


Hey, some of use resemble that remark! ;)

There are a few here on COTH and plenty at the USEF and USEA who got a high education and went advanced levels. Maybe we aren't as good but we have done it.

Actually, I agree with everything you said. The sad part is, just like any pro athlete, they are also supposed to act as ambassadors and public representatives of the sport. That means they need to get educated about the masses.

Reed

[Debbie]

My thoughts on this are that for Phillip Dutton today's courses likely aren't a problem. The man is a machine, an amazing, ride the hair off of a horse, machine. Unfortunately gearing courses to his skills means the margins of error are such that the 95% or so of the "rest" are seriously at risk. I think on any given day the XC course should look easy for Phillip; he's one of the best in the world.

[denny]

I tend to agree with Debbie. When you build for the top 10-20 riders in the world in show jumping, for instance, the rest get eliminated, they don`t have a fairly high chance of getting flipped over on.
So what should be the delicate balance of the year 2008?
This is why it`s so important NOT to stifle a meaningful dialogue.

[sofiethewonderhorse]

DO think that the general dismissal of the masses of people who finance this sport for everyone, donate money for injured riders funds, pay high prices for clinics with at least some notion of supporting as well as learning from the top riders, stick money in the begging envelopes from various horse sports organizations... is elitist and an irresponsible attitude toward the health and future of the sport.


You are correct, that attitude is elitist and it is irresponsible further, it has harmed the health and future of the sport.

Unfortunately, (I've said this on other threads) until, us...the smurfs (I'm a smurf, you're a smurf, we're all smurfs) communicate clearly that 'arrogance' is not to be financially rewarded, the trend will continue.

In other words, until the LLR walk with their feet, and refuse to take clinics from arrogant ULR's....a culture change will not happen.

Like this, in a kind and considerate manner:

'I'm sorry you are having a bad day, I'm not learning anything from your beratement, I'm getting off and asking the organizer for a refund to be taken out of your wages'

Well, that probably won't work....anyone have a better idea?

[Hony]

I think Bruce "gets it" and Phillip doesn't.



What is "it"?

We all wanted to know what the ULRs thought, and now we don't like their answer? They are looking at the recent happenings from their perspective which is every bit as valuable as everyone else's perspective.

[BarbB]

What is "it"?

We all wanted to know what the ULRs thought, and now we don't like their answer? They are looking at the recent happenings from their perspective which is every bit as valuable as everyone else's perspective.

I would love to hear their thoughts on the state of the sport and what, if anything needs to change and why or why not.

My problem is with the dismissal of the opinions on this board and others who have expressed concerns for the sport, as coming from the ignorant who should not be listened to.

[tuppysmom]

I don't know, I went to school past grade 12, as did DH and DD, (by the way PD did also). I am lower than a smurf because I no longer ride, but I have opinions too.

Try our best to raise up the next generation of ULR to be good citizens, horsemen, respectful, humble?

After all, they are currently smurfs, and have smurffy feelings. I was not an English major, ( more BS ish), do I double the F before adding the Y ?

Alas, we are again broke down, this time in KS. somezing telz me ve should not be on ziz trip!

[mbarrett]

I'll tell you what "it" is. I just reread Bruce Davidson's comments on the USEA web site. I agree with everything he says about the current state of eventing in the United States. That is the "it" I mean. Why don't you go read it, www.eventingusa.com.

I don't agree with what Phillip Dutton says. I don't think he believes there is a problem with current courses, fences, safety, etc., etc., etc.

I also think he's feeling very threatened by the current discussion going on throughout the eventing world (USA) and on this very BB. (Smurfs uprising!)

PD is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I sit on the same side of the fence as Bruce D., Kevin B. and many other folks in favor of positive changes within the eventing world.

[mbarrett]

I'll tell you what "it" is. I just reread Bruce Davidson's comments on the USEA web site. I agree with everything he says about the current state of eventing in the United States. That is the "it" I mean. Why don't you go read it, www.eventingusa.com.

I don't agree with what Phillip Dutton says. I don't think he believes there is a problem with current courses, fences, safety, etc., etc., etc.

I also think he's feeling very threatened by the current discussion going on throughout the eventing world (USA) and on this very BB. (Smurfs uprising!)

PD is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I sit on the same side of the fence as Bruce D., Kevin B. and many other folks in favor of positive changes within the eventing world.

[Hony]

We all have an opinion but just because the most recent statement by PD doesn't follow with what some of us want doesn't mean it's any less valid. The feeling I am getting from this thread and other threads regarding statements is that because they ride at the upper level they must be part of a conspiracy.

I think PD felt there was a problem with Red Hills but that it was one course out of many good ones. It seems to me like a very positive outlook.

I myself am geering up to do a prelim/* season and since most accidents have happened at this level I too prefer to look on the positive side. If I didn't I don't know how I would ever go out to another event. I'm glad that safety is top of mind but I don't want it to become all consuming until I am frozen by fear. That can be just as dangerous as a tough combination!

[tulkas]

The theory that academic training somehow endows the recipient with mystical powers of reason does not hold water. If it were true, then far fewer in the Academy would support progressive and facist movements. In fact friend rayers is a prime example of one so long calculating interplanetary trajectories that he has become lost in space.

tulkas

[TB or not TB?]

The theory that academic training somehow endows the recipient with mystical powers of reason does not hold water. If it were true, then far fewer in the Academy would support progressive and facist movements. In fact friend rayers is a prime example of one so long calculating interplanetary trajectories that he has become lost in space.

tulkas

Wow. :eek:

[oreo]

This is kind of an aside, but I always thought a "Forum" was a discussion venue. Does anyone find it odd that his Forum (http://phillipdutton.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=4&Itemid=76) (which is really more of a blog) doesn't allow comments to be posted?

I have to say I'm quite disappointed.

[Snapdragon]

Yes, really, I'm finding the posts that seem to say if you didn't get an academic degree, you don't have the ability to reason things through. C'mon, that's complete nonsense (oh, and yes, I have two degrees, and sometimes find it hard to remember what day it is!)

I appreciate what PD and others are saying. For the most part, things are going well. It's just that the bad things are so bad that they really do need to be addressed in a deep way. I think that is what is missing from the ULRs' rah-rah, no problems here, mantra. I have no problem with them continuing on in basically the same vein as before, but I think they should acknowledge that more care has to be taken as the sport moves forward as far as safety goes--and not just safety for the lower levels. That is in the best interest of all eventing riders.

[TB or not TB?]

This is kind of an aside, but I always thought a "Forum" was a discussion venue. Does anyone find it odd that his Forum (http://phillipdutton.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=4&Itemid=76) (which is really more of a blog) doesn't allow comments to be posted?

I have to say I'm quite disappointed.

Actually I can understand that a little. He'd probably get a lot of weirdos and teens saying "z0mg can i train wit u?"

[pwynnnorman]

The theory that academic training somehow endows the recipient with mystical powers of reason does not hold water. If it were true, then far fewer in the Academy would support progressive and facist movements. In fact friend rayers is a prime example of one so long calculating interplanetary trajectories that he has become lost in space.

tulkas
Yes, really, I'm finding the posts that seem to say if you didn't get an academic degree, you don't have the ability to reason things through. C'mon, that's complete nonsense (oh, and yes, I have two degrees, and sometimes find it hard to remember what day it is!)

Oh, come ON. Now you're sounding like some friggin' politician who just hears what he wants to hear and then twists it to make his point, regardless of what was really meant: Obama is ungodly and unpatriotic because he has associated with controversial people and doesn't wear a flag on his lapel.

Vineyridge explained it perfectly well, if you didn't shut down into self-selected perception. She said ULRs often don't have the education (and she didn't say always don't) or time or experience to utilized the kind of structured reasoning that is taught. NOTE: she also didn't say "is learned." She said TAUGHT. Anyone can go to school and not learn squat. But the opportunity to take courses in management (of issues, people, money, crises, etc., etc.) isn't an opportunity many ULRs are granted--right?

So, VR's point was that they are not "as equipped" in a generic way, to deal with those kinds of issues! It's that simple. Please don't distort it in order to malign academics--and why do so anyway? What's your point in insulting us? Does it make you feel better? Superior,maybe? Do we make you feel inferior because we dare to discuss the value education can have? Because, for us (well, for ME), it isn't about inferiority or superiority. It's about addressing a problem in productive, broadminded ways. :mad:

[Snapdragon]

I wasn't insulting academics; I was trying to say that you don't need an academic degree to be able to reason thoughtfully. Sorry if my post came across otherwise--that was not my intent.

I have worked with Ph.D.s throughout my career, and some of them are my favorite people!

[oreo]

Actually I can understand that a little. He'd probably get a lot of weirdos and teens saying "z0mg can i train wit u?"

TRUE! I guess he's too busy being brilliant rider to sit around on his computer.

And we'd be disappointed if he spent less time being a brilliant rider b/c we wouldn't be able to watch and take notes (such as OMG "How can he make the most difficult line on an advanced course look like a Sunday afternoon hack??")

[TB or not TB?]

Haha there you go!

[pwynnnorman]

I wasn't insulting academics; I was trying to say that you don't need an academic degree to be able to reason thoughtfully. Sorry if my post came across otherwise--that was not my intent.

I have worked with Ph.D.s throughout my career, and some of them are my favorite people!

I'm sorry for jumping on you, Snapdragon. I am so tired, I can't even sleep! I've been grading total novices' news stories all damn day long with a ton of revisions still waiting for me to get to them. They want to chop out all the interesting details because the result is easier to write, even if the result isn't the least bit newsworthy. Life isn't SIMPLE. It's complex and downright tiresome--as am I tonight. :sadsmile:

[CiegoStar]

This is kind of an aside, but I always thought a "Forum" was a discussion venue. Does anyone find it odd that his Forum (http://phillipdutton.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=4&Itemid=76) (which is really more of a blog) doesn't allow comments to be posted?

I have to say I'm quite disappointed.

Yah, but see, it's Phillip's Forum, not yours! :lol:

I kind of liked it better when Phillip seemed like a silent mystery man with supernatural riding powers...

[Snapdragon]

No problemo PWynn--I know you're passionate about what you do--horsey and otherwise! I'm a science editor, so I feel your pain!!!!

Try to get a good night's sleep, and whip those budding writers into shape!!!

And to keep this on topic: TB or not? very, very funny!!!!

[oreo]

Yah, but see, it's Phillip's Forum, not yours! :lol:

I kind of liked it better when Phillip seemed like a silent mystery man with supernatural riding powers...

Me too! Maybe he got a new gene pool since he morphed into an American.

[NeverTime]

I agree w/Hony. These threads are taking on the tone of ... well, I'm not sure if it's a mob or lemmings. And the group attitude being directed toward any BNR/BNT who doesn't agree with the COTH BB is the opposite of condusive to discussion: "You don't agree with us. Therefore you don't think we are a valuable part of the USAE, you don't respect us, you don't care about your horses and you are in the pocket of the selectors." What a fabulous leap to make, and yet it's here in type over and over again. All these people have come out one by one -- WF-P, LL, riders council (and all the many, respected people on it), PD -- and shared their opinions on Red Hills and the associated issue, the only answer they get on these BBs is this negativity. Almost no one has said, "Hey, gee, all these people who actually ride these courses see it differently, maybe we should give their points more serious consideration."

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some people's opinions are better informed than others. That a person has never ridden or coached or owned a horse past training level doesn't make them a "smurf" or part of the "great unwashed masses"-- but it does mean that :eek: they probably AREN'T equipped to acurrately (a) assess the merits of a specific advanced-level course or (b) presume to know what goes on inside the head of someone who earns his or her living at that level.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why is it even insulting that BNTs don't value the advice -- when it comes to advanced-level course design -- of a bunch of mostly-anonymous posters on an internet BB, 98% (statistically speaking) of whom have never ridden at that level and know not of what they speak, even if they are, of course, "entitled" to speak it? (Queue the insulted, self-righteous comments that start with "I may be a smurf, but...":rolleyes:).

Would you expect a friend to take your advice on heart-health over their cardiologist? Or your advice on legal issues over an attorney's? If not, then why on earth, when it comes to riding an advanced XC course, is it so insulting to think that LLRs opinions of UL courses don't carry as much weight as ULR/ULTs?

I don't see ANY of these people saying that horse and rider safety aren't critical issues, just as I don't see any of them saying that lower-level riders are unimportant to the sport. They are just pointing out the basic fact that a lot of the hue and cry isn't coming from within their own ranks but from people who haven't actually done what it is they do for a living. It's a valid point.

The discussions on safety and course design need to continue, but they aren't very productive when people are working so hard, for no apparent reason, to polarize them.

[LLDM]

Would you expect a friend to take your advice on heart-health over their cardiologist? Or your advice on legal issues over an attorney's?

Um, maybe because they are tested and peer reviewed in a structured, professional manner?

I have some pretty smart friends too.

And I do question my doctors, attorneys, etc.

I think what you are seeing is a backlash. ULRs, BNTs and various "insiders" often come off as a breed apart. But they aren't. And often they are too close to the trees to see the forest.

When the rest of the world has this kind of problem, they hire consultants. And here we are offering an outside perspective for free! :D

SCFarm

[BarbB]

I would like to hear the ULR, insiders etc say that the concerns expressed on this board are misguided, wrong, whatever, because of A, B and C and give some good reasons and insights gained from their experience.

To say that the opinions here should be ignored because....you aren't an ULR so your opinion isn't valid is not a convincing argument.

I don't build rockets either, but if you build rockets and yours keep flying into the ground don't get all huffy when I point out that you appear to be doing something wrong. :eek:

[TB or not TB?]

NeverTime, I do understand what you're saying. It's something I've been thinking a lot about. Believe it or not, I really do listen carefully to what ULRs are saying on this subject and try to look at it without bias. Not all the ULRs are saying the same thing though (just like not all LLRs are), so to say it's an "us against them" mentality is folly. :yes:

Additionally, in a proper systems analysis (which is what this is), the issue must be evaluated from an outside perspective. That is why companies hire systems analyzers or outsiders to do audits. So while the input from those who are entrenched in the system (ULRs) is valuable, there is always going to be a "can't see the forest because of the trees" mentality present. This is why we can't just rely on the current professionals to fix our sport. It's also why I very much value input from people like Bruce or Denny, who have done it for so long that they have nothing left to prove.

[RAyers]

Would you expect a friend to take your advice on heart-health over their cardiologist? Or your advice on legal issues over an attorney's? If not, then why on earth, when it comes to riding an advanced XC course, is it so insulting to think that LLRs opinions of UL courses don't carry as much weight as ULR/ULTs?


I agree about this when the discussion is about riding a course and horsemanship. No question. However when it turns to "safety" all bets are off. None of the URLs who have spoken out, positively or negatively, have any experience in Safety and Health. Industry as well as academia have entire divisions specifically oriented to health and safety. Why? The presidents and CEOs have no concept of how it all works. And I am not talking about just from the individual but as an organization and culture. Thus, to me, when a rider such as Phillip Dutton says the sport is "safer" his judgement as to the state of the sport, as a whole, becomes suspect. Again the data out there contradicts what Phillip and others have continued to regurgitate from the FEI.

tulkas, I apologize for the fascists who created the technologies that make you and your horses' lives all comfy and cozy (unless you are a Quaker but then you wouldn't be on line). And at least a few of us fascists are out in the eventing world competing at high levels, breeding top horses, running the USEF, USEA. So, feel free to not associate with us. At least we know how to spell "fascist."

Reed

P.S. I think the last orbit calculation I did was in 1992.

[oreo]

I agree w/Hony. These threads are taking on the tone of ... well, I'm not sure if it's a mob or lemmings.
The discussions on safety and course design need to continue, but they aren't very productive when people are working so hard, for no apparent reason, to polarize them.

Umm - firstly I take exception to being called a mob or a lemming.

Secondly, as many have said before, we ALL put our lives, and the lives of our horses, at risk every time we leave the box. I think it is valid to discuss safety, even at BN this is a dangerous sport. We all know that but why not discuss it?

The "unwashed masses" (not my description) pay for and keep this sport ALIVE and deserve more respect. They work just as hard to reach their dreams.

Enuff said.

[Gnep]

tulka babe, what weed did ya smoke, can I get some of the stuff, hot shit, babe.

The way the so called BNs coment on Red Hill and what ever happens at the present in Eventing, sounds to me like a well rehearsed partyline.
Plagiat is when one uses somebody elses thoughts and writing without mentioning the originater.

[tulkas]

rayers - point taking on spelling. Typing too fast. However, fascists have rarely created anything. I recommend Jonah Goldberg's book on the subject. Classical liberals and capitalists do the creating. Oh, and by the way, I think you mean "Amish" not Quakers.

GNEP - huh?

I completely agree that the lower level eventers finance the sport at the upper levels (with the exception of a few organizers) and that they are therefore entitled to a place at the table. I do not support the current "war on personalities" that is being conducted on the bulletin board anymore than does KB. When someone with the horse knowledge that Phillip possesses gives his opinion, and it disagrees with yours, that does not make him intellectually inferior. It simply means that his perspective on the sport, particularly of the level at which he competes, is different from yours.

tulkas

[ezmissg]

I am so reluctant to step into these conversations, because I don't feel that I have earned the right -- I am only a wannabe eventer who is thrillled when I trot/canter my mare around in a field and work on trotting ground poles and x-rails (my mare is a handful! :lol:). However, I have followed the sport for over 10 years now; one of my closest friends has competed at the very highest levels; and other friends are active competitors as well.

I have attended Rolex and Red Hills multiple times, and I was there when Darren was hurt. I witnessed the responses from other entries, and I started following this forum. I emailed Kevin B., and I joined the USEA in support of his efforts and so that I could participate in the "discussion".

The topic of "education" noted previously here, could perhaps be more understandable as "experiences". Obviously, ULR's have entirely different life experiences that give them an entirely different perspective on this issue. You can say that they may not have the same "business/analytical" skills because they have not had a higher need for them. The "business" of horses is nothing like the "business" most of us function in. For example, if you look at any of the threads about working students who had bad experiences, their stories sound more like fraternity hazing than a "normal" employment environment. Do you think any of those trainers have any education/experience in human resources or the EEOC? Uh, no. They probably just replicate the experiences they had at someone else's hands.


So, if you acknowledge that most ULR's come with an entirely different perspective based on very different life experiences, it's understandable that they won't voice the same opinions as the other 97% of eventers. It's disappointing that they don't, but it is understandable.

But, here is where I see those differences manifest themselves the most -- when someone puts the weight on rider responsibility in the vein of "it's up to the rider to withdraw if the course won't work for them", it doesn't take into account the ecomonics of the situation. How many LLR's budget, scrimp and sacrifice to attend a few events a year? If one has made a considerable financial commitment in training, entry fees, fuel costs, hotels, etc, how likely is that person to scratch when he/she walks the cross-country course? That's a much easier decision for a ULR who has owners/sponsors to cover the vast majority of those expenses, and who is also scheduled for multiple events elsewhere in the next month! So, how many LLR's leave the start box inadequately prepared for their runs while spectators like me cringe as we watch them go around?

So, this leads back to the course designs, and how they affect LLR's and ULR's differently. There are rules for different levels, correct? Well, allow me to share a friend's experience from Chattahoochee Hills last weekend. Her daughter was competing Novice with a new horse (she has ridden Training previously, and her horse has gone 1* previously). My friend noticed that there was a triple on the Novice course, although the rules say that triples aren't introduced until Training. She knew that her daughter and her horse could ride the triple, but she spoke to their coach about it because it was against the rules. As she said to me, "I tend to feel like the Mother for everyone. I knew my daughter wouldn't have an issue, but what about other riders who might not have schooled a triple because of the rule? Besides that, we try to say that there are rules to be followed -- what does it say to the kids when we don't follow our own rules?" Other people must have spoken up, because there was an announcement that the triple had been removed -- but no one MOVED anything, they just re-numbered then jumps so that what had been Jump #___ ABC" became "Jump # ____A & B, then Next Jump #____". Ummmmm, that changed the ride how? :confused: She also said there was also a water-to-water jump at some level where it wasn't supposed to be, but it was black-flagged with an option. So, how many riders didn't take the option when they might not have been adequately prepared for it? In other words, where in course design are they presenting questions inappropriate for the rule/level that invite the opportunity for unsafe riding? Where they abide by the letter of the law, are they disregarding the spirit of it at the same time?
After I read this forum a lot, so many various facets come to light that I find myself thinking it's a Gordian knot. But, when I also read about someone's fun competitive experience, I take courage in Denny's comments to initiate discussion and Kevin B's efforts to address concerns. I believe strongly in open, honest communication, and I hold out hope that everyone's collective desire for safety in the sport will trump their individual needs in what they take from it.

FWIW, and thanks for listening!

[ezmissg]

I am so reluctant to step into these conversations, because I don't feel that I have earned the right -- I am only a wannabe eventer who is thrillled when I trot/canter my mare around in a field and work on trotting ground poles and x-rails (my mare is a handful! :lol:). However, I have followed the sport for over 10 years now; one of my closest friends has competed at the very highest levels; and other friends are active competitors as well.

I have attended Rolex and Red Hills multiple times, and I was there when Darren was hurt. I witnessed the responses from other entries, and I started following this forum. I emailed Kevin B., and I joined the USEA in support of his efforts and so that I could participate in the "discussion".

The topic of "education" noted previously here, could perhaps be more understandable as "experiences". Obviously, ULR's have entirely different life experiences that give them an entirely different perspective on this issue. You can say that they may not have the same "business/analytical" skills because they have not had a higher need for them. The "business" of horses is nothing like the "business" most of us function in. For example, if you look at any of the threads about working students who had bad experiences, their stories sound more like fraternity hazing than a "normal" employment environment. Do you think any of those trainers have any education/experience in human resources or the EEOC? Uh, no. They probably just replicate the experiences they had at someone else's hands.


So, if you acknowledge that most ULR's come with an entirely different perspective based on very different life experiences, it's understandable that they won't voice the same opinions as the other 97% of eventers. It's disappointing that they don't, but it is understandable.

But, here is where I see those differences manifest themselves the most -- when someone puts the weight on rider responsibility in the vein of "it's up to the rider to withdraw if the course won't work for them", it doesn't take into account the ecomonics of the situation. How many LLR's budget, scrimp and sacrifice to attend a few events a year? If one has made a considerable financial commitment in training, entry fees, fuel costs, hotels, etc, how likely is that person to scratch when he/she walks the cross-country course? That's a much easier decision for a ULR who has owners/sponsors to cover the vast majority of those expenses, and who is also scheduled for multiple events elsewhere in the next month! So, how many LLR's leave the start box inadequately prepared for their runs while spectators like me cringe as we watch them go around?

So, this leads back to the course designs, and how they affect LLR's and ULR's differently. There are rules for different levels, correct? Well, allow me to share a friend's experience from Chattahoochee Hills last weekend. Her daughter was competing Novice with a new horse (she has ridden Training previously, and her horse has gone 1* previously). My friend noticed that there was a triple on the Novice course, although the rules say that triples aren't introduced until Training. She knew that her daughter and her horse could ride the triple, but she spoke to their coach about it because it was against the rules. As she said to me, "I tend to feel like the Mother for everyone. I knew my daughter wouldn't have an issue, but what about other riders who might not have schooled a triple because of the rule? Besides that, we try to say that there are rules to be followed -- what does it say to the kids when we don't follow our own rules?" Other people must have spoken up, because there was an announcement that the triple had been removed -- but no one MOVED anything, they just re-numbered then jumps so that what had been Jump #___ ABC" became "Jump # ____A & B, then Next Jump #____". Ummmmm, that changed the ride how? :confused: She also said there was also a water-to-water jump at some level where it wasn't supposed to be, but it was black-flagged with an option. So, how many riders didn't take the option when they might not have been adequately prepared for it? In other words, where in course design are they presenting questions inappropriate for the rule/level that invite the opportunity for unsafe riding? Where they abide by the letter of the law, are they disregarding the spirit of it at the same time?
After I read this forum a lot, so many various facets come to light that I find myself thinking it's a Gordian knot. But, when I also read about someone's fun competitive experience, I take courage in Denny's comments to initiate discussion and Kevin B's efforts to address concerns. I believe strongly in open, honest communication, and I hold out hope that everyone's collective desire for safety in the sport will trump their individual needs in what they take from it.

FWIW, and thanks for listening!

[Albion]

rayers - point taking on spelling. Typing too fast. However, fascists have rarely created anything. I recommend Jonah Goldberg's book on the subject. Classical liberals and capitalists do the creating. Oh, and by the way, I think you mean "Amish" not Quakers.

I'd suggest you pick up any good book on modern Japanese history written in the past 10 years; fascism/fascist elements in a political system are a perfectly reasonable outgrowth of capitalism/classical liberalist systems. Uncertainty stemming from conflict - conflict that is inherent to capitalist systems - is generally pegged as being one of the factors that lead to fascist governments.

And those classical liberals did such a fantastic in their imperialist efforts and spreading the good word, didn't they? Why, Africa and Asia turned out so well. And if the whole system worked so great, why do people spend time discussing the pathologies of [Western-style capitalist] modernity? Damn those fascist/progressive academics for muddying the glorious waters of capitalist self-congratulation! How dare we!

Get out of a Rostow perspective of world history and you just might learn something. :rolleyes:

[LKF]

Someone in an earlier thread said that they liked Phillip when they thought of him as more of a 'mystery-man'. Many of us feel that way about ULRs, as being our so called heros and then once we discover that they're human like us, it's a bit of a disappointment.

I had a horse with PD for 6 months, and was happy with the outcome. PD is a cowboy, works hard, rides hard, and has a crew of hard working people. I discovered that you have to be a 'type' of person to work with PD, otherwise you're going to feel that there is a lack of communication - this man is a man of little words. He grunts . . . a lot.

PD won Red Hills, so naturally he won't have anything negative to say. He is an ULR and this is a 'business' to him, not a hobby. I also think that being a man and a type of cowboy that he sets his emotions aside and goes on instinct. He works strictly with upper level riders and horses and is not in the habit of 'hand-holding' his students and clients.

I'm not defending his blog, but only lending a bit of insight of my experience.
As for ULR heros I have a few - Denny Emerson (a true horseman), Kyle Carter (a gentleman), Jan Byyny (she's got the touch).

[bambam]

I don't build rockets either, but if you build rockets and yours keep flying into the ground don't get all huffy when I point out that you appear to be doing something wrong. :eek:
:lol::lol::lol:

[subk]

TSo, if you acknowledge that most ULR's come with an entirely different perspective based on very different life experiences, it's understandable that they won't voice the same opinions as the other 97% of eventers. It's disappointing that they don't, but it is understandable.
Agreed. Although I think it is even more complicated. ULR like PD are successful in the current climate. They will probably be the last group of people that want anything to change the sport because any change presents a risk to their current level of success.

I wouldn't expect any current ULR to see anything wrong with things as they are now.

[bambam]

(unless you are a Quaker but then you wouldn't be on line.
wow my high school would be really surprised to know that they should not have had those computers in the computer lab :eek:
Quakers make full use of the world's technology- you mean amish I assume
totally irrelevant to the discussion I know, but this error is a pet peeve of mine

[Jealoushe]

A lot of the ULRs who are winning over these courses obviously don't want them to change back to the way they used to be, the courses are working for THEM.

The fact that he said "Ive been to two events in the last 2 weeks and everything was great" (or something along those lines).... Im sorry but the fact that any of us are thinking YES! we made it through TWO events with no disaster is SCARY...and a definite sight that things HAVE to change.

[bambam]

I myself am geering up to do a prelim/* season and since most accidents have happened at this level I too prefer to look on the positive side. If I didn't I don't know how I would ever go out to another event.
I think by necessity this sentiment is a part of the ULRs response to all this. They do this for a living and mentally probably cannot go out there thinking that these courses are inherently dangerous or ask unreasonable questions- it is mental self-preservation for them to deny a problem. And whoever said PD is so good x-c that he actually does not think they are too difficult probably also has a point- so it is just too bad for the mere mortal that ride?
Do I re-examine my thoughts on this and my opinion every time one of these ULRs offer an opinion because they do have a wealth of eventing knowledge? yes. But none of them have disputed the data that shows experienced and capable riders are dying in unprecendented numbers and until someone can explain that away, I cannot agree with the assessment that there is not a problem. It does not take an ULR to look at the data we have and know something is wrong.

[RAyers]

wow my high school would be really surprised to know that they should not have had those computers in the computer lab :eek:
Quakers make full use of the world's technology- you mean amish I assume
totally irrelevant to the discussion I know, but this error is a pet peeve of mine

My apologies.

Reed

[CookiePony]

Yes, Quakers go online and use modern technology... I believe you are thinking of Shakers or Amish people.

OK, carry on...

ETA-- you were posting as I was posting, Reed. :)

[JER]

This is how PD is different from the rest of us.

PD won Radnor in 2006 on a horse named Lucky Strike who had something of a troubled past.

According to PD:
"He's been a difficult horse for me. I've hit the dirt twice off him. I usually don't ride them after that." He continued that he would have to consult with Rebecca Broussard, the owner, as to Lucky Stripe's future. "Cindy Burge was killed in a riding accident with him. He's a very good jumper; but, he gets too aggressive."

PD is in that rare position where he can decide not to ride a horse again if he falls off of it twice.

Most of us don't have that luxury. Some of us -- and I'm talking about good professional trainers -- are paid to ride the ones who've bucked everyone off multiple times. Some of us have to work with the one horse we have. Some of us have to sort through our problems as riders and deal with hitting the dirt regularly.

That said, I think PD is extremely smart for having the policy. I'm sure he can stick a horse like the best of them and it shows he's got a strong self-preservation streak. But it's a world away from what most of us experience with horses.

[bambam]

No need to apologize Reed- not a big deal. It is a common misconception. It is just something that I simply cannot resist correcting- it is a compulsion- try as I might I cannot fight it. :)

[Hilary]

This is entirely irrelvent to the PD discussion, but Shakers were VERY pro-technology. Had they truely survived into the 21st century they would have made great use of computers etc.

Back to catching up on the weekend's postings......

[Jazzy Lady]

I admire the integrity and the skills of both Phillip and Karen very much, and watching them ride xc is a lesson in itself and I've had the pleasure of clinicing with Phillip and I would do it again in a heart beat. I feel both are masters of cross country and both generally make a *** course look like peanuts and ride with such fluidity it's breathtaking. I find it very interesting the two very different responses after red hills regarding the course. Karen thought it was too much and that it seems to be a bit of a trend. Phillip said it "didn't work" but thinks it is a one off. So what is the difference between two riders, both trying for the team on multiple horses, both having many accomplishments in their belts, both competing at the **** level for many years, both training under the guidance of the team coach and both being fantastic riders?


not really sure where I'm going with this... just putting my thoughts out there I suppose.

Edited to add: Kind of an add on to Hony's thoughts. As much as accidents are a horrible thing to have happen, some good can come out of them. So far the newer technologies will be looked at, and I don't think there is any pro out there who does not want the frangible pin used, or studies being done on the courses. Many have expressed the opinion that speed has to be reviewed, and perhaps upping the requirements (which phillip stated and I agree with 100%) would be a good place to start in terms of making eventing safer.

I know for myself, that accidents at the UL of the sport make me take a step back, look at my training program, look at my horse and my abilities and ensure that I am 100% preparred for the job at hand and not doing something that is beyond either my own or my horse's capabilities. I'm hoping this goes for a lot of people, though I know part of it is because I trained with Darren and so this has hit closer to home for me. I am with a trainer whom I trust 100% right now and that's a large portion of the confidence, and I know that goes for Hony too who also has great coaching and spends the time making sure her horse and her are preparred, but many still do not. Sometimes when I see someone's name listed at a certain level it makes me cringe and go "oh dear" and say a little prayer. Hopefully they might learn from these accidents and realize that if it can happen to the best, they aren't invincible either.

[flyingchange]

PD is in that rare position where he can decide not to ride a horse again if he falls off of it twice.

Most of us don't have that luxury.

Actually, I think its probably just that he has, many times over, "paid his dues" in riding rank horses and making them into decent eventer/runners (he used to gallop race horses, right?)... I think he, like most all successful pros who reach the highest level of their respective sport, simply does not have to ride the "crazy" ones anymore ... and so he chooses not to. He has too many good ones waiting in line - more than he can get to. Most riders (unless born into serious privelege with silver spoons coming out of their nether regions) have to earn their way to this point - through a lot of blood, sweat, and tears.

I don't have an opinion on his latest piece on his blog. I am just glad that he chooses to actually communicate his thoughts to the world at large. So many other BNRs choose to hole up in their little coccoons and we rarely ever hear from them.

[Hidden]

I think that all people are entitled to their own opinion... it shows we can have normal discussion and agree to disagree. I disagree with PD and I don't appreciate his voice in this, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get a voice. Because he is an ULR his voice is alot louder than mine. So, I think it just means we have to work harder to take back our sport. Smurf unite! A change is not always a bad thing, but it is almost always hard to accept. I am in for the long haul to get the sport back to the fun roots!

[eqsiu]

This is entirely irrelvent to the PD discussion, but Shakers were VERY pro-technology. Had they truely survived into the 21st century they would have made great use of computers etc.

Back to catching up on the weekend's postings......

Too bad unwed mothers quit giving them babies (back when it was scandalous and ruined you forever to have an out of wedlock child). That no sex policy really hurt their population.

[retreadeventer]

I certainly am happy to listen to him. I wouldn't dream of questioning his ability or his experience or even his opinions. I'm sort of a fan, he is wonderful to watch.

I DO think that the general dismissal of the masses of people who finance this sport for everyone, donate money for injured riders funds, pay high prices for clinics with at least some notion of supporting as well as learning from the top riders, stick money in the begging envelopes from various horse sports organizations... is elitist and an irresponsible attitude toward the health and future of the sport. .....

Well, me too. I greatly admire Phillip and am disappointed in his choice of words, and not to make excuses but he's a rider and not a writer and I don't think he really meant that quite the way it sounded. He gives back several times a year to lower level riders in clinics, I attended one last year which was by the way one of the most economical and well thought out clinics I rode in, and one in which I (a training level rider on a training level horse) found myself with quite a bit of knowledge gained at the end.

However, it really looks to me like what I call the Old Team Heroin Habit rearing it's ugly head again. I maintain that trying to get on the team is like a heroin addiction, you say and do anything and go through all your family and friends to get named to a team. Similarities are striking.

[denny]

We used to have the joke that you`d sell your grandmother into slavery to get on the USET.
I`m glad to see some things never change!!

[retreadeventer]

Denny I have had the bad (good?) luck to have trained with three of these "addicts" JUST before they all made the team. Probably while I am still at training level and will be for life. Everytime I pick someone to lesson with they get a good horse and off they go...you'd think the next "hot rider" would figure this out and PAY ME to give me a lesson, it would be certain good luck! Hahhaahaahahahah!!!! Just a little fantasy there!!!

[poopoo]

Please....., it's all working for him. Why would you want something to change that's working so well for you? Listen to Bruce - he's been around the block so many times and has nothing to lose or gain for speaking his mind, except maybe for his and his son's safety.

[HotIITrot]

... However, it really looks to me like what I call the Old Team Heroin Habit rearing it's ugly head again. I maintain that trying to get on the team is like a heroin addiction, you say and do anything and go through all your family and friends to get named to a team. Similarities are striking.

Sadly, this is one of the first things that came to my mind when I was reading his statement. Right or wrong, that's the impression it gives.

[omare]

"However, it really looks to me like what I call the Old Team Heroin Habit rearing it's ugly head again. I maintain that trying to get on the team is like a heroin addiction, you say and do anything and go through all your family and friends to get named to a team. Similarities are striking."


Ditto on that - I would only edit to add horses should be added to the list along with family and friends.