Make 4-Star Super Elite

[denny]

I watched most of the horses go yesterday, either in person, or on the jumbotron.
Some made it look easy, some made it look really hairy, and some were somewhere in between.
The worst accidents, by and large, don`t happen to the super elite combinations.
So why don`t the standards get really ratcheted up, so 4 star, like making an international team, is for the super elite?
This would keep the sport at the highest level something that really had to be earned, not just something that you might qualify for.
You don`t just play Major League Baseball---or football, or basketball, whatever, because you`ve played minor league baseball. You have to get SELECTED. By experts, who not only judge you objectively, but subjectively as well, before they try to sign you.
Make an "A" list. Make it damn hard to get on. Run a 3-star event at Rolex, with a 4 star division for the super elite "A" Team.
Maybe there would be only 20 riders good enough. Tough s---! Get better if you want to play in the Majors.
Maybe the qualifications would include things you would have had to achieve, and some that you MUST NOT have done, like fall, or have "x" no. of quits in a certain period.
Make it tough, make it like making the USET, just not quite so hard.

[LLDM]

Why stop there Denny? Why not make everything Prelim and up "selected"? And why not make everything BN up "qualified for"?

Personally, I am sick to death of watching people move up before they are ready or before their horses are ready. They might be ready in some ways - but no in all.

Oh, yeah, that would require some standards. Can't have standards, 'cause they might not make everyone happy. :rolleyes: Here's a thought - they might make your pony happy.

SCFarm

[denny]

Works for me to have across the board tougher qualifications, if it will help save eventing.

[vineyridge]

Denny, maybe that is what the FEI has in mind with its proposed (?) 5*.

I was thinking that a *** at the same time as the Rolex would be a good idea. The event doesn't seem to be capable of drawing Badminton numbers of competitors, so more entrants, even at a 3* level would help pay the expenses. :lol:

Besides, I went to Rolex in 99, when they had both a *** and a **** and was just as happy to see the *** rides as the Super Elite.

[RunNJump]

Denny, as usual you hit the nail on the head. I agree completly. Back in the old days of the team Jack either said you could ride or you couldn't. However if my memory serves me right didn't we get sued by someone (maybe Kerry Milliken or Jil Walton - sorry can't remember) because they felt they were unfairly left off of an Olmpic team? In this age of constant lawsuits how can we avoid that again?
I am all for doing everything tho make this a safer sport. I have been eventing since 1978 and competed at the ** star level. I have seen the sport change A LOT over the decades. My main complaint is that the solutions proposed by the powers that be do not seem to corrulate to the problems.

[Kementari]

Works for me to have across the board tougher qualifications, if it will help save eventing.

Me too. :yes: :yes:

And I like the idea of a 3* for "the masses" and a 4* for the elite. We already look at the 4*s as championships of a sort, to be won by the best of the best. Why NOT restrict the competitors to the best of the best, too?

[c_expresso]

Like always... Denny has a great idea.

Now how do we GET THIS TO WORK?

It is time to stop talking and get these great ideas put into action.

[BigRuss1996]

I believe this is what the 5* is going to be

[Blugal]

Before going ahead with this, it would be useful to compare the pre-4* records of the horse/rider combinations for the last couple years, then the results of each combination through the 4*.

[denny]

When you look at the OVERALL results, dressage, xc, and show jumping, there were VERY FEW top results. So if you wanted a 5 star level, you`d be playing with fire.
In my opinion. That was a GOOD XC COURSE there yesterday, if you were good enough.
That`s the big "if", though, isn`t it?

[DLee]

I would like to see more horses run at Rolex, and by that I guess I mean offering a different division as well. Didn't they do that at one time? My thinking is (and I have heard this comment from others) Rolex is expensive to attend. Not so much for me living here, but for the many people who travel to it. And when the field is as short as it has been the last few years (at least I think so) that's not alot of rides to watch. I'd love to watch Intermediates go as well, or different levels of Advanced, or something. More bang for the buck. And the buck is what keeps it rolling. That's just my thoughts without having a clue if it is reasonable or not. :)

[seeuatx]

Denny.... this is weird because my mom literally just said that 10 minutes ago during dinner.

Now, my mom is non-horsey. But she stood on countless sidelines waiting for me to come out of the ring, she watched lesson after lesson, and took me to so many events as a spectator that I have lost count. She said she missed how going to see Rolex or even Fairhill were going to see the best of the best of that level. She said that without the long format to act as the deciding factor, maybe the selections need to be more stringent for horse and rider, starting at training level.

Surprisingly, I could not find any reason why this should not be done.

[EnjoyingRiding]

I don't think having a 5* is going to make any difference without having it be selective...is this the idea? I like the "super elite" idea - make rolex a 3 star, then have 20 or however many get selected in the super elite section, which could be like the Olympic Trials. You'd just have to be careful who was doing the selection. Denny, as usual, has a great idea. But now is the time to stop hashing all this out over an internet board and start making it work.

I also like the idea of qualifications for the lower levels. I don't know about you guys but I've seen some pretty scary rides at N and even BN.

[Gryhrs]

I think Denny's idea is fabulous. But the deeper question for me is-what is so different now? Why is all of this happening now? To me, it seems like the jumps are the same and the riders are the same-the only difference is the switch to the short format. But why would that cause such a problem. Is it horse and rider fitness since they don't do long format? Are the horses and riders not in "warmed up rhythm" going into XC? I think the answers need to come form the riders and people like Denny who has always had the best interest of this sport at heart.

[LLDM]

What, pray tell, will adding another layer do? 5*'s, 1/2*'s, 20*'s, 3/457*'s - it's all just relabeling the problem.

SCFarm

[denny]

I think safety comes down to the relative capability of the pair, horse and rider, to the task at hand.
Example. I have a pretty nice prelim horse named Loftus Fox, and I still can ride him pretty well at that level. If I took him novice, my odds of getting hurt would be slim. There, but slim.
If I tried to go int or advanced, my odds would be much worse.
So create a system that makes the odds of success better for all of us.
Simple, no???
How the heck you do it beats me!!

[vineyridge]

Without data, we'll never know, will we?

One hypothesis that really needs testing is whether the horses are being used up by all the lesser events all winter and spring pre-Rolex. They didn't used to run so often when the long format was in play. So you might have horse fatigue, physical and mental, going with rider fatigue as they ride multiple horses in multiple events.

If there is to be an invitational, it ought to be 1 rider with 1 horse, just as it is in the World Games or the Olympics. And if that means fewer than ten at the 4*, so be it. Hell, if an elite rider had to focus on one 4* horse, wouldn't that put the US in better shape for international competitions?

[Firefox]

Denny, anyway you can get your ideas heard besides just here on COTH! I agree about 20 horses and riders really belonged there the rest hummmm!

[hookedoneventing]

This is a great idea, I would totally support it...how does something like this get suggested though? you are dealing with the FEI here? how many more deaths do there need to be? and I am not sure why we need a 5*, we cant keep people safe at the 4* and below...
I am all for stronger qualifications for the lower levels on up, there is no reason why we shouldnt have to strickly qualify to move up through the levels...this sport is tough we as riders need to be qualified and likewise our horses need to be as well.

[Gry2Yng]

The original proposal I saw for the 5 star was a renaming of all the divisions, such that 4 stars became 5 stars on down and the FEI got some control of the current 1/2 star level. That may have changed, I have been out of the loop.

[piccolittle]

Well I'm going to be unpopular and disagree. While I am all for safety in the sport, I don't think making the **** 'selected' will do anything. Isn't that what making the Team is all about, and going to the various international competitions (Pan Ams, Olympics, etc- though I know they are ***)? A **** is still just as hard, regardless of the experience of the competitor; freak accidents, though tragic and unnecessary, do happen. The safety issue concerns cross country, but most of our top event riders are selected for teams etc based on their dressage and show jumping records- a bit incongruous, if you ask me. And how would the selection process work? We run the risk of seeing the same faces over and over, on a series of possibly less experienced horses. While it may be more high-profile, it simply expands the elitist gap between the "upper echelons" who are sponsored and established, and those who are trying to break into the top levels, or simply living the dream through their own efforts.

Case in point: (I know I talk about her a lot, but bear with me). My trainer had, hands down, the absolute worst show jumping round at Rolex this weekend. Her dressage wasn't great either. But that's her horse; he's a TB, and has back issues and gets nervous and tense and doesn't respect the rails in stadium, but we love him. And he is TALENTED. Anyone who saw them go cross country will concede that he is a brave, fast, careful horse who made the Rolex course look easy (okay, that's my opinion, but still). They had a safe, beautiful ride at their first ****. But that's it. He's her only Advanced horse, and she brought him up the levels herself. She said to us that by the time she was in her 30s, with a job and kids, she had given up on reaching that level, and only hoped one day to get to Advanced maybe. And there she was, living her dream this weekend. Why should that experience be taken away from her and her horse only because they have no chance of winning against the big names?

[LLDM]

I think Denny's idea is fabulous. But the deeper question for me is-what is so different now? Why is all of this happening now? To me, it seems like the jumps are the same and the riders are the same-the only difference is the switch to the short format. But why would that cause such a problem. Is it horse and rider fitness since they don't do long format? Are the horses and riders not in "warmed up rhythm" going into XC? I think the answers need to come form the riders and people like Denny who has always had the best interest of this sport at heart.

I posted this on another thread - but it addresses your question:


It may be the unintended consequences of the short format.
- Riders riding MANY more horses than they would ever have before with the long format.
- Riders being less careful because they have so many horses (they seem to make more mistakes at "lower" levels and/or on their "reliable", more familiar mounts).
- More competitions, closer together.
- Courses more technical to separate the "top".
- Wanting to perform for "owners" who are spending very large amounts of money to campaign UL horses.
- More upper level horses than riders.
- Florida, Florida, Florida. That is, no down season. Maybe people need that too.

Many smaller things that alone would not be a problem can cause any system to become unstable.

Just some food for thought.



With all due respect to Denny - I don't think he is responsible for providing all the answers or insights. Sometimes people farther away can have a good/different perspectives too.

I do think Denny is right about "the pair" idea. I am a little tired of ULR's switching partners like a square dance. I remember in the 70's that a ULR had really made it when they got a 2nd horse to bring up the levels. Now, these guys have people throwing great horses at them. Yeah, I think it's a problem. How well can you know a "partner" when you have 4 or 5 or 6 of them? But these days, if you don't have that many you aren't considered seriously. Really - isn't that just nucking futz?

SCFarm

[LLDM]

Why should that experience be taken away from her and her horse only because they have no chance of winning against the big names?

It's not about having a chance of winning it. It's about having a good chance of horse and rider surviving it. If your trainer and her horse are *safe* at that level, that should be what matters. What doesn't matter is that it is her *dream*.

Accidents are not random. They still all have a cause. It's just that they weren't "intended".

SCFarm

[tx3dayeventer]

I am just going to throw this out there......

Why don't WE (?) make it mandatory to run a LONG format CCI*** before being allowed to contest a CCI**** (short or long)? It would certainly weed a lot of people out!!!! Horse and rider (together as a team) must complete CCI-LONG*** (with qualifying score) before being allowed to enter a CCI****.

That would make Rolex more what it used to be, the pinnace of our sport not just another Adv. HT that all you need is a few clean Adv runs to enter.

[equinelaw]

Er. . um. . lawsuits work both ways. There are legal ways work through the courts and get things done. It sounds like the resreach is out there, the stats support it and it has floowers among the elete already--so how? Sue somebody. An injunction, neglegence cliams. . .many ways to do it.

Clearly, at this piont somebody is going to get sued for something, so why not sue for safer eventing instead of defending claims?

[TB or not TB?]

I do NOT support the idea of a 5* - that would simply make MORE people aim for the 4*, and would do nothing to solve the current problems.

I too thought Rolex was an excellent course this year, flowed well, had plenty of galloping questions, and wasn't a technical mess. It's not quite logical to pin the deaths on the course in this instance.

I also thought some people should not have been riding at this level. There were folks I was worried were going to fall in the dressage, and not just those with rank horses.

I also think we ought to raise the age limit for the 4* level, both horses AND riders. I'm not going to apologize for saying that 8 is too young a horse to be at this level. They only just have brains by then. I would recommend 10 be the minimum, though I'd compromise at 9.

Riders ought to be 21 (better still 23 or so, when THEY start to get brains). Sorry to Waylan, who rode a beautiful course, but he is the exception and not the rule.

Make it by invite only. If people are afraid of never getting noticed, there could be an application or something to have a panel of judges evaluate their performance at like 5 different 3*s. At the very least, raise the gorram requirements. Honestly we need tougher req's at all the upper levels - THAT is where horses and people are getting killed, not Novice.

I like the idea of combining Rolex with a 3*.

Limit the number of entries per rider. I wouldn't mind seeing just one horse per rider, but I could also understand owner pressure kicking in. Each HORSE would have to have an invite and/or qualify WITH the rider - no catch riding at Rolex.

Mandate Exo vests at Prelim+. We don't know if this would have prevented Laine's chest injury, but imagine if it had. The sight of Frodo landing squarely on her chest is burned into my vision when I close my eyes. I will never compete above Training without an Exo.

Research the possibilities of helmets that cover the jaw (like motorcross), and neck protection. HEY EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS! LISTEN UP!

Research safer XC jumps. You can't tell me there is no way to make them fall down, which would prevent rotational falls AND impact related fatalities. Two horses could have been spared this weekend had we addressed this long standing suggestion. It's NOT that difficult an idea.

For heavens sakes, use the safety measures we've got. How many jumps had frangible pins?!



Oh god. Denny, can we save our sport? :cry:

[TB or not TB?]

And there she was, living her dream this weekend. Why should that experience be taken away from her and her horse only because they have no chance of winning against the big names?

Eleanor Brennan also dreamed of riding in Rolex, and the sport failed her. It is a lot of peoples' dreams to ride there. Not everyone has the ability to do so.


P.S. I thought your trainer did amazing- the XC was beautiful. I don't know why you think she wouldn't get an invite :)

[One Star]

Eleanor Brennan also dreamed of riding in Rolex, and the sport failed her. It is a lot of peoples' dreams to ride there. Not everyone has the ability to do so.


I'm sorry to be the one to point to the white elephant in the corner, but the sport did not fail Ellie. I don't wish to dishonor her memory or lessen the horror of her death, but Eleanor Brennan made a very critical, and tragically fatal mistake. She had no business running at the Ocala CCI**. The horse was not qualified, and she inappropriately managed to get around that technicality.

We need to talk about that which no one wants to address. Only then will there be real change in our sport.

[JER]

I do think Denny is right about "the pair" idea. I am a little tired of ULR's switching partners like a square dance. I remember in the 70's that a ULR had really made it when they got a 2nd horse to bring up the levels. Now, these guys have people throwing great horses at them. Yeah, I think it's a problem. How well can you know a "partner" when you have 4 or 5 or 6 of them? But these days, if you don't have that many you aren't considered seriously. Really - isn't that just nucking futz?


Which brings up some other thoughts:

1. Laine Ashker/Frodo Baggins and Sarah Hansel/The Quiet Man were established partnerships. I know Laine had some other horses at the top levels (one died last year, another was a recent acquisition from the late Eleanor Brennan) and I think this is Sarah's only horse at that level plus she'd been riding him for many years.

2. Are horses running too often? We talk about this as if it's the case but I'm not sure from the numbers. It used to be a CCI***/**** would be prepped for the big 3-day, then given a break, then prepped again. The horses didn't run any more than necessary. Now there's CIC***s and CICW***s and no long format. More runs = more jumps = more opportunities for mistakes. And when a minor mistake can mean catastrophe, you may eventually find yourself on the wrong side of the numbers game. We don't know what this means for th horse -- does a certain number of runs make them less careful?

3. Do we not pay enough attention to 'one bad fence'? In other words, should we be more concerned about a sticky moment on course -- for the horse or rider? If the horse slithers over or crashes through a fence, do we tend to ignore it if it means we still went around clean? In steeplechasing, bad fences are cause for concern. A horse can win the frickin' race but all everyone talks about is the mistake he made at the 3rd last and everyone speculates on what will happen his next time out. The press asks the horse's connections about it, reporters want to know if the jockey feels safe on the horse, etc. In eventing, we often treat bad fences as an example of the horse's athleticism -- "did you see how he fit that stride in? did you see how he just put 3 legs down and jumped? look how he banked it! he just slid right across the top and kept on going!" -- when maybe we should be thinking a bit more seriously about it.

[yellowbritches]

I will stand with piccolittle and her unpopular stance.

The qualifications to get to a four star (or any FEI level event) are pretty rigorous, almost to the point of absurdity. Rolex and its fellow 4 star events have always been a chance to see the cream rise to the top, and usually those who aren't the cream go home. You will OFTEN see some pretty scary riding going on (just as you will at any HT or any show for that matter, every weekend), but the fact is that riders still have to travel up the ranks to get there. And a lot of horses and riders survived and completed this weekend, just as they will at Badminton in a week (?). Two horrible tragedies occurred, and I am just as heartbroken as the rest. But I saw a lot of good riding, a lot of great horses helping their riders out, and a few scary instances. I saw some things I questioned (like a particular rider swatting their horse every time the horse shuffled in a nice, safe short one).

Besides all that (and I don't feel like my thoughts are very clear, but I'm still struggling with a migraine), one of the biggest reasons we all love this sport is that if we all put our hearts and minds to it, we could conceivably all ride at Rolex, along side our heroes. We got to cheer on a girl who brought her little grey OTTB up through Pony Club and on to a 4 star! We watched moms with one horse get around and make it look fun and easy. We watched a pony prove to us that he is no fluke (freak of nature, possibly...but a fluke? Hell no! ;)). It was incredible, as always, and I don't think making it even harder to get that level and save it for only the "super elite" is the right move. Let the super elites make the teams, but let the four star still be the ultimate achievement for those who want to try!

Our focus needs to be on reevaluating the way the sport works. Making sure course design is safe, but challenging (and I think yesterday's course was both, despite the horrible accidents), study the short format and make necessary adjustments to make it work better, and be sure good instruction is available. But I DO NOT think making the sport anymore elitist than it is already dangerously close to being is a good idea.

Please forgive if this is a mash of globity gook...pain meds to strange things...

[TB or not TB?]

I'm sorry to be the one to point to the white elephant in the corner, but the sport did not fail Ellie. I don't wish to dishonor her memory or lessen the horror of her death, but Eleanor Brennan made a very critical, and tragically fatal mistake. She had no business running at the Ocala CCI**. The horse was not qualified, and she inappropriately managed to get around that technicality.

We need to talk about that which no one wants to address. Only then will there be real change in our sport.

I stand corrected - just used her name since it was at the top of my brain for obvious reasons. One could substitute anyone of the dead riders names. There's a lot to choose from.

I will say though that indeed the sport did fail, in that the rotational fall occurred at all - there are many ways we can prevent them. Additionally, while she made have made a mistake in entering at that level, it is NOT something she should have had to die for. :no:

[TB or not TB?]

Our focus needs to be on reevaluating the way the sport works. Making sure course design is safe, but challenging (and I think yesterday's course was both, despite the horrible accidents), study the short format and make necessary adjustments to make it work better, and be sure good instruction is available. But I DO NOT think making the sport anymore elitist than it is already dangerously close to being is a good idea.

I agree with most of that. I would still rather see someone disappointed than dead. But hey, maybe we'll make collapsible fences and this will be a moot point. I certainly, certainly hope so.

[flyingchange]

FWIW -

At the clinic last week, Lucinda spent a lot of time talking about this crisis. She bluntly said she does NOT think it has anything to do with CD or with short vs. long format. She is fearful of making courses softer because people will respect the fences less and prepare less and we'll see even MORE accidents.

She also said that we SHOULD fear the big jumps. Fear is at least one of the things that motivates us to ride better and to make damn sure we get over the jump in question safely.

She didn't claim to know the answer, but these were her musings. Oh, and also she felt the emphasis - across the board, from choosing mounts to event, to daily training to the weight it carries in scoring at competitions, of dressage - on dressage is too high. She feels people are choosing horses more based on movement than on cattiness/quickness of responses, and this is part of the problem.

[Gry2Yng]

I would be curious to know how many riders that had good cross country rides had terrible dressage or stadium.

On Saturday afternoon Peter Green, Derek DiGrazia, Mark W, Gretchen Butts, et al were together in the infield. There is consensus among the powers that be, that these people know good cross country riding.

I wonder what the results would be if they made a list of all the combinations that they thought went well and were prepared for the level. Then we took that list and looked at experience of the horse, experience of the rider, cross country penalties, show jumping penalties and dressage scores, rider's age, horses age, etc and tried to determine where correlations exist.

Wouldn't this be a better way of determining qualifications that just making them tougher and tougher? Does the number of show jumping penalties really correlate to how safe a horse and rider are on cross country?

Is it necessary to require combinations like Kim and Dan, Amy and Poggio, David and Taylor to continually re-qualify? How young is too young and how old is not old enough? You see one 19 respect the course and another 26 year old ride hell bent for leather. Mark Todd won Badmington on a catch ride. Why should there be a rule stopping him. House Doctor was 8 years old I believe when he went to Sydney with Philip.

Shouldn't we make qualifications that make sense based on something other than "Catch riding is hard, so no one can do it." or "Only 10 year old horses have enough brains to be at this level."

While I can't quite figure out how to put this into a rule book, if you have proved you have a good judgement you should be allowed to use that judgement. Until you prove you have good judgement, someone else, with good judgement probably needs to be responsible for you. I don't think we should penalize those who can think for themselves just because there are many who cannot. I suppose there are those who would disagree and say that in order to save the horses, some may not be allowed to use their own good judgement. I don't know that I could argue against that point. I am so saddened by the loss of so many wonderful horses.

I did not see, nor do I know anything about the riding/judgement of either of the combinations involved in the tragedies of this weekend. My comments are in no way directed toward them and my deepest sympathies go out. I do believe accidents happen to even the best in this sport. A tragedy caused by an accident is different than one caused by bad judgement.

[deltawave]

We were talking about having a 3-star running at Rolex yesterday, long before the accidents. The idea simply came about out of a sense of sadness that there were so few horse/rider pairs going around AT ROLEX. A 2.5 hour lunch break is great for shopping, but the day was sort of without the hustle-bustle of old when there were often 3 horses on course at once and lots of chances to see multiple combos jump a fence where you were hanging out.

[snoopy]

FWIW -

At the clinic last week, Lucinda spent a lot of time talking about this crisis. She bluntly said she does NOT think it has anything to do with CD or with short vs. long format. She is fearful of making courses softer because people will respect the fences less and prepare less and we'll see even MORE accidents.

She also said that we SHOULD fear the big jumps. Fear is at least one of the things that motivates us to ride better and to make damn sure we get over the jump in question safely.

She didn't claim to know the answer, but these were her musings. Oh, and also she felt the emphasis - across the board, from choosing mounts to event, to daily training to the weight it carries in scoring at competitions, of dressage - on dressage is too high. She feels people are choosing horses more based on movement than on cattiness/quickness of responses, and this is part of the problem.



She also harped on in the press about getting rid of dressage from eventing...she was never very good at it;)

[alter pain]

I was there. I saw the showjumping today. All I could think was if they make this many mistakes in the arena, "What on earth makes them think they could do this cross county?" The leaders were brilliant and deserved to win but the quality of the rides went downhill fast. It wasn't that there weren't many clear rides it was that some of them were disastrous!!!! Many of those people just should not have been there and this sport needs to take a good look and put some safeguards in place to prevent unqualified participants from entering at this level.

Two beautiful animals were killed this weekend. Tragedies do happen but in the sense of true Greek tragedy (great potential felled by truly unpreventable circumstances) these events are not tragedies. They are the sad results of poor judgment.

[deltawave]

if you have proved you have a good judgement you should be allowed to use that judgement

Just to be the Devil's advocate, and not meaning any disrespect, but did Darren C. demonstrate good judgment moving a horse from Novice to Prelim in one season, or however he did it with the horse on whom he had his accident? By all accounts he is insanely fastidious in his preparation, etc. and nobody can knock his credentials, but there are those who feel this was a bit of bad judgment. Judgment is, by definition, completely subjective--how on earth to legislate or enforce this? :no:

[ponygrl]

and what about the "underdogs" who go unnoticed and rise to the top - remember when Nick Larkin and Red won the first Rolex 4-star? I don't think anyone saw that happening!

I worry that further qualifications will turn into more runs on the horses and possible injuries there. That could make it impossible for riders west of the Rio Grande (well maybe riders from between the Colorado River and something further east - there are opportunities like Maui Jim in the midwest) to qualify for much of anything.

[denny]

You shouldn`t be at 4 star events because "it`s my dream". Any more than you should be climbing Mt Everest for the same reason. That`s Bambi thinking, little kid thinking, it isn`t real.
It can get you or your horse maimed or killed.
So what if only 15 or 20 riders from an entire country have what it takes some years? Better that than dead horses, crippled riders.
We don`t need to penalize our Philips, Karens, Kims, Amys by totally emasculating the sport to a "one size fits all", but we also can`t survive if the sport destroys the wanna be Philips/Kims, etc, who aren`t GOOD ENOUGH.
Create a system that finds and rewards the elite, without doing in those who aren`t in the same league.
Sure, tough on some rider`s dreams. Tough. Get better, get good enough. That`s life in the Bigs, as they say in baseball.

[Gnep]

I have to agree with Denny, just qualifying for a 4 star is not good enough. Looking just at the dressage scores, that was not the usual top notch field more a very good 3 star field.

4 Star and 3 Star should be invitation only.
Try to race formula one, Nascar or any other top notch racing league with out permission and invitation and if you screw up ot show your are not quiet up to what it takes you got back down

[One Star]

Just to be the Devil's advocate, and not meaning any disrespect, but did Darren C. demonstrate good judgment moving a horse from Novice to Prelim in one season, or however he did it with the horse on whom he had his accident? By all accounts he is insanely fastidious in his preparation, etc. and nobody can knock his credentials, but there are those who feel this was a bit of bad judgment. Judgment is, by definition, completely subjective--how on earth to legislate or enforce this? :no:


Good point. And I don't think your comment will be construed as disrespectful. If we want to enact real change for the better of horses and riders in our sport, we have to start asking these uncomfortable questions.

[Albion]

The horse was not qualified, and she inappropriately managed to get around that technicality.

Ok ... how did she get around the technicality of having an unqualified horse? :confused:

[Kementari]

There was a rider who got 48 jump penalties in stadium today. While I'm sure she's a lovely person and a better rider than I, the fact is that quite clearly that pair had no business on a 4* stadium course today. That's twelve rails (or eleven and a refusal) - out of how many?? It's just fortunate it was stadium, not xc (and apparently the horse was more careful on xc...).

Just because it's a wonderful event and a goal for many doesn't make it anyone's right to be there. Clearly from some of the results some riders were NOT prepared, and if what it takes to BE prepared is some more subjective selection criteria, then I think that's what we need to have.

[Debbie]

It would be interesting to have a committee review the rides at Rolex and take the "good" ones (subjective determination alert, but we all know what a good ride looks like) and track back over the horse/rider records for common denominators and likewise with the "bad" ones. What are the experiences/milestones that are unique to the better prepared? What are the warning signs of the lesser prepared? If at least the organization knew these factors and who they applied to when the event commences, they could be aggressive with the yellow card or similar if things begin to go awry with a pair on course. (I actually think this would be an organizational nightmare and potentially a litigation risk -- not really sure how you untie this knot. :()

I don't think dumbing down the sport at the highest levels is laudable, but I also resist what amounts to creating an elite pool that, by its nature, discourages the underdog, who may have the preparation and horse to do the job, but for whatever reason, isn't the gatekeepers' fancy.

[pegasusmom]

Good point. And I don't think your comment will be construed as disrespectful. If we want to enact real change for the better of horses and riders in our sport, we have to start asking these uncomfortable questions.


Thank you.

[denny]

How does it discourage riders from trying to get good enough to make the "A" team? When I was trying to make the varsity wrestling squad in high school, and college, it was all about being good enough.
Later, when I was trying to make the USET, it was all about getting good enough.
What is it about getting good enough that anybody here doesn`t get?

[Tuckertoo]

I may be unpopular but here goes.:) The issue that we might see with this process would be that perfectly capable and able rider/horse pairs would be skipped over in the selection process. How would we ever get any new riders at the top levels if it was like selecting for the Olympics? There is a wide selection of horses/riders that are perfectly capable of safely making their way around a 4* course but don't have the most stellar dressage so they don't get the prettiest scores. BUT they're safe on cross-country. Then there are the "elite" who are more experienced and overall better because of that experience who are always selected over and over. How is that fair for those who deserve the chance to ride in 4*s but just don't have the stellar dressage? Maybe they are good enough to be at that level but aren't good enough in the selectors eyes, whose standards may be much higher than those set by the qualifications? I don't even know if that makes sense to any one but me :lol:

Beefing up qualifications may be an answer, it may not. But I still think that anyone who has qualified should be able to compete. Not just the selected elite.

[Sannois]

How does it discourage riders from trying to get good enough to make the "A" team? When I was trying to make the varsity wrestling squad in high school, and college, it was all about being good enough.
Later, when I was trying to make the USET, it was all about getting good enough.
What is it about getting good enough that anybody here doesn`t get?
Many today want the glory, without the blood sweat and tears and hard work that goes alone with getting there!
Not saying all but it seems to be a trend today in so many areas of life, not just horses or eventing! Just my feelings on it.

[tx3dayeventer]

How does it discourage riders from trying to get good enough to make the "A" team? When I was trying to make the varsity wrestling squad in high school, and college, it was all about being good enough.
Later, when I was trying to make the USET, it was all about getting good enough.
What is it about getting good enough that anybody here doesn`t get?


I agree with Denny. What happened to people doing enough HTs to make sure they are competent at the level instead of running 4 or 5 and doing a few CIC***/W***'s and then saying "well I didnt win the event or even place in the top 5 and/or I had quite a few mistakes out there and haven't been doing my homework but by-gosh I am going to go do Rolex because I have been dreaming about doing it since I was 5". I know firsthand the type of money it takes to be at that level, but wouldn't it be more cost effective to take care of and prep properly the horse you have than trying to run & gun to make Rolex (or the next big show) at any and all cost?

I am not pointing fingers at any one person. I am sure everyone at Rolex this past weekend felt like they were ready to be there whether that is true or not.

[TB or not TB?]

Beefing up qualifications may be an answer, it may not. But I still think that anyone who has qualified should be able to compete. Not just the selected elite.

I was considering this as well, but that's why I thought an application that's reviewed by a panel might be in order. Anyone qualified can apply, but they have to "pass" the selection to go.

Like a jog. :lol:

[retreadeventer]

.........While I can't quite figure out how to put this into a rule book, if you have proved you have a good judgement you should be allowed to use that judgement. Until you prove you have good judgement, someone else, with good judgement probably needs to be responsible for you. I don't think we should penalize those who can think for themselves just because there are many who cannot. I suppose there are those who would disagree and say that in order to save the horses, some may not be allowed to use their own good judgement. I don't know that I could argue against that point. I am so saddened by the loss of so many wonderful horses.

I did not see, nor do I know anything about the riding/judgement of either of the combinations involved in the tragedies of this weekend. My comments are in no way directed toward them and my deepest sympathies go out. I do believe accidents happen to even the best in this sport. A tragedy caused by an accident is different than one caused by bad judgement.


AMEN.

[JER]

What is it about getting good enough that anybody here doesn`t get?

The problem is we've seen too many people who ARE good enough having bad accidents, most of them not at 4*. People like Ralph Hill, Darren C, Caroline Pratt (UK).

The difference between ok and so not ok is very small in eventing, measured in inches sometimes. Horse hangs 1 leg just enough to trip him up. Rider lands 1/4" on the wrong side of safety for his spinal column. A rider's fractured rib penetrates a few mm into the aorta. Etc. In climbing (denny, you mentioned Everest), most people accept that it's a numbers game and you'll run into trouble sooner or later. Enough times on the big walls and something's going to break or a rock is going to fall or the weather goes all wrong.

The Murray/Singer studies in the UK gave clear direction to 3 things that would make jumps safer -- stable footing on takeoffs/landings, this has been quoted elsewhere on this BB -- but these simple steps have not been enforced as a rule to make courses safer. Why not?

If we make qualifications harder without doing WHAT WE KNOW can improve safety, we're not very smart, are we?

[Gry2Yng]

Just to be the Devil's advocate, and not meaning any disrespect, but did Darren C. demonstrate good judgment moving a horse from Novice to Prelim in one season, or however he did it with the horse on whom he had his accident? By all accounts he is insanely fastidious in his preparation, etc. and nobody can knock his credentials, but there are those who feel this was a bit of bad judgment. Judgment is, by definition, completely subjective--how on earth to legislate or enforce this? :no:

Would the group of horsemen I named put Darren in the category of riders who should be allowed to use their own judgement, I don't know. Obviously judgement of one's judgement is subjective. (Objective criteria have not worked very well lately. The rules permitted Darren to do what he did.) I don't know if other good horsemen of Darren's ability would have made the same decision he did or not. The fact is we HAVE to assume that SOMEONE is capable of deciding when a horse and rider can compete at a certain level. It it the best answer to just keep adding pages to the rule book? I think instead of a knee jerk reaction (not saying you are knee jerk, dw, just in general) we should look at the big picture and fix the system instead of just layering rules on top of rules.

What is the problem? Until we decide what lead us to this point we can't fix it. What is the common thread among riders that LOOKED GOOD yesterday? Maybe instead of looking at the failures for the answer, we should look at the successes and figure out what produced THAT result.

[alter pain]

I dunno. Maybe if they had to prove that they could jump in the arena first then some of these XC accidents wouldn't happen. Not too many people or horses have been killed in a dressage arena but some of the dressage tests were scary as well. The dressage provides evidence that the horse is controllable by the rider in a finite way. Maybe bad dressage scores are an important clue to the readiness. If you can't win without good scores there then the holes in the training are evident. No one pretends that the qualities of the gaits are winning event dressage.

[BarbB]

This is one of the few times I disagree with Denny.
I have nothing against qualifications to move up....anything that anyone thinks can be justified and would be helpful. Go for it.

But I don't think this addresses the core of the problem.
Would Lainey and Frodo been left off of the list of invitees to this event?
I don't think so.
How about Jean Teulere (who also lost a horse on course this weekend), is anybody honestly going to say that he is not qualified/wouldn't be invited to whatever the top of the sport is?

I am sticking with course design as a root problem at the upper levels.
And not just one course designer that everyone has been having fun throwing rocks at....the whole concept of course design in the short format. We dropped the long format, went to the short format and some of the courses just don't seem to work anymore. I would like to see more objective work done in that area.
As everyday goes by we should be learning more about the different effects on the horse and rider between the long and short format and learning how to build better, safer courses.

As an aside, I don't think that what makes the top level of the sport safer necessarily is going to be true for making the lower levels safer.

[deltawave]

I've been called worse. ;)

All I know is that I drove home today thinking "I really don't feel like going to Rolex any more", and this is I think my 10th time going. :no: I think discussion is good, even unpleasant discussion. I am confident that the Powers That Be want to make things better. I just hope the negative stuff doesn't override the good ideas that are floating around out there.

Personally if I had my way I'd get rid of every vertical-faced jump out there, period, for an entire year. And no animals, flower baskets, toadstools, cannons, etc. Make the fences look like FENCES. And make them jumpable, with a little forgiveness in them. Is this "dumbing down" the sport? I don't know. I have a pretty high IQ and will never, ever jump an Advanced XC jump. (not drawing a correlation, honest!) :D What is "dumb" is keeping things the way they are. Would the Philips, Bruces, and Karens of the world REALLY be sad and depressed over having rounds that were just a little less scary at times? How could anyone be any more depressed than all of us have been lately over the outcomes of XC courses? Give me a rider who laments the "glory days" any day over a rider who has to bury their horse. :no: Somehow, it's gotten to be too hard, too hard. :(

[denny]

In most sports, maybe all, there are people who constantly make qualitative judgements about who gets chosen, and who gets left behind.
Sometimes these are paid scouts, sometimes college recruiters, sometimes, as in the USET (USEF), they`re called selectors.
But all of them use combinations of objective criteria, subjective criteria and just plain "gut instinct" in their selection processes.
So it can be done, is being done, and, in my personal opinion, should be done, at the highest levels of eventing, as simply ONE WAY to reduce the entirely unacceptable levels of misfortune assailing our sport.
Sure, address xc design, and anything else as well, but horse/rider qualification is a real key.
Yes, accidents happen to the great riders, too, but they happen to the lesser riders much more of the time. Don`t think so? Go watch.

[LLDM]

How does it discourage riders from trying to get good enough to make the "A" team? When I was trying to make the varsity wrestling squad in high school, and college, it was all about being good enough.
Later, when I was trying to make the USET, it was all about getting good enough.
What is it about getting good enough that anybody here doesn`t get?

Sorry to be the one to say it, but even our elite aren't always the shining examples we would like them to be. So, unless there is a mechanism to move the "elite" back down for a while when they screw up, that isn't the answer either.

Maybe we ought to take some hints from "Chutes and Ladders" instead of "CandyLand".

SCFarm

[TB or not TB?]

Okay.

Let's all agree to disagree.

And then let's engineer collapsible XC fences, and all of our fatalities are solved at once.

[piccolittle]

No one pretends that the qualities of the gaits are winning event dressage.

Umm... but no one can possibly pretend it isn't a huge part. Courageous Comet's trot, anyone?

Tuckertoo- thanks for saying it sooo much better than I did. I agree 100%.

And I'm sorry, but I can't believe how many people are taking my comments and throwing them wildly out of context. I didn't stick in the "riding the dream" part because that's the only reason she was at Rolex. Come on, people. I guess I sort of thought that we still aspire to the "girl and her horse" story that sort of formed the foundation of eventing- they have a wonderful history, and I'm proud of everything they've accomplished. I'm actually shocked that some of you would belittle the fact that she was competing at ROLEX by comparing her to a 5 year old. Clearly, they were qualified in every sense of the word and had a better XC round than most, including some of the 'big names' who got around clean (somehow). We can't expect everyone to have perfect dressage and stadium rides at their first ****.

Please focus your negativity where it belongs.

[Debbie]

Gnep had a good suggestion on another thread, that perhaps we all just need to stand down from posting on possible solutions for a little while. The course at Red Hills got all the blame and seemed the root of the problem, but I'm not sure you could say that the Rolex course was as problematic. Did you watch Becky and Courageous Comet do it? It was magical (sans butterflies) and flowing.

I sense that Denny's frustration is that he thought it was a good course and still two horses were lost, so how else do you crack the nut? I dunno and I think no one does and we're all disheartened and feeling lost and a bit sick.

Perhaps it's most appropriate right now to remember the two fine horses and offer comfort and peace and pray for a safe weekend at Badminton.

[Gry2Yng]

I dunno. Maybe if they had to prove that they could jump in the arena first then some of these XC accidents wouldn't happen. Not too many people or horses have been killed in a dressage arena but some of the dressage tests were scary as well. The dressage provides evidence that the horse is controllable by the rider in a finite way. Maybe bad dressage scores are an important clue to the readiness. If you can't win without good scores there then the holes in the training are evident. No one pretends that the qualities of the gaits are winning event dressage.


I think it is a tough argument to make. Very few of the brilliant cross country combinations of yesterday year ever lived up to the challenge of today's dressage test. Maybe they would have, but they didn't have to. Maybe not having to gave them more time to practice xc?

IMHO, the key to good xc riding is not to be found in the other two phases. Good cross country riding is good cross country riding. Good dressage and show jumping are what when you a ribbon.

I think Becky Holder is one of the best cross country riders out there today. Her roots are in foxhunting. Are her horses beautifully trained? Yes. But what makes her successful on Saturday is her ability to get in middle of the horse, maintain the balance, go forward and get out of the way. She schools her horses to be catty. She has been riding over uneven terrain since she was young. I don't think she is good at cross country because she is good at dressage.

[denny]

Debbie, you are right on. It was a good 4 star test. It rewarded brave, galloping, forward riding, didn`t have many "in their face" questions, and the really good rides looked flowing and lovely.
And yet, and yet-------
So, how can we even HAVE 4 star xc courses if this one isn`t good enough?
Either we diminish the challenge, or restrict the standard of riding to the standard that our best riders already have.
Maybe there are better solutions, but keeping the 4 star reserved for the best of the best strikes me as one possible solution.
Maybe we can`t have 4 star any more, not in 2008, but that seems to enact a huge penalty on the few who are truly "prima inter pares", that classic Latin expression meaning "first among equals."

[goodymar1188]

I don't think she is good at cross country because she is good at dressage.

Agreed. I think dressage is important in the fact of performing a proper half halt and getting your horse balanced, but it's not everything.

I do not believe those who are winning dressage are going be the most successful on XC. It may just be me but I do not see a correlation between the two. Take Bettina Hoy's horse (Ringwood Cockatoo?). He would almost always be first after dressage but usually had a disappointing XC round. Or look at Blair King... she had a HORRIBLE dressage test but was able to make it around XC successfully...

Just pointing out some examples here.

[alter pain]

I just said that poor dressage points out holes in the training. When horses skittle across the arena, blow the changes, aren't controllable in the rhythm and can't shorten or lengthen strides it just makes it all the more frightening that they're out there on XC. Also her dressage scores were not in my opinion the result of a "great trot". They were high because she rode the test very correctly.

Eventers of past years may have not had great dressage scores but the technicality of the XC courses today demand more accessibility to the skills needed for more exacting execution.

[Blugal]

Agree that poor dressage can point out holes in the training, BUT many horses have NO trouble changing leads on command out in cross-country, even if they struggle with the incredible demands placed on them by the dressage test's changes.

[LavenderFarm]

First off, my deepest condolences to Ms. Ashker and Ms. Hansel on the loss of their wonderful partners … and hoping Laine has a quick recovery from her own injuries. Thoughts, also, for those involved with the horses – from the breeders to the owners to the grooms and fans.

I am not a rider, but an owner of a young event horse. It makes me wonder if he should continue on this path, although it is the discipline for which he seems to have the most talent.

To Denny’s thoughts: perhaps there is a way to award “points” (to a horse/rider combination) in order to advance up the ranks, at least at the higher levels. (I just looked up both horse’s USEA records, which got me to thinking.) Such a point system would put greatest weight on the XC phase, then SJ, and lastly dressage (inasmuch as not so many horses / people are injured in that discipline). A horse with multiple XC jump / time penalties would not be allowed to move up – and possibly could be set back.

A point system would also need to take into account the “value” of the event; i.e., something like Fair Hill would have a higher value than something in say North Dakota (no offense to those in that state).

In order to avoid “point chasing,” horses could only compete every “x” number of weeks – at any level. (But if the horse was only really entered to do the dressage phase for the experience, that would not count against it and no points would be awarded.)

No points would count in a W or E situation.

Should the horses (again, UL) be subjected to a comprehensive vet examination yearly (at whose expense ??) with an emphasis on potential heart / lung issues? Like a treadmill thing people do to evaluate heart function?

So many horses got around the XC at Rolex fault-free and under time, that, for me, it is difficult to fault the course there. The same perhaps could not be said for Red Hills tho.

Just my meandering thoughts after this very sad weekend in eventing. At the same time, I congratulate all those who did well.

[Gry2Yng]

Alter - the atmosphere in the dressage/stadium ring at Rolex will make the most properly trained horse lose his mind. The riders at the top of the leaderboard have been in that ring many times. (Comet and Connaught have been in that ring with their current riders at least 4 times.) Please don't think that just because a rider blows the changes at Rolex that they couldn't get the job done quite well at the Fork or Southern Pines. Everyone has to do their first dressage test at Rolex and sometimes it isn't pretty.

Even a veteran can have trouble. Bruce and David have both had ugly dressage tests at one time or another. Go back and watch Bruce and Little Tricky at Rolex in 2002 in the pouring rain. Then watch their dressage test. In 2006, they had a 74.1 at Rolex. Barely a qualifying score. In 2005 at Fair Hill they had a 67.2. Jam also scored poorly in the ring at Rolex 65+.

I am sorry to beat on the topic, but I think all of the emphasis on qualifying dressage scores forces our focus off the cross country and contributes to the problems we are having. You can only train a horse 6 days a week. If you spend more time on dressage you have to spend less time on something else. I think we can emphasize dressage to our own demise.

[JAGold]

On the idea of making 4*s "invitation only" or for the "A team" -- there is already a lot of politics in team selection. I would really hate to see those politics play an even deeper and earlier role in the sport. If we can come up with some sort of objective "licensing" system, that might be promising. I know they use something of that sort in France, and maybe other places in Europe. Does anyone know how it is set up and whether or not it is perceived to help keep the sport safe?

I'm also not convinced that lack of ability or experience or talent has caused the recent accidents, but that seems like a separate discussion.

[LLDM]

Debbie, you are right on. It was a good 4 star test. It rewarded brave, galloping, forward riding, didn`t have many "in their face" questions, and the really good rides looked flowing and lovely.
And yet, and yet-------
So, how can we even HAVE 4 star xc courses if this one isn`t good enough?
Either we diminish the challenge, or restrict the standard of riding to the standard that our best riders already have.
Maybe there are better solutions, but keeping the 4 star reserved for the best of the best strikes me as one possible solution.
Maybe we can`t have 4 star any more, not in 2008, but that seems to enact a huge penalty on the few who are truly "prima inter pares", that classic Latin expression meaning "first among equals."

Denny - you are answering your own question. Our best riders on their best horses do pretty darn well and stay pretty darn safe... unless they are, um, distracted. Too much, too many, too often is worth really looking at.

SCFarm

[erroneous]

I was standing at the fence (Sunken Road) prior to the one at which The Quiet Man fell and I (and others around me) noticed that he had some difficulty getting through it - scraping and twisting over the verticals both in and out of the combo. I also saw his fall. I remember thinking as he was scrambling through the Sunken Road that he didn't look so good.

Riders at this level should realize when their horse is in difficulty and know when he is overfaced and pull up. Or they should be made to pull up by officials- TDs or Ground Jury reps posted around the course, perhaps? I know this would cause all kinds of arguments and legal turmoil, but when you see what is at stake, it is better for all concerned. When a horse is going that badly, the outcome of the ride won't be positive anyways.

As Denny mentioned in his OP, you don't see the super elite pairs having these problems. I think the elite riders pay MUCH more attention to how their superstar horse is going ON THAT DAY and quit before something terrible happens - they don't want to risk injuring him permanently. We saw this with Becky H. and Courageous Comet at Rolex last year. We have also seen BNRs injure horses and themselves by pushing too hard/ too soon, but strangely it always seems to be with up-and-coming horses, not established superstars.

[Rallycairn]

[QUOTE=erroneous;3173771]
Riders at this level should realize when their horse is in difficulty and know when he is overfaced and pull up. Or they should be made to pull up by officials- TDs or Ground Jury reps posted around the course, perhaps? I know this would cause all kinds of arguments and legal turmoil, but when you see what is at stake, it is better for all concerned. When a horse is going that badly, the outcome of the ride won't be positive anyways.

QUOTE]

This might not be at all practical and would very likely lead to arguments and turmoil, as you said, but I was wondering the same thing -- could we create a culture wherein an official could or would step in and make the call if a team were struggling on course? This could also help with cases of injury of horse or rider, where it is argued the rider didn't realize the extent of the injury or tried to push on anyway, but persons on the ground could see something was terribly wrong?

Said officials would have to be willing to take the heat for tough judgment calls, and to make those judgments in the first place, of course.

[vineyridge]

Denny - you are answering your own question. Our best riders on their best horses do pretty darn well and stay pretty darn safe... unless they are, um, distracted. Too much, too many, too often is worth really looking at.

SCFarm

Well, Heidi White damn near decapitated a duck, and her fall could have been a lot worse than it was. Think what would have happened if the head hadn't been moveable. As it was she got back on and finished, but is rumored to have broken something.

She seems to only have the one "elite" horse, and they have been partners for years.

I have no idea why I brought this up. :winkgrin:

[eventer2002]

The sport didn't fail Eleanor. Mr. Barnabus's record was horrible in the U.S. Although Eleanor's death was a tragedy, it doesn't seem incredibly suprising. When you look up her USEA rider record it is very far from impressive. Looking at these results makes me wonder how she completed Badminton. The thought that comes to mind is that she maybe had an amazing partnership with one horse, not every horse.

[TexasTB]

The original proposal I saw for the 5 star was a renaming of all the divisions, such that 4 stars became 5 stars on down and the FEI got some control of the current 1/2 star level. That may have changed, I have been out of the loop.

Well SCREW THAT then! I sure as hell ain't letting FEI take control of the 1/2 star, OUR 1/2 star, just so they can ruin another aspect of our sport with their autonomic, dictatorial bullsh*t.


And I'm all for the 4 star selection criteria, but there is one issue with that I can foresee: When the 4 star is reduced to only the very elite, that will only give course designers another excuse to increase the technicality and the trapiness of the courses, because they no longer have to cater to the less-experienced at the level. So while this is a valid idea, I can't see its implementation being beneficial unless we first enact much stronger restrictions on course design.

[RAyers]

Agree that poor dressage can point out holes in the training, many horses have NO trouble changing leads on command out in cross-country, even if they struggle with the incredible demands placed on them by the dressage test's changes.

Yes, dressage can point out holes in training but that is all. The dressage score has no bearing on the horse's ability to do XC safely.

There has never been any correlation between dressage scores and falls/injuries. As a matter of fact, the most recent study in the UK (600 horses and riders) showed that the fewer refusals a rider had on a horse the GREATER the risk of a fall. What this says is that maybe the better trained a team is, the more risks they will take on XC, regardless of their dressage.

I am tired of folks saying good dressage means good XC. Yes, good dressage means the rider has taken to heart the need to be a well rounded and developed horseman. It means they are paying attention to the whole sport. But it does not mean the horse is better on XC. It may simply be an indication that the rider has gotten the full amount of training so they are better on XC.

Reed

[Blugal]

Reed, I agree with you, and I tried earlier to edit my post to say "but many horses have NO trouble on XC... etc.", but COTH was freezing up so I couldn't fix it.

[Larksmom]

I want to ditto the comment about Becky pulling up last year, with CC. I was a bit surprised, but she knew he wasn't right. And I haven't seen it mentioned, but the yr Emilee _____ [can't remember last name, felt her horse wasn't right and pulled him up. That took guts and great maturity i think. Live to fight another day.
Great ideas guys.

[west5]

Yes, dressage can point out holes in training but that is all. The dressage score has no bearing on the horse's ability to do XC safely.

There has never been any correlation between dressage scores and falls/injuries. As a matter of fact, the most recent study in the UK (600 horses and riders) showed that the fewer refusals a rider had on a horse the GREATER the risk of a fall. What this says is that maybe the better trained a team is, the more risks they will take on XC, regardless of their dressage.



Thank you Reed.

I watched the entire coverage and there were several horses who had blah (or worse) dressage scores that went well (or better) xcountry as is always the case.

Picolittle, I'm pretty sure I know who your trainer is and she is a fantastic rider and horsewoman. Her xcountry round was lovely to watch as it didn't make one nervous at all.

[baythoroughbred]

Denny, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I just got back from Rolex and it was a heartbreaking trip. My husband and I go every year because he is from Lexington and we are not going to go back.

There was a vast difference in the level of the riders. It was very apparent. Yes, some of the great riders fell or didn't finish, Polly Stockton comes to mind, but that's okay. Watching horses die on course is not okay for me.

[denny]

The thing that hit me was the huge disparity between the horse/rider combinations who made xc look lovely, and the ones at the other end of the spectrum.
I`m not talking about dressage, and not really about show jumping, because those phases aren`t dangerous.
Either our sport has a 4 star level, like that very good xc at Rolex this weekend, or it shouldn`t.
If it does, we need to devise a system for restricting that hardest level for the relatively few combinations which are competent and relatively at ease at that level.
I`m not talking about raising the bar higher. The bar, for the good combinations, was just right.
I`m trying to grope toward ways to prevent horse/rider combinations who are not good enough from being allowed to try, and sometimes fail tragically.
A couple of weeks ago I started another thread that stated my conviction that you can make NON RISK sports just as hard as you want, because failure doesn`t equate with injury or death.
Not so with risk sports. Either lower the bar for everyone, or prevent the less competent from being allowed at that level.
If there are better solutions, bring them on. I don`t care what solutions we devise, only that we do something pretty darn soon.

[magnolia73]

Why don't people speak the hell up and say "Hey kiddo- not this year- you aren't good enough." It's not a big universe. They all share common trainers and clinicians. Surely at earlier outings signs of not being ready are shown.

Yeah- people should take responsibilty- but young, barn blind, trying to make a team, brave.... they'll try anything. They need a big reality check.

[DRTY.2]

Anyone suggested making the cross country less risky and making the dressage and show jumping phases more difficult?

Just a thought...

[gully's pilot]

Denny, I agree that the difference between some horse/rider combinations was obvious. I'd pick Jane Sleeper as someone with very very bad dressage, and a lovely xc round even though they had a run-out. A few of the younger riders were worrisome. But I keep in mind what a BNR once told me: you know you have a four-star horse when your first four-star is done. In other words, how do you know you're ready?

Here's my two cents--let's look at the recent accidents and what we know about them, in broad terms:

Eleanor--2-star level--possibly overfaced horse--possibly overfaced rider--rotational fall.

Darren--prelim--possibly overfaced horse--experienced rider--rotational fall.

Quiet Man--4-star--possibly overfaced horse--possibly overfaced rider--rotational fall.

Frodo--4-star--experienced horse (?)--experienced rider--rotational fall.

The one thing all four have in common: rotational fall. Therefore, this is where our efforts should be concentrated: to prevent rotational falls. I was at Rolex--the basket was essentially a glorified max-dimension table. The footbridge could have been made with frangible pins, and wasn't. Was there a frangible pin anywhere at Rolex? I didn't see one. Let's find some engineers and get them to develop ways to make the fences collapse or something, so that they don't produce rotational falls. It won't fix everything, but it would go a long way to making the sport safer.

I don't know what an EXO vest is, but if it's clearly safer than what we've got, let's start mandating that, too.

[LLDM]

Well, Heidi White damn near decapitated a duck, and her fall could have been a lot worse than it was. Think what would have happened if the head hadn't been movable. As it was she got back on and finished, but is rumored to have broken something.

She seems to only have the one "elite" horse, and they have been partners for years.

I have no idea why I brought this up. :winkgrin:

But they did get back up! There is a HUGE difference between falling down and catastrophic injury or death. Heck, I fall down, my horses have fallen down. It hurts the heck out of our pride, but mostly no medical personal have been involved.

Horses are dangerous. In my experience, most vet and hospital emergency visits are NOT based on riding accidents. Lord save me from barn and pasture accidents. Most of which ARE PREVENTABLE TOO - why else would Pony Club have drilled all that stuff into my head. But considering the time spent on care and maintenance versus jumping at speed, well, you see where I am going.

I don't care so much about Duck #2.

In short - IMHO survivable falls are okay - and we stand a very good chance of bad things happening if we try to make eventing too safe. As some have pointed out, it will encourage craziness. We are trying to find a way to test where mistakes might be painful, but not deadly. Nothing is perfect, but we are obviously on the wrong side of this.

SCFarm

[LisaB]

Frodo was inexperienced at 4* but she did all the prep.
For those of you who watched, were horses having a bad time inexperienced or not conditioned? Last year, it seemed to be a conditioning issue.

[IFG]

Denny,

Did the long format used to weed out those horses and riders who weren't ready to do the ****?

I remember, I used to hear that horses weren't going to make it as three day horses because they couldn't do the ABCD phases of endurance day. Some riders would keep these horses to do some Advanced horse trials, but they usually didn't because the pinnacle of the sport was the long-format three day.

Could it be that some horses with potential pulmonary hemorrhages, soundness issues, or who were not aggressive enough failed at the long-format three day. Could the long-format have weeded out those horses that we now see having fatal outcomes on the short-format courses?

Perhaps the long format used to do the weeding out of less prepared horse-rider pairs in the past? Even if someone did a catch ride at the higher levels, both horse and rider would have done at least a *, **, and Advanced horse trials to prepare (there didn't used to be a ****). Isn't that correct?

I know that everyone says that the long format is gone, but from hearing the dissatisfaction with what is happening in this sport (i.e., many have said that they do not plan to attend Rolex again), bringing it back may be the only way to save the sport.

[LisaB]

I thought the 3* level was for the less experienced horse and/or rider and the 4* was for the elite.
Here's another thought to throw into the pot. We no longer have the cavalry mentality. We have lost or are losing those great military riders that turned around and gave to the general population. Given that, we don't have our battleaxe, a-hole, or otherwise trainers telling us the cold hard truth of our abilities and our horse's abilities.
How many times have we seen on this board where an instructor is struggling to tell a student or their parents about something bad? How many times has that student been in a poor situation where they could be hurt before instructor came to an internet board for moral support to tell bad thing to student?
Denny and others, how many times have you told a student that they can't do something because they aren't qualified? I'm sure you have Denny but others, think about it.
Given that, and given it's a serious PITA to get qualified for a CCI, maybe the qualifications need fine tuning. Can we determine if a horse is fit enough at the 1st inspection? Can we determine if a certain score is good enough to ensure that you have your act together for a CCI?
It's obvious that we can't rely on ourselves for this determination. And our instruction isn't what it used to be.

[gully's pilot]

There is something to the trainers-want-to-tell-good-news theory. I struggle to find appropriate instruction where I live, and I had a trainer expect me to move up after the worst xc round of my life. I survived it--novice--with no penalties, finished 2nd in a big field, and did plan to move up to training when ready. But I absolutely knew I had no business moving up after that round. Two years later, as a much better rider on a better trained horse (same horse), I was ready. But if I'd been a kid who thought moving up was the be-all and end-all, I'd have done it before I was ready.

But my feeling is that this has always been true.

I'm fine with Reed's idea of an upper-level standdown (a lower-level standdown would hit so many of our events so hard financially) but I really think what we need to do now is not fix the courses--Rolex was a lovely course--or regulate the riders--always damn hard to do. I think that moving to the short format probably has let horses compete who wouldn't have under the long format, but I don't know if we can as a country bring the long format back, not while the Olympics remain short-format events. (Though I'd love to see some other countries' opinions of the short format--are we the only ones who think it sucks? What about England? Australia? New Zealand? Lots of fine eventers there.) What we can do, and should do, is figure out how to keep falls--which we'll always have--from being rotational falls.

[denny]

In my last Chronicle Between Rounds, I quoted Peter Gray`s letter to me from 12 years ago, about the great NZ team from the Italy World Championships. Anyone read it, and actually think about it?
It said the NZ riders "were cowboys at heart, very comfortable galloping at high speeds on bad terrain, but cowboys who had gone on to embrace upper level dressage and show jumping."
This weekend we saw riders with skills who weren`t cowboys. Not good enough.
We saw cowboys without skills. Not good enough.
And we saw cowboys with skills, the perfect prototype of elite event riders.
The 4 star level should be restricted to this small latter group, if we want to make accidents less likely to happen.

[kansasgal]

I am obviously not an even competitor.
BUT I love to read up on eventers at the top levels. I always assumed that there must be a tough qualification process to be able to compete at the top levels of Rolex.
Not that freak accidents don't happen in every sport or riding discipline.

BUT I'm just a spectator "on the fringe" of the event scene, and the recent stories of horse and rider deaths/ severe injury makes me wonder what in the world is "wrong" here?

I don't "buy" the idea, that "Well, it happens, how tragic, but life goes on."

What a bunch of NONSENSE. It's making me sick.

I got to watch Rolex in person, 10 years ago.
I think one horse died that year. Silly nieve me, I had no idea that this was almost expected as part of the competition.

I recently dug up an old Practical Horseman magazine from around that time. It seems that the stuff that's being complained about regarding eventing really hasn't changed all that much. And I am not involved or invested enough in the sport to understand the reasons or details behind it.

I can't help adding this. Sorry. RIP Fodo.

[LisaB]

Absolutely, Denny, absolutely.
I think too much, my instructor thinks too much. And about to puke at my first prelim, my hubby said to me, 'you know, I think you just need to run up to that jump and let him do his thing'. So, that what I did and I had the best time. Incredibly slow. But I had learned from the cowboys. And yep, we actually had space in CA back then. A bunch of kids would get dumped off at the stables over the weekend and we would be trail guides. When business was slow, we would hop on a pony and go for hours bareback, through canyons and what-not. I haven't done that in years and I think it's about time I do it again.
I was kvetching about not having an arena at our place or not enough flat space to do my dr work. But you know what? I'm over it. I can get just as much done on the side of a hill than I can some manicured arena.
People today don't go out trail riding for hours through whatever happens to be there. Their version is to walk for 20 minutes on a bridle path after they are done with arena work.

[flyingchange]

She also harped on in the press about getting rid of dressage from eventing...she was never very good at it;)

Yeah, she acknowledged that because everybody knows that she hates the dressage that she couldn't really be on the forefront voicing this as a concern .... :lol:

but aside from that, she was pretty clearcut that she does not think the problem is the CD or the short format issue.

[flyingchange]

You shouldn`t be at 4 star events because "it`s my dream". Any more than you should be climbing Mt Everest for the same reason. That`s Bambi thinking, little kid thinking, it isn`t real.
It can get you or your horse maimed or killed.
So what if only 15 or 20 riders from an entire country have what it takes some years? Better that than dead horses, crippled riders.
We don`t need to penalize our Philips, Karens, Kims, Amys by totally emasculating the sport to a "one size fits all", but we also can`t survive if the sport destroys the wanna be Philips/Kims, etc, who aren`t GOOD ENOUGH.
Create a system that finds and rewards the elite, without doing in those who aren`t in the same league.
Sure, tough on some rider`s dreams. Tough. Get better, get good enough. That`s life in the Bigs, as they say in baseball.

Right on.

[snoopy]

Having had some time to think about this.....I am always disappointed to see the results at fairhill in the autumn...there seems to be many eliminations and poor performances at this three star...and some of those go on to contest Rolex in the next spring. I must agree that many contesting rolex this year would have been better suited to Jersey Fresh or Fairhill at three star level, but not secure enough as a whole package to be riding at Rolex. I thought the course very fair for a four star track.

[LisaB]

Got a question:
In race car driving, there are certain qualification, right?
Is there like an overseer who determines who is qualified for like Daytona, etc?
I guess I'm asking about their criteria and how their governing body works.
I'm sure they don't have that extra USEF and FEI layer :winkgrin:

[monstrpony]

Glad to see this discussion, because it's what I ended up thinking about over the weekend, as well.

How many really solid partnerships are there out there? The kind that can know, without a doubt, several strides out at **** speed, the difference between "this is a little funky" and "oh, shit!", and know it in time to do something about it? Are there really 40 such partnerships going right now in this country? Not a chance.

They don't call eventing the ultimate test just to sell more tickets. In the hunter ring, those without a solid partnership just fill classes; even in GP jumping, the rails fall or the horse stops. In eventing, the absence of that partnership seems to mean that someone is seriously injured or dies.

This difference has to be defined, understood, respected, addressed and enforced, or the sport is doomed.

[snoopy]

Yeah, she acknowledged that because everybody knows that she hates the dressage that she couldn't really be on the forefront voicing this as a concern .... :lol:

but aside from that, she was pretty clearcut that she does not think the problem is the CD or the short format issue.


But so much has been said that the more demanding dressage of today was in effect a way to make the demands of modern courses that much more rideable. She cannot have it both ways.

[J. Turner]

You shouldn`t be at 4 star events because "it`s my dream". Any more than you should be climbing Mt Everest for the same reason. That`s Bambi thinking, little kid thinking, it isn`t real.
It can get you or your horse maimed or killed.
So what if only 15 or 20 riders from an entire country have what it takes some years? Better that than dead horses, crippled riders.
We don`t need to penalize our Philips, Karens, Kims, Amys by totally emasculating the sport to a "one size fits all", but we also can`t survive if the sport destroys the wanna be Philips/Kims, etc, who aren`t GOOD ENOUGH.
Create a system that finds and rewards the elite, without doing in those who aren`t in the same league.
Sure, tough on some rider`s dreams. Tough. Get better, get good enough. That`s life in the Bigs, as they say in baseball.

Denny, I agree, but there are no requirements for climbing Mt. Everest and the unprepared/novice do die. A very wealthy Asian woman died in that fateful climb recorded on the IMAX/documentary film Everest. The book explains she had a lot of money, but was relatively novice to that level climb. I've read a few books on climbing Everest and watched the documentary/IMAX film. The difference is they're not bringing along a horse who depends on their judgement. However, many sherpas and non-native guides do risk their lives trying to save people from accidents/storms, etc.

I don't mind people risking their lives in high risk sports. It happens every weekend in NASCAR and other car racing. Perhaps even platform diving. Everytime you go off a 10 m platform, you're risking life and limb. The difference is the horse. The horse depends on our judgement. Risk a car, or even yourself. However, the risk needs to be lower for the horse in eventing. Yes, there are catastrophic injuries in show jumping (like Royal Kaliber). I don't think cross country should become a glorified derby course, but something needs to be done.

CONSTRUCTION
We need to look at the physics of the rotational fall and figure out what we can do with the construction of the jumps to reduce the risk of the rotational fall. Obviously the energy needs to be absorbed by the jump to prevent the rotational fall. How? I don't know. I'm not a mechanical engineer. Go to Hollywood and stunt folks. Maybe the face of these jumps need to be made with some sort rubber shock absorbing material. I just watching "the making of" 3:10 to Yuma. They made a replica of a Gatling gun out of rubber for the stagecoach flip. It looked authentic. So some good airbrush artists could probably make the jumps look like wood. Heck, if rubber/air filled 12" bumpers can absorb the impact of a 65' Hatteras (boat) coming into a dock, I would think something similar would work on the face of the jumps. Hire the guys on that show "Mythbusters", they can make anything. They could probably create a mechanical system underneath so that a big, heavy jump like the flower box would tip over at a certain impact.

TRAINING
I am a wayword, humble amateur, but where is the line between foolhardy and brave? Are we training these horses NOT to be smart and catty? Perhaps Teddy stopping at Red Hills was smart. Maybe he has a self-preservation policy. Is winning so important that these horses are being conditioned to be automatons? Personally, I would rather see more stops. Yes, the rider might go flying, but you'd lose the rotational fall and the horse falling on top of you! Denny, were there more stops "back in the day"? If a horse is in trouble at a funky distance and he's going to chest the jump, the riders would rather risk their own neck (literally) and their horse, than to incur 20 faults. You can't regulate philosophy or morality, but you can change the rules ...

RULES/PENALTIES
Perhaps if the penalties for refusals were reduced, riders wouldn't be so hell-bent for leather on getting over the jump come hell or high water, risking their lives and the horse's. What if penalties were 10 pts. or 5? Maybe you'd just have people running harder to make the time, I don't know. People who have a stop, are essentially out of it - completely. If they still were in the running, maybe they'd be more willing to take a stop instead of a stupid distance. I have ridden at 600 mpm so maybe you can't, I don't know. I'd like someone's reaction. Denny?

Also, I think it's sad how a dressage ride dictates the whole event. No one can make up points. Perhaps a double clear on XC should warrant subtracting points from the dressage score. That way an awesome XC horse gets credit. As it is right now, he's just dead in the water on his dressage score. Take off 5 points for a clear round. Maybe nothing for time because you don't want people running the horses off their feet. The top horses will still be on top, but if you go clear, it'll put you more in the running on sj day - and shouldn't XC machines be rewarded somehow? Not just sit stagnant on the dressage score? I can't get the Rolex scoreboard to come up so I can't muse how it would've affected the standings. Maybe you take away 5 pts for the double clear in SJ, too. That would be a way to re-emphasize the jumping horse in the scoring.

[chisamba]

The thing that hit me was the huge disparity between the horse/rider combinations who made xc look lovely, and the ones at the other end of the spectrum.
I`m not talking about dressage, and not really about show jumping, because those phases aren`t dangerous.
Either our sport has a 4 star level, like that very good xc at Rolex this weekend, or it shouldn`t.
If it does, we need to devise a system for restricting that hardest level for the relatively few combinations which are competent and relatively at ease at that level.
I`m not talking about raising the bar higher. The bar, for the good combinations, was just right.
I`m trying to grope toward ways to prevent horse/rider combinations who are not good enough from being allowed to try, and sometimes fail tragically.
A couple of weeks ago I started another thread that stated my conviction that you can make NON RISK sports just as hard as you want, because failure doesn`t equate with injury or death.
Not so with risk sports. Either lower the bar for everyone, or prevent the less competent from being allowed at that level.
If there are better solutions, bring them on. I don`t care what solutions we devise, only that we do something pretty darn soon.


Are you basically saying that Laine would not have qualified under your system? I believe she was short listed for the games with Frodo? I think you would have to eradicate the sport entirely to ensure that "failure does not equate with injury or death"

[Miriam]

I was at Rolex, and I saw both Laine and Dornin's falls. I don't have a whole lot to say, because like Robby said earlier, there are no words to express what it was like.

I like Denny's idea of making the 4star "by invitation only," but more importantly, I think the US needs to implement some sort of process where riders who are riding badly can be pulled off course immediately by the TD, ground jury, their instructor, etc. I know it would be a subjective judgement nightmare, but it would have prevented at least one if not two of the falls this weekend.

I'm totally in favor of allowing a rider who falls to continue riding, but if after a fence or two they aren't back riding in good shape or continue to ride shaken badly they should be pulled. I could see the fear in Dornin North's face and body as she came by us at the sunken road, and we could see the fall happening at the footbridge many strides out. She had done three fences (including the sunken road- the long way with what looked to be a last minute decision) between her first fall and the footbridge and none of them were easy to watch.

I'm just a lower level rider, but if I can see a horse galloping badly out of balance, or a rider making a hugely bad decision at these levels, I know the sport is in trouble. I've been very hesitant to say anything, but in my humble and uneducated opinion, the course was very fair and designed to test the combinations but in an appropriate manner. What I saw this weekend at Rolex was bad riding in dressage, scary riding in xcountry, and inaccurate riding/ bad judgement in stadium.

Some of the pairs made the weekend beautiful and heartwarming. Let's allow them to have the chance to win our hearts and represent our country. The others- move them down.

[LisaB]

Chisamba,
she was not short listed. She went to HK for the test event under like a **.
Okay, not naming names but there's been discussion on the up and comers. And here at Rolex are some perfect examples. Who made it look okay, albeit green for the level, and who didn't under the genre of the **** virgins (or re-virgins) ?
What made them different?
I think we can rule out KOC and Phillip and the like and concentrate on 'the others' because sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.
And while we slammed the hell out the course at Red Hills, in this case it was the riders (and qualifications) that we need to dig.

[flyingchange]

But so much has been said that the more demanding dressage of today was in effect a way to make the demands of modern courses that much more rideable. She cannot have it both ways.

I dunno Snoopy ... perhaps you should just take it up with her. I am just typing what she said. I'm sure you could set her straight.

[millerra]

I haven't read the whole thread but the I suggest that the 'simple answer' is to simply make Rolex an invitational - just like many other elite sporting events. And then run a 3* for those who also want to go to rolex.

Assuming 40 starters - 2 horse deaths is a 5% fatal accident rate. That is horrific...

Just my humble opinion.

[snoopy]

I dunno Snoopy ... perhaps you should just take it up with her. I am just typing what she said. I'm sure you could set her straight.


These are not just my thoughts on that matter and she has been called on the carpet over these remarks...by many far more qualified to challenge her then myself.....Far be it for me to judge Lucinda and her record. But one has to question statements like this from someone who never liked dressage, nor ridden the modern course at the highest levels.

[KSevnter]

[QUOTE=denny;3173460]You shouldn`t be at 4 star events because "it`s my dream". Any more than you should be climbing Mt Everest for the same reason. That`s Bambi thinking, little kid thinking, it isn`t real.QUOTE]

Thank you Denny, I am glad someone is finally saying this! This sport is dangerous even on a good day. Twenty years ago, there were precious few riding at the top levels and they didn't get there by buying **** horses. They made their horses. On occassion you would see ammies riding their own horses at Rolex, but that was back when it was *** there weren't too many Young Riders or ammies with a dream crossing the pond to do Badminton. So now we have an elite course on our soil, that doesn't mean everyone with some $$ and a dream should get to ride there.

It should be elite and for the best in the world. It is not for just anyone who gets the minimum qualfications. I suspect some of this "live your dream" pat you on back culture has a lot to do in the shift toward giving every little league team a trophey and every child an A. It somehow has seeped into our sport and is having disastrous consequences.

I too, "dreamed" of riding at Rolex but it wasn't meant to be, partly because I was always a full-time student or attorney or whatever and partly because I am just not that good. That was fine the ** level was challenging enough for me. That is part of life, if my husband had been 8 inches taller he might have been an NFL player but at 5'6" he could only be a good running back at a Div. I AA school. He got over it too.

[Picasso]

This is a great idea because I had it too! Only I used football and the fact you don't get to just go play in the super bowl because you were the star quarterback on your mini-weight team. You have to PROVE yourself, get selected and then WIN GAMES.

This was a result of the number of poor rides I witnessed this weekend not only cross country, but dressage and stadium. Somethings that happened simply shouldn't at this level and it trickles down. At our barn, I heard a girl comment that she was ready to jump the big cross country fences this year, not the little ones like last year because they've already done those (schooling BN, mind you). Absolutely no clue there are technical aspects to the questions, not just height. (disclaimer -she does NOT train with my trainer otherwise there would have been a figurative smack down, but that is another issue - trainers who don't know from shinola about eventing presenting themselves as "eventing" instructors).

How do we make this happen?

[lxt]

I think Denny's ideas are good. Here are my thoughts, which are a bit disorganized, but anyway...

I was at the flower basket yesterday. I believe Lainie came in too fast and failed to check beforehand. One of the things I notice as a difference between the elite and the others is that the elite never look like they are in a hurry, if that makes sense. I think a lot of it is having enough experience to be able to *think* in that situation.

Problems I see (not confined to 4* by any means):

- Riders in too much of a hurry to move up the levels. (I could see requiring a rider to spend a minimum number of seasons at P, I, A in addition to qualifications.) I also see horses being moved up too fast in my opinion, and would put Darren's fall in this category. The reasons for this can range from the rider or owner wanting the move up for the wrong reasons, not having enough experience or judgement to know the horse is not ready, and of course plain old making an error. (We are all wrong sometimes.)

- I think we encourage moving up too early with course design at the lower and mid levels. Lots of big gallopy fences perhaps train people to think that all fences can be ridden by grabbing mane and kicking on. If we had more corners, combinations, skinnies, etc, starting at BN and below, then riders and horses would get the experience of jumping technical fences at a level where they can't get into as much trouble. This is the approach that is taken in Australia (where I am from) for what it's worth. It also makes the lower levels more interesting and challenging to ride.

- A lot of the move up riders at all levels don't seem have that much experience riding over country. I see in the USA that people have a much, much more correct jumping position than in Australia, a product of more ring time and the legacy of the hunters in many cases. However, I know personally several riders who ride at T and P who won't go fox hunting because they think it is too dangerous. (!)

On the frangible pins issue, plenty of the Rolex fences had them. We were taking notice after all the discussion on here and because I had never really looked at/for them before. I did not look at the footbridge (where the Quiet Man was hurt) and I imagine it would be impossible to construct the basket with them.

Sorry for the long ramble - that's my 2c (more like 20c) as it turned out. Disclaimer: I am thoroughly in the LLR category, but have been riding for 30 or so years. (God, how depressing! :lol: )

[findeight]

Somebody brought up the Mt Everest analogy...read "Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakhauer who was climbing during the IMAX filming. Arrogance, complacency and the dumbing down of the mountain itself (with ladders and ropes and bridges across the crevaces) just resulted in bringing those who should not have been there to die on the slopes with those that shopuld have known better. Easy read, not a long book. Come to think of it, watch "Into the Wild", movie adapted from a book by the same author. You can add self delusional to the above.

Maybe arrogance and complaceny plus kidding yourself/clients about ability and/or delusional thinking are as responsible for most of these accidents as anything else. Maybe we are to PC to tell anybody the truth or "ruin their dream". Maybe we need USEA and USEF to do that....I dunno.

BUT designing a frangible fence does NOT need to "dummy" anything down. You think it does, go stand in front of some WC jumps or, better, ride up to them. They are not that safe-still scare the hell out of you and still leave a mark if you crash. But it won't kill you. Fear may create a more careful rider but does it have to be fear of death?

[Picasso]

I was at Rolex, and I saw both Laine and Dornin's falls. I don't have a whole lot to say, because like Robby said earlier, there are no words to express what it was like.

I like Denny's idea of making the 4star "by invitation only," but more importantly, I think the US needs to implement some sort of process where riders who are riding badly can be pulled off course immediately by the TD, ground jury, their instructor, etc. I know it would be a subjective judgement nightmare, but it would have prevented at least one if not two of the falls this weekend.

I'm totally in favor of allowing a rider who falls to continue riding, but if after a fence or two they aren't back riding in good shape or continue to ride shaken badly they should be pulled. I could see the fear in Dornin North's face and body as she came by us at the sunken road, and we could see the fall happening at the footbridge many strides out. She had done three fences (including the sunken road- the long way with what looked to be a last minute decision) between her first fall and the footbridge and none of them were easy to watch.

I'm just a lower level rider, but if I can see a horse galloping badly out of balance, or a rider making a hugely bad decision at these levels, I know the sport is in trouble. I've been very hesitant to say anything, but in my humble and uneducated opinion, the course was very fair and designed to test the combinations but in an appropriate manner. What I saw this weekend at Rolex was bad riding in dressage, scary riding in xcountry, and inaccurate riding/ bad judgement in stadium.

Some of the pairs made the weekend beautiful and heartwarming. Let's allow them to have the chance to win our hearts and represent our country. The others- move them down.

I saw that petrified look on Dornin's face, too, and then the footbridge fall. I can't say with certainty that she was as scared as she looked, who really knows - but the ride wasn't going well. This is just one example, though of a few that shouldn't have been out there at all.

[blackwly]

I saw that petrified look on Dornin's face, too, and then the footbridge fall. I can't say with certainty that she was as scared as she looked, who really knows - but the ride wasn't going well. This is just one example, though of a few that shouldn't have been out there at all.


I watched the coverage online, and I thought this was really interesting. After Dornin's fall, both Kerry and Amy made multiple comments about how getting back on and continuing was "absolutely the right thing to do." It even came up later in the telecast. However, we have a new rule change proposal that would make one fall a mandatory elimination. What if Dornin had been badly injured in that second fall? We would all have been saying this was predictable from the way her round was going. But our well-known BNRs commentating on the telecast certainly wouldn't seem to support this rule change.

[TheOrangeOne]

Lost hunter princess chiming in: I rememberasking at my first event "so what are the jump judges judging us on?". Obviously nothing, but perhaps that could change. If, for FEI events, the judges were certified and held a card, perhaps they could have the authority to stop a pair who looks off their game/threw a shoe/just plain scary before a helicopter had to be introduced to the equation.

[flyingchange]

These are not just my thoughts on that matter and she has been called on the carpet over these remarks...by many far more qualified to challenge her then myself.....Far be it for me to judge Lucinda and her record. But one has to question statements like this from someone who never liked dressage, nor ridden the modern course at the highest levels.

I think you might want to look her BE record up. She most certaily has ridden modern courses. Did a *** in August.

Anyway, I'm done with this tit-for-tat.

[seeuatx]

This is a great idea because I had it too! Only I used football and the fact you don't get to just go play in the super bowl because you were the star quarterback on your mini-weight team. You have to PROVE yourself, get selected and then WIN GAMES.


You have a really good point Picasso.

I had a great response and then my computer ate it... grrr. The long and short of it was....

In other sports there are levels that you do not "move up" to, you are "brought up" to the upper levels. Plenty of great baseball players never move on from college to the minors, or minors to "the show". The number of MLB players is minuscule compared to the number of little league players that start every year. Plenty of "good" players are passed over every year because they just were not good enough for the Majors, but that is just part of the sport.

Maybe we need to think along the lines of "try - outs" to move up.... or maybe something closer to Pony Club ratings, to be sure that the pair (not just horse or rider) are proficient enough to answer the questions that could be asked. BN, and N perhaps would be the levels that everybody gets to play. T and above need to be tried out for. *** and **** perhaps need to be looked at in the same light as the Major Leagues, that you must chosen, and even if you are good at I, or even **, perhaps that is not enough.

ETA: (forgot about this part) Also, Perhaps there should be some sort of probationary period when one has been asked to move-up. If the pair has accidents, falls, any sort of dangerous riding that might indicate they are not as capable as was thought, then they can be required to move down for X number of starts before trying again.

I don't know how this could really play out, but other sports do it as well. Gymnastics for one.... you must test to move up the levels, and just because you reach "ELITE/Level 10", it does not mean that you are ready for the toughest competition. Again, this is just brainstorming.

[Gry2Yng]

I`m trying to grope toward ways to prevent horse/rider combinations who are not good enough from being allowed to try, and sometimes fail tragically.

If there are better solutions, bring them on. I don`t care what solutions we devise, only that we do something pretty darn soon.

AMEN!!!

So, playing Devil's Advocate...

How much of this problem do we attribute to the fact that Eventing is an Olympic sport, it creates Olympic dreams and this is an Olympic year?

What have we done in order to keep eventing in the Olympics? What do those who know better turn a blind eye to in the name of Olympic medals? How much pressure do we put on horses and riders to move up the levels in order to make an Olympic team?

Does the World Championships provide the same sort of pressures? Are we letting the tail wag the dog?

I don't know? Just asking questions.

[Conecuh]

I've been called worse. ;)
Personally if I had my way ... no animals, flower baskets, toadstools, cannons, etc. Make the fences look like FENCES. . :(

I have heard a lot of criticism about decorated jumps, but I have NEVER seen an upper level horse appear to think twice about them.

However, I do wonder if the sheer number of events and the greater number of rides a rider can have per event is taking its toll on rider fatigue and reflexes.

Back in the day, there were fewer upper level contests, which of necessity translated to more training time per competing time. Now, with the Florida circuit being so busy, there are a lot more competition opportunities, and a lot more pressure on money ... it's expensive to compete that much! So maybe they are trying to make it up on riding more horses, and moving them up much faster.

Also, within the upper level competitions, the long format was somewhat self-limiting because of scheduling the rides. Now, with short format, the riders can fit in more rides.

If you look at Red Hills, for example, it was common to see the top riders with five rides. Can someone really do this many rides, on this many different horses, and still be agile, adaptable, and alert????

Can they (and the horses) really compete with the frequency that is available, and have enough time to train, condition, and think????

Someone with better insight into the pressures on the top riders and horses can give us some insight on this, but personally, I don't see how you can compete at the rate these riders and horses are competing, and stay sound and sane.

[DizzyMagic]

Interesting idea, a Rolex invitational... I'm not sure I agree that it would fix what's broke though. I'm not sure anyone knows what's broke.

Were Karen and Mr. Maxwell "elite" enough to face Badminton in 1992?

Let me qualify the above question... I've only known Eventing since 1999, but in every video I've seen of Karen riding in the 1980s and 1990s, and in every event I've seen her ride in person, she's not just elite, she is magic on cross-country. She exists in the company of a mere handful of riders who make the heart of our sport look like a choreographed dance, head and shoulders above the merely elite (including the gold medal guy she's married to). I also just really like Karen as a person, and I have no intent to disparage her or the horse who was part of her heart.

I also really like Laine and have found her to be an excelent and dedicated horsewoman. The tone of these posts have hit me all the way wrong; everyone seems to be saying, without quite saying it, she and Frodo weren't good enough to be on the field with Karen, Amy, Stephen - you all seem to be saying in a roundabout way that Frodo died because he and Laine weren't "elite" enough. And if that's your point, then I have to say you're wrong. The horse died and his rider was badly injured because they suffered a rotational fall. Perhaps either or both made mistakes - but even the elite make mistakes, don't they?

[hey101]

I'm sorry to be the one to point to the white elephant in the corner, but the sport did not fail Ellie. I don't wish to dishonor her memory or lessen the horror of her death, but Eleanor Brennan made a very critical, and tragically fatal mistake. She had no business running at the Ocala CCI**. The horse was not qualified, and she inappropriately managed to get around that technicality.

We need to talk about that which no one wants to address. Only then will there be real change in our sport.

WRT this post and Deltawave's comments on Darren's choice in moving his horse from Novice to Prelim so quickly...I have been kicking similar thoughts around for awhile about the role of rider responsibility. One Star's comment on a rider skirting the qualifications... the rider at Galway who had already been E'd for 4 refusals and yet continued on to a tragic end... a young horse, albeit ridden by a very experienced rider, but still a young horse who may have been moved up the levels too fast to have the experience to understand the question being asked of him... and from the many accounts of this weekend, a too-fast approach into a deceptively tricky fence that resulted in a terrible rotational fall, as well as the fall of a rider who probably should not have been allowed to continue, but did, and seemed scared and stiff and riding backwards into yet another terrible fall, ending in the death of another horse.

I've read many comments on the various Rolex threads about all the bad riding and how many combinations were out there who had no business being there. Too little advice a little too late, don't you think?

I agree with TB or not TB who said that mistakes will be made and horses and riders shouldn't have to die for those mistakes... but I also agree with One Star and Denny that if you or your horse or the pair of you together aren't good enough yet, then you aren't good enough. Whether or not your qualifications on paper say that you are. And we as a community need to be more vocal about saying that.

[hey101]

I also really like Laine and have found her to be an excelent and dedicated horsewoman. The tone of these posts have hit me all the way wrong; everyone seems to be saying, without quite saying it, she and Frodo weren't good enough to be on the field with Karen, Amy, Stephen - you all seem to be saying in a roundabout way that Frodo died because he and Laine weren't "elite" enough. And if that's your point, then I have to say you're wrong. The horse died and his rider was badly injured because they suffered a rotational fall. Perhaps either or both made mistakes - but even the elite make mistakes, don't they?

It's not about liking someone or not or how hard they work or treat their horses- I would bet to a rider this weekend, that they all work damn hard and are good horsemen. It's about asking tough questions in the result of these terrible tragedies SO THE DEATHS STOP HAPPENING. By all accounts she is an excellent rider- but maybe she just wasn't quite ready for a 4-star. Did Phillip or Karen gun their horses into fence 5 (I'm truly asking this...). My guess is no because they had the experience to know not to, but rather took that second or two for rebalancing due to tricky terrain.

I don't profess to know WHEN someone becomes ready to move from 3-star to 4-star- that is the job of the ULR's and coaches who have been there and done that, not just for a year or two, but for years and years and years. But clearly, based on what i've been reading from people like Denny who DO know, there were a lot of people out there that WERE NOT READY TO BE THERE. Which begs the question, why didn't someone tell them that this was not the year- go back and keep working hard and think about it next year? Because they didn't want to hurt their feelings? Because so much money had been spent already? Does that money spent getting to Rolex give an approximate cost to how much a life is worth?

You are right that EVERYONE makes mistakes, and we need to do everyting we can to help horses and riders survive those mistakes (frangible pins, examine course design, effects of long vs. short format, etc)... but ONE overwhelming theme I'm seeing in all of these threads is that tehre are too many people out (at all levels) who really belong at the level below, and yet no one speaks up to tell them that. Why not?

[One Star]

hey 101, thank you for articulating the thoughts that many of us have been tossing around lately about rider responsibility as one of the cornerstones of keeping our sport safe. This is exactly the white elephant in the corner that everyone wants to ignore, and instead rationalize that the issue is really about course design, or long vs. short format, or frangible pins (or lack thereof).

No one should have to pay for a mistake with his or her life, or the life of their trusting steed. And the discussions should definitely continue about ways to make our courses and fences safer in the event that someone should make an error. But let's begin to focus a bit more on the fact that we need to start policing ourselves heavily, before some external force does it for us to the detriment of the future of eventing.

[JAGold]

y all accounts she is an excellent rider- but maybe she just wasn't quite ready for a 4-star.
It's also possible to be ready and still make a mistake. There is no level of preparation that guarantees someone a safe trip around Rolex or any other XC course! Laine had already had a successful ride around the course on her earlier horse. She gets some of the best coaching in the business, including participating in the Team training sessions. She's been recognized by the selectors as a talented and capable rider. Sometimes -- not always, but sometimes -- mistakes are just mistakes. There's no qualification system or training method or course design standards in the world that will eliminate all mistakes or all accidents, and we can't always conclude that because something bad happened, someone or some system must be at fault.

[TB or not TB?]

Here is the EXO for those who don't know what it is.

http://www.bodycage.co.uk/
http://www.woofwear.com/ (click on the Exo Body Protector)

Lastly, though I feel like a broken record, let's just rig our XC jumps to collapse. There are already those with really inventive ideas toward this goal already. The EXO, while stellar for preventing chest injuries, will not protect the head and neck.

Is there a reason we should NOT have collapsible fences? Eventing is a 21st century sport, let's make sure it's not stuck in the dark ages.

[deltawave]

These last 3 posts seem to sum things up so well: mistakes WILL happen, but maybe we can change things so that mistakes do not wind up costing horses and riders their lives. Change the fences, change the qualifications, change the speeds, change all of it--but not randomly. Seems to me the common denominator--the rotational fall--needs to be eliminated, now. If that means all vertical-faced fences are gone for the time being, well, is that so bad? It would certainly not change everything, but would possibly make a very large impact, and is something that could be done TOMORROW with very minimal impact on the rest of the sport.

[JAGold]

Is there a reason we should NOT have collapsible fences? Eventing is a 21st century sport, let's make sure it's not stuck in the dark ages.
Well, there are certainly circumstances when we don't want fences to collapse. Sometimes, a horse will "bank" a fence -- put his feet on top of a solid obstacle and push or scramble off, instead of clearing it in one arc. It's not pretty when that happens and it's no one's first choice of how to jump a wide fence, but it also doesn't get anyone hurt -- the horse and rider make it safely to the other side. Solid fences must be solid enough to withstand that sort of pressure; if they collapsed when a horse "banked" them, the horse could become trapped in the fence material.

There may well be ways that more sophisticated fence design and materials can make the sport safer. I'm all in favor of studying how that can be done. But I don't think it's quite as simple as making all fences collapsible. Not all fence types are amenable to that sort of design.

[BarbB]

I also really like Laine and have found her to be an excelent and dedicated horsewoman. The tone of these posts have hit me all the way wrong; everyone seems to be saying, without quite saying it, she and Frodo weren't good enough to be on the field with Karen, Amy, Stephen - you all seem to be saying in a roundabout way that Frodo died because he and Laine weren't "elite" enough. And if that's your point, then I have to say you're wrong. The horse died and his rider was badly injured because they suffered a rotational fall. Perhaps either or both made mistakes - but even the elite make mistakes, don't they?

Thank you. I tried to say something similar earlier.
While making strict qualifications for moving up may help the sport in the long run....teams like Laine and Frodo would have been there anyway.
I am too tired right now to go back thru the list of recent injuries/deaths, but maybe someone knows, how many of them were questionable at the level they were running and how many would have been there regardless of how strict the qualifications were?

[denny]

If every td in America eliminated every totally vertical fence, especially those with width, from every xc course at prelim and up, right this moment, I`d bet the house that there would be no other single thing more effective to stop bad wrecks.
And that is possible from this moment forward.
Would there be screams from organizers and xc designers? You bet.
Is it worth pushing? Again, you bet.
Try it and see. Why not?

[JAGold]

If that means all vertical-faced fences are gone for the time being, well, is that so bad? It would certainly not change everything, but would possibly make a very large impact, and is something that could be done TOMORROW with very minimal impact on the rest of the sport.
This is actually something I could get behind! There's a lot to recommend your idea. It's a low-cost change, in that it doesn't fundamentally alter the sport without solid information that it is the right solution. It's reversible, if it proves unsuccessful or unnecessary. It is easy to implement, as many vertical-faced fences are portables and permanent fences could have their faces modified. As you say, it's a change that can happen tomorrow. And it is tied to a common element of the serious accidents.

[deltawave]

Don't stop there, get rid of them at Novice and Training, too--that's where I'm spending the next several years (if not the rest of my eventing career) and I hate the horrid things, too! :) Want to put up a vertical fence? Great. Add a ground line. If I want to impress George Morris with a perfect ride over a straight vertical, I'll do it over a show jump.

People are yelling for ACTION. Here is some ACTION. Yank the vertical tables and flat-square oxers for a period of one year. Then do a body count. (I used to use the term "dead vertical" and "dead square" but find it depressing to do so any more) :(

[TB or not TB?]

I am too tired right now to go back thru the list of recent injuries/deaths, but maybe someone knows, how many of them were questionable at the level they were running and how many would have been there regardless of how strict the qualifications were?

It's hard to gauge this without knowing the riders personally, especially since many are foreign and we can't look at the history as accurately. However, it appears that most competitors had been at the level for some time or had competed well above it. Only a handful were at that level for the first time. I don't have any info on this for horse deaths though. We need more data.

Well, there are certainly circumstances when we don't want fences to collapse. Sometimes, a horse will "bank" a fence --

There are issues to addres, certainly. Perhaps we stop making fences so wide that horses try to bank them, or engineer a design that will collapse only if vertical AND horizontal pressure is applied. That is why we need to start thinking now. And no, not all fences will be able to be created to collapse. I can't imagine how a big solid tree trunk could fall in on itself, but really, unless it's over 3'3" or so, it doesn't have to.

I can not think of any other way to prevent rotational falls than having collapsible fences. It seems that if we have to sacrifice a few jump styles in order to stop killing people, that's a small bargain.

[denny]

In theory, a good rider should be able to ride a vertical faced fence, and plenty of purists will argue that taking away tables and other upright verticals will lessen and cheapen the sport, and diminish the skills of the riders.
Maybe so. But taking away steeplechase took away the necessity of learning how to gallop at a big jump at 690 meters per minute. Getting rid of roads and tracks meant riders no longer have to know so much about basic fitness,
Those questions and objections pale in the face of the bigger question, "Can eventing survive?"
Let those questions be asked over stadium jumps. Let stadium play a bigger role. I have completely changed my mind about this, because diminished or not, I want to see eventing survive.
And the way the sport is headed, that`s not a sure bet.

[deltawave]

Yes, precisely. By all means ask the "vertical question", but ask it in stadium. Or hell, ask it on XC with a fence that will FALL DOWN. A "faux" post-and-rail jump is eminently do-able, it's natural, and it would require that the rider and horse get it right, but not by laying their life on the line if they DON'T.

[Jazzy Lady]

I so agree 100% with getting rid of square faces.

I also agree with upping the qualifications. Perhaps CCI*'s should ONLY be run long format now. MAKE riders and horses learn what it is all about. My horse was cocky as hell coming out of the start box after running Midsouth CCI* Long. He was listening, but forward and happy. We weren't riding backwards, we were attacking. It felt great. I learned most of it on steeplechase, but it took us both a few fences to figure it out.

Another thing I was thinking of. People are saying this was a true **** test. A course to be ridden forward, bold and attacking. But with so many other courses turning the other way, how can riders prepare to ride this type of course when so many of the other 'big time courses' are asking a completely different question? Where are the confidence building courses that get the horse and the rider cocky and preparred? Is running two CIC***W that are full of the start and stop technical questions a couple weeks apart diminishing horse confidence?

[One Star]

If every td in America eliminated every totally vertical fence, especially those with width, from every xc course at prelim and up, right this moment, I`d bet the house that there would be no other single thing more effective to stop bad wrecks.
And that is possible from this moment forward.
Would there be screams from organizers and xc designers? You bet.
Is it worth pushing? Again, you bet.
Try it and see. Why not?

This past week at the Ocala CCI**/*, we eliminated every vertical-faced jump implicated in a rotational fall at the Florida Horse Park. And guess what? We had a successful, incident-free event with no major injuries and no serious falls.*





*This may have also been due to the fact that we did a voodoo dance prior to the first horse inspection, and certain members of the ground jury were seen waving chicken bones with streamers and muttering in tongues... :cool:

[TB or not TB?]

While eliminating the vertical faced obstacles is a good idea and one we should explore, I would like to remind everyone that rotational falls have occurred over other types of fences as well. Water has an increased effect, as do combinations.

We need more data to see what types of fences are the most deadly.

[vineyridge]

But they did get back up! There is a HUGE difference between falling down and catastrophic injury or death. Heck, I fall down, my horses have fallen down. It hurts the heck out of our pride, but mostly no medical personal have been involved.

Horses are dangerous. In my experience, most vet and hospital emergency visits are NOT based on riding accidents. Lord save me from barn and pasture accidents. Most of which ARE PREVENTABLE TOO - why else would Pony Club have drilled all that stuff into my head. But considering the time spent on care and maintenance versus jumping at speed, well, you see where I am going.

I don't care so much about Duck #2.

In short - IMHO survivable falls are okay - and we stand a very good chance of bad things happening if we try to make eventing too safe. As some have pointed out, it will encourage craziness. We are trying to find a way to test where mistakes might be painful, but not deadly. Nothing is perfect, but we are obviously on the wrong side of this.

SCFarm

I think the hidden point of my post was that the fall could have been much, much worse if the duck's head hadn't been moveable. It's the case of a jump that was designed in such a way that a possible serious fall was avoided. Because of that moving head, the mistake was only painful. :) Now if the design engineers can get to work on creating other types of moveable or shock absorbing jumps, I think all XC riders would draw huge sighs of relief.

Any fall that doesn't end in permanent damage or death is one that we would all probably agree is just part of cross country.

[TexasTB]

*This may have also been due to the fact that we did a voodoo dance prior to the first horse inspection, and certain members of the ground jury were seen waving chicken bones with streamers and muttering in tongues... :cool:

This mental image just made me LMAOPIMP

[poltroon]

Agreed. I think dressage is important in the fact of performing a proper half halt and getting your horse balanced, but it's not everything.

I do not believe those who are winning dressage are going be the most successful on XC. It may just be me but I do not see a correlation between the two. Take Bettina Hoy's horse (Ringwood Cockatoo?). He would almost always be first after dressage but usually had a disappointing XC round. Or look at Blair King... she had a HORRIBLE dressage test but was able to make it around XC successfully...

Just pointing out some examples here.

I feel the need to point out counterexamples:
David O'Connor/Custom Made
David O'Connor/Giltedge
Mary King/King William
Blyth Tait/Messiah
Kim Vinoski/Winsome Adante
Andrew Hoy/Darien Powers
...

[poltroon]

Those questions and objections pale in the face of the bigger question, "Can eventing survive?"
Let those questions be asked over stadium jumps. Let stadium play a bigger role. I have completely changed my mind about this, because diminished or not, I want to see eventing survive.
And the way the sport is headed, that`s not a sure bet.

I agree. I love eventing; it's taught me so much about riding, about horse care and horsemanship. I remember being a little girl scared to ride outside of a fenced arena. Today I ride a green pony cheerfully on an unfenced grassy hillside and I don't even have an arena.

I have a daughter, and she has a pony. I always assumed I'd take her eventing. Unless things change, I'm not sure I'll want to do that.

If someone like me is having doubts about her child participating, eventing will die. I don't want that.

[Fence2Fence]

I mentioned this on another thread, but it seems like an applicable comment here. I noticed the Drey this year was tilted so that it had a sloping face. Either I didn't notice it in years past, or maybe someone was thinking about the problems with tables and situated so it was less table-like.

[NeverTime]

If every td in America eliminated every totally vertical fence, especially those with width, from every xc course at prelim and up, right this moment, I`d bet the house that there would be no other single thing more effective to stop bad wrecks.
And that is possible from this moment forward.
Would there be screams from organizers and xc designers? You bet.
Is it worth pushing? Again, you bet.
Try it and see. Why not?

First, PLEASE ... Sarah Hansel did NOT have two falls. She had some sticky fences but their tragic fall at the Footbridge was her first, last and only fall.
It was another rider, Dornin Ann North, who fell twice -- first at the Cedar Hop and then at the footbridge. But she and her horse both walked away from those falls, eliminated but alive.

Denny, I see where you are going, but the laws of unintended consequences would be at work here, too, I fear. As you well know, we increased the technicality of XC not just to make the courses tougher without raising the height, but also for safety reasons: to slow people down and not have them running hell-bent for leather around XC.
If we take away the vertically faced fences, and take away the majority of technical combinations, as people were asking for after Red Hills, we go back to what can be called "lovely, open gallopy" courses or, alternately, "scary-fast, no half-halt" riding.
It's a balance that is needed.

I do wholeheartedly agree that riding has something to learn from the model set forth by other professional sports, where it's frankly not up to the individual to choose to compete at the highest levels. Others decide whether you make it there or not.

As you know, I am a little bit on that cusp. Not the four-star cusp by any means, but the moving-up-to-advanced cusp. I am an amateur with an admittedly speckled record over several years at intermediate. I have done three advanced horse trials now, one clean, one with a silly drive-by and, the most recent one, with one run-out and one "bail-out," where I decided I'd rather make a circle between to big tables (and have lovely jumps over both) than have an awkward jump over the second. I have got a lot yet to learn at this level, and if I can learn those things while keeping myself and my horse safe ... I would LOVE to do the Fair Hill CCI***, but if-if-if and only-only-only when I feel confident and ready and, more importantly, when the people whose opinions I trust, and who know what it takes to be successful at that level, feel the same way.
But it's a conundrum, as you well know -- I can't become safe and experienced at that level without going out and doing it. Denny, as you are fond of quoting: "For things we must learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them."

Denny, as someone who has brought countless riders up through the levels -- including Sarah Hansel, and including me -- tell me who is the right person/people to decide "yes, you are ready"? Is it your trainer, who knows you best but might have their own set of biases and blindnesses? Is it your record, which is more objective but doesn't account for the clean-but-frightening rounds? Is it a committee, like a group of "selectors" tasked with evaluating riders at that level? Seriously -- there aren't all that many I/A riders and god knows we seem the same faces over and over at the events -- I could see flutie, Marylin Payne and Roger Haller deciding when or if I was ready for a three-star -- God knows they've seen me ride often enough -- had it been their job to pay attention and make that decision.

Who is it that sends out those invites, either to Rolex, or to Fair Hill, or to the CCI**? The theme that seems to be developing here that riders can't/shouldn't trust their own opinions, especially if they are moving up to a new level and don't yet have the experience to know intimately what that level will require.

Every great rider was green at one point, and every great rider will have his or her first *** and **** and be out there like Sarah or Dornin, making mistakes that they pray are not fatal. So who decides you are ready to take that step?

[TB or not TB?]

Who is it that sends out those invites, either to Rolex, or to Fair Hill, or to the CCI**? The theme that seems to be developing here that riders can't/shouldn't trust their own opinions, especially if they are moving up to a new level and don't yet have the experience to know intimately what that level will require.

Great points - I will respond just to this one question. I was thinking that rather than mysterious invites from TPTB, a rider who wanted to compete could apply for review. If they pass, they would receive an invite. Then no one flies under the proverbial radar.

[throwurheart]

Regarding moving up -

just had a great dinner with other horse people. One was saying she really admired her trainer because she teaches this way:

Before you ever get on, lots of ground work.
When you are utterly bored with trotting, you get to canter.
When you are utterly bored with cantering, you get to jump cross rails.

As someone who's both been rushed and rushed others (many years ago when I was an instructor), I have to say that this very simple thought is full of wisdom.

When you think BN is a walk in the park, you move up to N. When a 3 star is super easy and you are no longer puking from nerves, you think about doing 4 star.

There were several riders there who obviously found Rolex not intimidating - Philip for one was chewing gum, I swear, galloping at top speed with a nonchalant look on his face like he was strolling along a sidewalk. These are the ones that belong at 4 star.

My answer is safety improvements + downgrading the difficulty on xc just a bit + tightening standards or selection. I don't think there is any one answer in regards to problem or solution. I think it's several issues that need to be addressed.

[denny]

There used not to be any star rating. Everyone basically knew that Badminton was no 1 in difficulty, then Burghley. In even years, the Olympics or WC might or might not be as hard as Badminton.
That was 25-35 years ago.
Here, 1st it was Ledyard, 73, 75, 77. Then came Chesterland, early-mid 80s, in the fall, and Rolex in the spring.
There were not so many riders, and almost none with multiple horses, at advanced.
So riders just sort of climbed the ladder, like the Peter Principle, until they hit a level that they couldn`t handle, or until they made the USET.
Everything was long format, we all knew how to run at 690 on the chase, and we learned how to nurse tired horses to the finish of a 15-18 mile second day.
We pretty much made our own horses. We had usually fox hunted, or raced, or ridden endurance, and we knew how to break babies, and take the good ones all the way to the adv level.
We rode over lots of vertical post and rails, and very often we rode horses that were too rank and tough to make it in the hunter-jumper world.
It was a mixture of good and bad.
I think that when we did get to tough events like the ones I`ve mentioned, we were pretty "seasoned", not always so stylish in dressage, maybe a touch cowboy, but usually tough and gutsy, and athletic, and used to getting it done.
Was it worse than now? Better? It was surely different, maybe too apples and oranges to compare.
Today`s riders have to be better technicians, and the best of them are just as cowboy as we were, but more polished, I`d say.
They ride better horses, by and large, have more of them to ride, and are very excellent, the top 20-25.
But maybe the echelons below the top haven`t quite had the hard miles we had by necessity. I don`t really know how you know you`re ready to move up, except that you are used to getting it done.
If that makes any sense.

[RiverBendPol]

I feel the need to point out counterexamples:
David O'Connor/Custom Made
David O'Connor/Giltedge
Mary King/King William
Blyth Tait/Messiah
Kim Vinoski/Winsome Adante
Andrew Hoy/Darien Powers
...

Long format era............I belieeeeve only Dan came thru into the short format.

[J. Turner]

Here is the EXO for those who don't know what it is.

http://www.bodycage.co.uk/
http://www.woofwear.com/ (click on the Exo Body Protector)

Lastly, though I feel like a broken record, let's just rig our XC jumps to collapse. There are already those with really inventive ideas toward this goal already. The EXO, while stellar for preventing chest injuries, will not protect the head and neck.

Is there a reason we should NOT have collapsible fences? Eventing is a 21st century sport, let's make sure it's not stuck in the dark ages.

I already posted this, but didn't really get any responses. I'd be really curious what you experienced eventers, esp. Denny, think. It's a brainstorm, granted, but, hey, that's how you start.

Maybe thisis a stupid idea since no one responded to it on another thread. Why not make the face of these jumps with "give". Special effects departments can make anything look real. In 3:10 to Yuma they made pretty good replica of a very heavy and valuable Gatling gun out of rubber for the stagecoach crash scene. Get the airbrush out!

Would making the front rail of some of these bigger jumps out of a rubber/giving type material make a huge difference? Think of a 65' boat docking and the 12" rubber bumpers taking the impact. Couldn't have the face of the flower box been made out of PVC trellis and a rim of rubber painted to look authentic? Then it would've collapsed. Not too expensive to keep some trellis on hand. The big logs of the Hammock, footbridge, etc. could be made of a boat bumper (or even car bumpers???) material carved and painted to look authentic. Don't you think that there is a material out there that could slow the impact of the horse? The rider might go flying but at least the danger for the horse wouldn't be as great and the rider would avoid being crushed.

[JER]

Maybe Badminton and Burghley were enough.

Rolex ran as a CCI*** for some time, same with Pau and Luhmuhlen, not sure about Adelaide or its precursor.

Are there that many more 4* riders in the world today than there were 12 years ago?

Does eventing as a worldwide sport have enough quality riders and horses to sustain 6 events at the CCI**** level?

Just some things to think about. We've seen professional sports leagues face the over-expansion problem with very mixed results and much mediocrity in the player pool (pitching, anyone?).

[c_expresso]

JTurner I definitely see your point... make fences more shock absorbant... for example they say that when in a head on collision, a car that "crunches up" is safer than one that doesn't... it looks more demolished but it absorbs more of the shock and the driver has to bear less of it...

But can we do this while at the same time making things solid enough so horse can "skim" and "slide" across the top of tables?

What happens if there is a demolished fence on course? Is it removed from the course or is there a replacement handy?

[vineyridge]

Every great rider was green at one point, and every great rider will have his or her first *** and **** and be out there like Sarah or Dornin, making mistakes that they pray are not fatal. So who decides you are ready to take that step?

Unless I'm remembering wrong, and I may well be, Laine Ashker rode at Rolex as a YR a few years back on Eight St. James Place, and had a pretty bad fall. As I recall, she was taken out by ambulance with a mildly broken back. But I could easily be thinking of some other rider. But she got back to Rolex and got around safely the next time. So she started out like Sarah H. and Dornin Ann North with pretty much the same results.

But then there were lots of falls of very experienced riders this past weekend. They made mistakes also, and theirs were just as critical as the young ones.

Maybe eventing should establish something like the Commercial drivers license system, with multiple levels and learners permits. You'd be tested for a learners permit and only be allowed to compete at the upper levels with an approved trainer in hand who was willing to sign off for your competence. Just thinking out loud, but there has to be a system that works.

What do the Germans do?
What do the French do?
We really can learn from other sports and other countries' experience.

[fordtraktor]

I don't see enough riders who have a strong mix of both cowboy and finesse. Many either gallop around recklessly or pick their horses to pieces. Galloping around is not enough without a good sense of when to pull to get the job done, and constant fussing is just as bad. The happy medium takes a lot of practice and time in the saddle just figuring out how horses work.

I think that a lot of riders are not taking the time at the lower levels (and at home) that it takes to recognize when they are in trouble from far enough away to do anything about it. To me, the obvious time to move up the levels is when you can make it work consistently at the level you want to ride. Riders simply must learn to recognize bad situations, see the way out, and do it.

I ride mostly ride jumpers, but have jumped a lot of XC fences in my day, and probably have more cowboy in me than I should. Even so, we always used to say that it is the rider's responsibility to get the horse to the jump, and the horse's responsibility to get over it. This does not imply anyhow, from anywhere.

I am strongly in favor of limiting entries to those who have the experience necessary to reduce the risks to horse and rider. There will always be risk, but for the sake of the sport and everyone involved that risk cannot stay at current levels.

[CarrieK]

I'm not sure anyone knows what's broke.
I agree.

We read lots of opinions here at this BB, some by riders with loads of experience and some who've never ridden a course.

Since common sense can't be legislated and some don't believe common sense was at fault anyway, since some promote selection committees and some believe that will turn into favortism and elitism, since some say self-interest is to blame and some say those folks have every right to compete in the "bigs"--how in the world can the sport deal with this problem?

The subjective things might have to wait for another day, because if the few of us here can't easily agree, the sport at large won't easily agree, either. Hammering out those subjective issues--if these ever come to the table--will take time.

The objective thing--the course--is the place to start. And this can start right now, this season. And what a better way to show naysayers (neighsayers?) that the sport can self-police and take a pro-active stance to work toward better horse/rider safety?

The consensus seems to be that vertical jumps are the issue, and very logical, simple and do-able ideas have been voiced: remove them, or add ground lines, or make them collapsable.

I think that both individuals and the various eventing organizations can be involved and contact event owners with our concerns and suggestions about course design and individual jumps on-course.

[LisaB]

Vertical faces:
Yup, I'm sure the GP SJ people hate those square oxers, that's why it's mandatory they have the collapsible cups on the back rail. They get penalized without dying.
Should we get rid of them entirely? F- no! But should we utilize some technology? F- yeah.
Here's a couple of 'tricks' with them that would 'help' but we still need to use some type of collapsible or frangible technology.
1. the vertical face is leaning a little, not a complete 90 degree angle but a little lean
2. For tables, use the lean and the topmost board on the vertical should angle into the horizontal line. Basically round the edge.
You'd be amazed at what that can do at the lower levels.

[LisaB]

About 'invite only'
There should be some quantitative factors in determining the long list eligible to do the 4*. Sure, winners of a CIC or CCI***, or gone clean at a *** and a dressage score of such-and-such.
But what about what was witnessed at Rolex? I'm hearing:
"She had the look of fear"
"She looked like an accident waiting to happen"
"He certainly nursed that scared horse around the course"
How to you quantify that?

[denny]

Or, Lisa, a simple row of hay bales at the bottom of the fence. Changes the question dramatically in favor of the horse, costs next to nothing, and can be done at a moment`s notice.
It does, of course, screw up the aesthetics.

[LisaB]

But Denny, the hay bales give something for my dog to pee on!

[LLDM]

About 'invite only'
There should be some quantitative factors in determining the long list eligible to do the 4*. Sure, winners of a CIC or CCI***, or gone clean at a *** and a dressage score of such-and-such.
But what about what was witnessed at Rolex? I'm hearing:
"She had the look of fear"
"She looked like an accident waiting to happen"
"He certainly nursed that scared horse around the course"
How to you quantify that?

If riders aren't scared enough of the courses :rolleyes: let's make them scared of the rules. If you screw up, you go on a nice long vacation. We need very punitive consequences for poor judgment.

Let's call it "Personal Responsibility with BIG Teeth". If you screw up, you get SET DOWN HARD - for a long enough time to hurt your business and/or your pony to get fat.

No more Mr. Nice Guy, we can't do that 'cause it isn't fair to the rider. Pardon my French but scr*w the rider. It is our job to protect the horses.

This ISN'T eventing of 30 years ago. Horse deaths are not okay and part of the game. Maybe once, but those days are long gone thankfully. These can no longer be classified as flukes - there are too many. Even if they are just staying the same statistically (which I doubt) it matters not - they should be going down significantly as we learn more. They aren't. Our bad.

SCFarm

[DairyQueen2049]

I am not an Event Rider, nor do I play one on tv.

I'm an engineer, and I would like to point out that simply having fences that fall apart or collapse when hit would create additional problems for a horse and rider combo.

A few years ago NASCAR has problems with car bits and pieces flying in all directions harming spectators and participants. The bits and pieces can still come off, but are now tethered to the vehicle.

A horse and rider are not moving at the speeds of NASCAR, but they also lack the HANS, rollcage and other protective devices.

A fence that falls apart or collapses results in horse, rider and fence bits in motion - safer until one of those bits of fence wacks or impales or some other horrific 'object in motion' danger to horse and rider.

The last Rolex I attended was the first one a helocopter took a rider out - was that '94? - and at that time I felt there were problems coming.

I appreciate the candor, honesty and the wonderful give and take on this thread, without snark. Good to see.

I sure miss the good old days.....

[DizzyMagic]

If vertical fences are the main cause of rotational falls, and rotational falls are the most likely to be catastrophic, then... it seems like an easy choice.

But I seem to remember hearing a trainer tell me the vertical question in the middle of xc has a purpose, proving the adjustability of the horse. Maybe taking that away completely from the cross country test would have unintended consequences, but it seems like really smart people could come up with a way to keep the question AND make it safer. I can't claim to be really smart, but I'll offer an idea... Could a vertical fence be like a showjump on xc? Add a penalty if the pair knocks the rail out of a cup?

[DizzyMagic]

...I want to see eventing survive.
And the way the sport is headed, that`s not a sure bet.

Having a news organization publish a crash photo in such a high-profile way doesn't bode well...

(warning - the photo is disturbing)
http://www.kentucky.com/254/story/389828.html

[Jazzy Lady]

wow... Laine is a lucky girl.

I'd be interested to see the difference in rotational falls with a vertical face with a spread, and just a vertical with no spread. Also, allowing something to have a rounded top, rather than a square edge could make a great deal of difference, no?

[c_expresso]

Yes, if the vertical fences are dangerous but they DO serve a purpose, we need to just change how they are constructed. How come we could not have a VERTICAL LIKE THIS on course??????

http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856958&album_id=171186

http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856959&album_id=171186

http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856962&album_id=171186

Still pretty, and looks like a XC jump! BUT IT COMES DOWN.

Thanks to Lili Weik and HITS Ocala for the pics!

If vertical fences are the main cause of rotational falls, and rotational falls are the most likely to be catastrophic, then... it seems like an easy choice.

But I seem to remember hearing a trainer tell me the vertical question in the middle of xc has a purpose, proving the adjustability of the horse. Maybe taking that away completely from the cross country test would have unintended consequences, but it seems like really smart people could come up with a way to keep the question AND make it safer. I can't claim to be really smart, but I'll offer an idea... Could a vertical fence be like a showjump on xc? Add a penalty if the pair knocks the rail out of a cup?

[Debbie]

I was originally resistant to Denny's idea of making the 4-Star level super elite, by invitation, but if the alternative is setting up showjumping fences with laser beams and styrofoam faces in galloping lanes (some of the well intentioned ideas floating around), then bring on the super elite.

By definition true XC fences DON'T come apart (frangible pins aside). That is the basis of the sport - you must have the bravery and skills to successfully negotiate solid obstacles across country. The true test has already been bastardized by removing phases A,B & C; taking away the solid obstacle component would make it an entirely different sport -- shouldn't even be called by the same name IMO. :no:

[deltawave]

Hunter shows can give us a lesson, maybe, in XC jump design. I'm not very "in touch" with the show hunter scene, but even I have noticed that there is a small, developing "niche" of showing on an old-fashioned outside course over VERY natural-looking (and sizeable!) obstacles the last couple of years. There was even a small bank on a recent course, if I'm not mistaken.

Some of these jumps are imposing, solid, and would give any event horse an opportunity to prick up its ears and take notice. I would wager, though, that they are all COMPLETELY collapsible and not going to be causing any rotational falls. There IS room for this on modern XC courses. There has to be. Change the damn rules--knock down a XC fence that's meant to be knocked down? 5 penalties, 10 penalties, whatever. But not the ultimate penalty.

[c_expresso]

Yup yup my point exactly deltawave... USHJA is trying to 'bring back its roots' of natural, outside courses. See my previous post, I linked to a few pics from HITS Ocala this year of their Hunter Derby Classic, those fences look nearly like XC jumps to me, they are very attractive and will appeal to the spectators without being so dangerous for the horses.

Hunter shows can give us a lesson, maybe, in XC jump design. I'm not very "in touch" with the show hunter scene, but even I have noticed that there is a small, developing "niche" of showing on an old-fashioned outside course over VERY natural-looking (and sizeable!) obstacles the last couple of years. There was even a small bank on a recent course, if I'm not mistaken.

Some of these jumps are imposing, solid, and would give any event horse an opportunity to prick up its ears and take notice. I would wager, though, that they are all COMPLETELY collapsible and not going to be causing any rotational falls. There IS room for this on modern XC courses. There has to be. Change the damn rules--knock down a XC fence that's meant to be knocked down? 5 penalties, 10 penalties, whatever. But not the ultimate penalty.

[hallauer5]

I don't know how this would fly with everyone or how it would or could be put into action. What if it was done on a ranking system like Pony Club. If you had to have a certian rank to do upper level eventing? BUT there again how would you rank, through shows, clinic's???? I don't know but I am on board 110%!

[DizzyMagic]

I was originally resistant to Denny's idea of making the 4-Star level super elite, by invitation, but if the alternative is setting up showjumping fences with laser beams and styrofoam faces in galloping lanes (some of the well intentioned ideas floating around), then bring on the super elite.

By definition true XC fences DON'T come apart (frangible pins aside). That is the basis of the sport - you must have the bravery and skills to successfully negotiate solid obstacles across country. The true test has already been bastardized by removing phases A,B & C; taking away the solid obstacle component would make it an entirely different sport -- shouldn't even be called by the same name IMO. :no:

What frustrates me about this line of thought, taken in the context of this year's Rolex, is that it blurs the line between unpreparedness and error. Mistakes can and will happen to ANY of the riders and horses, no matter how good, no matter how experienced.

It is a fact that riders newer to the four-star level are going to make more mistakes than their more experienced counterparts. How do you create new super-elites if you prevent riders who have done the preparation, met the qualifications, and have the backing of their coaches from taking that next step? Can you learn to be a master at the four-star by only riding three-stars?? It has to be possible for our sport to create courses at this highest level that test and penalize the horse and rider without making them pay with their lives when they do make the mistakes that are both inevitable and absolutely necessary to becoming a member of the super-elite club!

Emily

PS: just for the record, I'm enough of a traditionalist that I preferred the long format. I still wonder if trying to have what basically amounts to a four-star horse trial isn't part of the problem. But I love the sport and I believe with all my heart that equestrian sport as a whole will somehow be diminished if we lose eventing.

[TexasTB]

Yes, if the vertical fences are dangerous but they DO serve a purpose, we need to just change how they are constructed. How come we could not have a VERTICAL LIKE THIS on course??????

http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856958&album_id=171186

http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856959&album_id=171186

http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856962&album_id=171186

Still pretty, and looks like a XC jump! BUT IT COMES DOWN.

Thanks to Lili Weik and HITS Ocala for the pics!

I really like this idea :yes:. If these were put on cross country, I would advocate using much deeper cups however, or fixing the planks to the fence with some sort of breakaway system, so it becomes a little harder to knock it down. Verticals are designed to make the rider respect them; having a stadium fence on XC would only cause riders to blow right through it.

[LisaB]

C-expresso,
then go enter derbies. That's what they are there for.
X-C should not be a derby. The jumps shouldn't fall down. But yet the jump shouldn't kill a horse either.
If the horse is hitting a jump with such force, it should like 'crumple' and that would cause immediate elimination. Like a faux fall of rider because if that jump didn't collapse, the rider would have fallen.
And yet the jump needs to be immoveable like if a horse banks the top, it can't let the hoof fall through. That would be even more dangerous!
So, I'm saying I HATE this idea on the one spectrum. It's not x-c. On the other side I see where we could get some ideas from it.

[Debbie]

I think if you try to expunge eventing (or any other horse sport for that matter) of any possibility of error resulting in death or serious injury you will not have a sport left. In life, errors in almost any circumstance can end in death.

I think the current trends/culture surrounding eventing are having the unintended effect of increasing the incidence of fatal error. There are a LOT of layers to that onion and they need to all be peeled back and explored, but no horse sport will ever be totally, 100% guaranteed safe from an error in judgement.

[TB or not TB?]

Even if we eliminated rotational falls, there would still be horse and rider deaths from other reasons. Actually, most rotations don't kill the horse.

You know, the sport is never going to be the same. We have to make some sacrifices in order to keep ourselves and our horses alive. That said, the lower levels probably won't change at all, except maybe to eliminate fences that are proven to be dangerous.

The other thing I'd like to clarify about collapsible fences is that I'm not speaking about showjumps. I'm talking about jumps that look, feel, sound, smell, and taste like anything out on the course right now, except that are equipped with technologies that prevent rotations. One of these technologies is the frangible pin, which, IIRC, most of you are saying we should use more regularly.

However, since frangible pins can only be used in certain types of jumps, we develop additional methods to apply to all types of fences, and then require that all Prelim+ fences be built with this methodology. I can't possibly fathom how this would be a bad thing. :confused:

[hallauer5]

Hey everyone I was just on the USEA site and there is a letter from David O'Connor and Kevin Baumgardner, they have set up an e-mail for you to tell them what you think about eventing safety. There is also going to be a safety summit in KY on June 7-8. I would hate to see eventing go away!

[Debbie]

You know, the sport is never going to be the same. We have to make some sacrifices in order to keep ourselves and our horses alive. That said, the lower levels probably won't change at all, except maybe to eliminate fences that are proven to be dangerous.

Forgive me. I am a woman of a certain age who should be beyond a pouty snit, but I remember when this sport was a glorious test of true horsemanship and loss of horses and riders was a much rarer happening. It has changed and I DON"T LIKE IT. Pwynn says (and she's right) that the past is past and we must move on and address the challenges of today. The creativity of thinking is laudable and evolution is inevitable (and clearly needed) and while I don't like the direction of changing the very substance of XC fences (the design yes, substance no), I like far far less the loss of horses. :(

[TB or not TB?]

Forgive me. I am a woman of a certain age who should be beyond a pouty snit, but I remember when this sport was a glorious test of true horsemanship and loss of horses and riders was a much rarer happening. It has changed and I DON"T LIKE IT. Pwynn says (and she's right) that the past is past and we must move on and address the challenges of today. The creativity of thinking is laudable and evolution is inevitable (and clearly needed) and while I don't like the direction of changing the very substance of XC fences (the design yes, substance no), I like far far less the loss of horses. :(

Hell I'm right there with you!!!! That's why I want to make sure we don't compromise the nature of the XC jump, just the way it's made.

[DizzyMagic]

Hunter shows can give us a lesson, maybe, in XC jump design. I'm not very "in touch" with the show hunter scene, but even I have noticed that there is a small, developing "niche" of showing on an old-fashioned outside course over VERY natural-looking (and sizeable!) obstacles the last couple of years. There was even a small bank on a recent course, if I'm not mistaken.

Some of these jumps are imposing, solid, and would give any event horse an opportunity to prick up its ears and take notice. I would wager, though, that they are all COMPLETELY collapsible and not going to be causing any rotational falls. There IS room for this on modern XC courses. There has to be. Change the damn rules--knock down a XC fence that's meant to be knocked down? 5 penalties, 10 penalties, whatever. But not the ultimate penalty.

Howdy Deltawave, long time... :)

I really, really like this... I haven't seen these but it sounds like just what I was imagining. Not a bunch of brightly colored showjumps in the middle of the galloping lane, but a fence that can ask the vertical face question in a way that allows for a mistake that can be penalized... and learned from.

Emily

[SPLAT]

Me too -
If the jumps don't kill - we can keep the speed, the look, the terrain - Why should we not use the technology we have? I would much rather see the breathtaking (size wise - don't need no mice!) jumps at speed than a slowed down course over a small felled log.

The good ole days are gone, it's time to embrace technology the sport we have and make it fun to watch, hard to ride, a test of endurance, stamina, beauty and grace. and then... everyone goes home alive!

BTW - my goal is to ride a training three day - so I appreciate the long format, but ... it is not coming back and we need to play with our currently dealt hand.

[denny]

I am currently eventing in my 47th consecutive season at the preliminary level or higher.
If anyone else is doing that, I don`t know who.
So if I can change my mind and be reconciled to changes that will save our sport, well, hell, anybody ought to be able to.
Tradition is great, the long format classic 18 mile 3-day was the ultimate test, but what we still have is pretty darn great.
Let`s do what it takes to preserve eventing.

[RunForIt]

I spent nearly an hour last night watching the Bdminton course preview over and over...except for a small "extinct village" complex, no Disneyland to jump at all...

But, here's my question, why the need to jump six foot solid spreads (can't remember the height) decellerating from warp speed to coffin canter in order to have sport? Why can't the fences come down and the game go on and the horses have a fighting chance - the riders might get to go again too. I don't have ANY need to legislate if humans want to risk their lives. I do have a HUGE problem if humans use trusting animals to have their fun, get their rush, and make their money. If the individual rider has a need for speed, challenge, jumping solid objects over XC, go get into motorcross, or mountain biking!

We all love our horses. ULRs love their horses and somehow rationalize that the horse can be seriously hurt, require euthanaisia, or outright die while the rider engages in this recreation called eventing. HORSES ARE IN SEVERE PAIN WHEN THEY HIT JUMPS AND BREAK BONES - in legs and skulls and the brain feels like its going to explode - and they lay on the ground until the vets come give them a sedative. Then the riders say they "love" the horse...and replace the horse and maybe the saddle too - they both may have been injured beyond use for the next horse trial.

I realize I may have hit a nerve with many of you on this forum.

There's something very, very wrong when we reach a point when we can't tell our friends to take their children to Rolex...

I'm sick that Frodo and Mike died this weekend, that Laine is in the hospital piecing herself back together one breath at a time, that our sport is in this present state of disarray...of goals, of values.

there may be a 4-Star Super Elite division of Eventing, but please make sure that there is a warning sign on the entrance gate...all it takes is one wrong step - if so, close your eyes and leave. Don't look back.

I won't go in....

[TB or not TB?]

I am currently eventing in my 47th consecutive season at the preliminary level or higher.

Denny, you're the most hardcore of all. :cool: That is twice as long as I have been alive.

[Sannois]

I am currently eventing in my 47th consecutive season at the preliminary level or higher.
If anyone else is doing that, I don`t know who.
So if I can change my mind and be reconciled to changes that will save our sport, well, hell, anybody ought to be able to.
Tradition is great, the long format classic 18 mile 3-day was the ultimate test, but what we still have is pretty darn great.
Let`s do what it takes to preserve eventing.
I cant help remembering all the greats I had watched and followed in the 70s and 80's, yourself included. The riders were tougher, the horses aas well. The courses were challenging and you did not get there by having breakaway fences or glorified show jump fences for Cross country!
Dumbing the sport down more is not the answer.
I agree with your discussions about the readiness and skill level of many of these younger up and comings.
I think Rolex and other 4 stars have to be earned! Not just the current qualifications.
I am saddened that the sport has had so many problems of late, but I dont think resorting to changing the traditions of the sport is the answer.
Lets continue to look at this at the rider and horse level.
I have been to many Rolex events, this is the first year where I really saw riders that looked ill prepared and lacking confidence, And some horses not up to the task.
The veterans, Karen, Phillip, becky etc. still gave me goosebumps watching their runs. Even Polly stockton, patted her horse and called it a day after a I believe second refusal. FRom what I was always taught, Save your horse for another day. I wonder if that sentiment is lost with the younger competitors. This is purely one persons opinion, I have ridden and been involved in horses for over 40 years, Changing the fences is not the answer!

[JDufort]

I'm just an eventing mom.....

but I seem to recall that when we were at N/T and planning/dreaming of moving into the elite world of international competitions - you needed 4 clear cross country rounds to move to the next level. No jump penalties, period.
then it changed to today's more complex formula, which essentially allows you to keep moving up even with jump penalties.

our trainers (Jill Turner Williams, Ralph, Werner Geven, Kyle Carter, etc) were all consistent on one point - you will never regret moving up a day late, but always regret moving up a day early.

When Jo ran her first *, she was already running Int HT. When she ran her first **, she was running Adv. We felt that our horse (and YR) were more prepared for the international test, and fundamentally safer.

As an owner, YR mom, and now ULR mom - I say GREAT IDEA to Denny to make the 4*** test invitation only.

And lets bring back the "cross country penalty free" requirement.

Talent is talent, but you cannot create experience overnight.

[AUeventer]

I have only been eventing for a few years so my 2 cents isn't terribly valuable, but here's a trend that I'm starting to see:

First of all, I have no problem with a 4* being super elite. The riders who deserve to be there will get invited and I don't see much room for controversy. What is troubling is that eventing is turning into hunters to me because young people (most commonly I see young, but can also be older...) who have wealthy parents can go out and buy a horse that's running Advanced and move it way too quickly up the levels. This rider is certainly a good rider, but under other circumstances would not be at the highest levels of the sport. Luckily, the horse has the experience to bail the rider out of a lot of sticky situations, but to lessen the likelihood of accidents, shouldn't the TEAM have the necessary experience, not just the horse?? You can do this in other sports because mistakes happen in rails and other trivial things, but obviously it doesn't always work in eventing. Of course, I'm not saying that this is the case with any recent accidents necessarily, but I think it's something that should be looked at. Someone going out and buy a novice/training packer is one thing, but at Intermediate+ it becomes much more of a risk. Sometimes the rider can create a problem that the horse can't get out of...

[deltawave]

The courses were challenging and you did not get there by having breakaway fences or glorified show jump fences for Cross country!
Dumbing the sport down more is not the answer.

How is making fences SAFER "dumbing down" the sport? IMO it is "dumb", bordering on STUPID to not do everything possible to make things safer. The "glory days" mentality can get to be a really ridiculous argument if it's used to uphold what is no longer useful, valid, or realistic.

This is purely one persons opinion, I have ridden and been involved in horses for over 40 years, Changing the fences is not the answer!

Well, ditto, and I thoroughly and completely disagree with you. Changing fences MAY BE PART OF the answer. I don't pretend to have all of it. I think it's perfectly INSANE to refuse to consider ANY alternative that might make me or my horse safer on course. Armchair bitching about the good old days is not going to make anyone safer. Embracing the possibility that change may be good may.

[poltroon]

Debbie, you are right on. It was a good 4 star test. It rewarded brave, galloping, forward riding, didn`t have many "in their face" questions, and the really good rides looked flowing and lovely.
And yet, and yet-------
So, how can we even HAVE 4 star xc courses if this one isn`t good enough?
Either we diminish the challenge, or restrict the standard of riding to the standard that our best riders already have.
Maybe there are better solutions, but keeping the 4 star reserved for the best of the best strikes me as one possible solution.
Maybe we can`t have 4 star any more, not in 2008, but that seems to enact a huge penalty on the few who are truly "prima inter pares", that classic Latin expression meaning "first among equals."

I was thinking about this, and it seems like this course overall caused few problems - except when it did, and then they were severe.

The same thing happened at the Athens Games - the course was "straightforward" and there were a lot of double clears - but at least two favorites were eliminated.

Does anyone understand these 'all or nothing' results, where most of the scores are either 0 or E instead of congregating in the middle?

[Liz Chilcott]

Forgive me. I am a woman of a certain age who should be beyond a pouty snit, but I remember when this sport was a glorious test of true horsemanship and loss of horses and riders was a much rarer happening. It has changed and I DON"T LIKE IT. Pwynn says (and she's right) that the past is past and we must move on and address the challenges of today. The creativity of thinking is laudable and evolution is inevitable (and clearly needed) and while I don't like the direction of changing the very substance of XC fences (the design yes, substance no), I like far far less the loss of horses. :(
I am also of a certain age (6 months older than Denny Emerson) and can remember when there were less than 50 advanced riders in the whole country. It is not so much that the accidents and deaths have increased, but that the numbers of riders at the upper levels have increased and the number of horses and the number of competitions. It used to be that if you were able to do one 3-day a year, that was normal....now people are doing up to three and all the horse trials and CICs as well. Increase all that and the nimber of accidents are bound to increase. Maybe Denny is right and a 4 star should be invitation only. Also, how many horses should you ride at one of these things? We check the fitness of the horses to compete...how about checking the fitness of the riders?

[SEPowell]

Does anyone understand these 'all or nothing' results, where most of the scores are either 0 or E instead of congregating in the middle?

Could it be something as simple as some types of jumps demand the ultimate level of precision from both horse and rider? And if a really great horse and rider just so happen to lose focus for a split second at that jump they're going to have a lethal fall?

Judging from the number of people who successfully negotiate these courses, there are many talented horses and riders competing. Therefore, it could be argued that this talent has shaped the design of current x country courses to keep them competitive. This is a completely different way of approaching the problem, but it's worth considering because you can begin to be proactive within a more positive framework. Course designers and USEA officials can say "yes, we know that 98% of our horses and riders can negotiate this type of jump (I have in mind the basket) but this is where the smallest of horse or rider error can become fatal", and based upon that decide to modify or eliminate that jump.

Just thought I'd put this out there...

[KSevnter]

What is troubling is that eventing is turning into hunters to me because young people (most commonly I see young, but can also be older...) who have wealthy parents can go out and buy a horse that's running Advanced and move it way too quickly up the levels. This rider is certainly a good rider, but under other circumstances would not be at the highest levels of the sport. Luckily, the horse has the experience to bail the rider out of a lot of sticky situations, but to lessen the likelihood of accidents, shouldn't the TEAM have the necessary experience, not just the horse??

This is very true...my question is when did the qualifications for a **** become such that you can have stops at a CCI*** and still qualify? One combination that had problems last weekend ran 2 3stars and had a stop at one and 2 stops at their latest CCI. There are obviously varying reasons for stops, some are silly run-outs but qualfications for any 3day should include having a mandatory clean go at the CCI level below.

If people are not going to check themselves the qualifications must do so.