Letter from USEF President David O'Connor and USEA President Kevin Baumgardner

[One Star]

29 April 2008

Dear Members of the Equestrian Community,

This past weekend at the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day, Laine Ashker suffered a serious fall during the cross-country stage of the competition. She is currently in critical condition at the University of Kentucky hospital in Lexington. Laine's horse and another involved in a separate accident had to be euthanized.

These accidents come just a month after Darren Chiacchia, an Olympic rider, had a serious fall at an event in Tallahassee, Florida. They also come in the wake of a recent article in the New York Times about 15 rider fatalities in cross country that have occurred worldwide over the last two years.

These accidents have hit us hard in the sport of eventing - we are all riders who care deeply about the horses, their welfare and the image of the sport. For us, the issue is also a personal one.

This spate of accidents has raised important and potentially troubling questions for those of us who govern the sport: Why are so many riders and horses having accidents? Is there more that can be done to make cross country safer? Is the sport just too dangerous?

There is no question that eventing is a demanding and yes, risky sport. Riders cross undulating terrain at high speed and jump a series of challenging fences - all while atop a 1,000 pound horse. So there is a constant need for us to ensure that every precaution is being taken to reduce the risk of injury to riders and horses.

Although we have implemented several measures to improve safety over the last year, clearly more needs to be done. In the coming days and weeks, we will be redoubling our efforts to identify additional steps we can take to make sure that riders and horses can compete as safely as possible. We would like to ask your help in this effort - whether you're a rider, trainer, coach, veterinarian, or simply a horse enthusiast.

We invite each and every one of you to the USEF/USEA Safety Summit to be held in Lexington, KY June 7-8. We will break the issue of safety down and examine the causes and potential solutions with some of the best minds in the game. In the meantime, if you have immediate thoughts about how we can improve the safety of cross country, please email them to us at:

safetythoughts@usef.org (safetythoughts@usef.org) and/or safety@useventing.com (safety@useventing.com).

Over the last few days, we have received emails from people who were at the Rolex event over the weekend and were disturbed by what they saw. They are asking hard questions of us and questioning whether they should continue to support the sport of eventing. To them and to you, we want to say that we too are disturbed by what we see. No matter how much we tell ourselves that injury is a part of our sport, it is always traumatizing to see a horse fall.

Therefore, we are working closely with FEI to do whatever we can to better protect riders and horses and to repair the public image of our sport. We are proposing today that within the U.S. the following five initiatives be put into effect:

If a horse has a rotational fall, horse and rider are suspended from competing for three or six months
If a horse has a rotational fall, horse and rider lose their qualification at the level at which they are competing.
If a rider falls off on the course they are eliminated.
Open oxers on courses at every level are made frangible.
If a horse falls related to a jump both horse and rider are suspended from competing for one month.We don't have all the answers, we are deeply concerned about what is going on in the sport of eventing and we need your help.

Sincerely,

David O'Connor, USEF President
Kevin Baumgardner, USEA President

[LLDM]

It's a good start.

SCFarm

[SGray]

truly - suspensions might save lives

[Hopeful Hunter]

Kudos to them and to all eventers for being smart and pro-active on this.

I'm so sorry it's required at all, but as a PR person I'm very glad to see some intelligent moves from the top.

[pwynnnorman]

Yeah, I applaud it, for sure...but who decides if it was a rotational fall and how will that prevent more? Riders don't know that their decisionmaking (or whatever) will result in that kind of fall--or any fall at all--so kinda "punishing" them (I don't know if that's really the intent though--I'm not sure what the goal of suspending them is, alas) isn't going to prevent such falls from happening, is it?

[JER]

Like LLDM said, it's a start.

However, I need some clarification on point #1. Does it mean the rider is suspended from ALL his/her rides or just from that horse? Is the horse suspended from competing with ALL riders? If the rider is struck off all mounts and the horse is banned from all competition, I think it's a much better rule than if the rider/horse is still allowed to compete in other combinations.

Same goes for #5 -- does it mean the rider is banned from all competition on all horses? Does this include falls in showjumping as well as XC?

[flyingchange]

It is a good start.

I think though that once the horse and rider have a rotational fall, it is already too late in many cases.

I think a subjective element to XC riding might be added to certain UL HTs - and if you fail to score adquately, your score is non-qualifying. This would eliminate those rounds where people "get around" from qualifying them for the three days that they are usually using them to get to.

We already have the subjective element in the dressage, and it can make a double clear round, finishing on the dressage score, non-qualifying. Why not use subjectivity to get to the crux of the matter - the xc riding.

[One Star]

Email your thoughts to them. :yes:

[DizzyMagic]

Good start, and I'm glad this is being taken seriously. But would any of those initiatives have saved the horses' lives this weekend?

The only thing I've heard that would have likely made a difference is Denny's radical statement about getting rid of xc fences with vertical faces.

[TB or not TB?]

Yeah, I applaud it, for sure...but who decides if it was a rotational fall and how will that prevent more? Riders don't know that their decisionmaking (or whatever) will result in that kind of fall--or any fall at all--so kinda "punishing" them (I don't know if that's really the intent though--I'm not sure what the goal of suspending them is, alas) isn't going to prevent such falls from happening, is it?

Rotational falls follow a very very distinct pattern. The horse hits the jump between the point of shoulder and forearm on one side. The horse slides up across the jump on that one shoulder, and his body is pivoted over that shoulder (it's not always a spectacular somersault like frodo; usually it's a semi-lateral flop). If the jump breaks away like in SJ, he is able to put his front feet down to save himself. If not, he continues his rotation and lands on his chest or the fore shoulder. Rider may or may not be thrown out of the way.

As to the other questions in your post, I can't answer those.

[LLDM]

Yeah, I applaud it, for sure...but who decides if it was a rotational fall and how will that prevent more? Riders don't know that their decisionmaking (or whatever) will result in that kind of fall--or any fall at all--so kinda "punishing" them (I don't know if that's really the intent though--I'm not sure what the goal of suspending them is, alas) isn't going to prevent such falls from happening, is it?

I would assume the Jump Judge would be required to describe the fall. It is their job to be watching closely. I would guess that the TD or the PGJ would decide if it was a rotational fall based on the description and interviewing the JJ.

Yes, it should be punitive. The idea would be to ensure that a rider is really, really sure that they are capable of taking this horse, at this moment in time, safely around the course. And to give them a really, really good reason to withdraw or retire if their round starts to go south.

It probably shouldn't be necessary. But right now it is.

SCFarm

[SPLAT]

Yes, but suspending a rider/horse for a rotational fall doesn't keep the horse that fell alive.
So how would this work? ... Frodo is suspended now?

- I think that training and qualifications are seriously important - but they are personal responsibilities and should not be legislated because .... as keeps getting pointed out these were not rookies riding out of control. They were experienced horse people who made a mistake.

We have to demand an environment where the answer to a mistake is not death. Fences that break fall down are not going to encourage bad riding - RAyers point is perfect - does having a airbag make you play chicken with a truck? - But it may keep you alive if you don't see the truck coming.
Our x-cntry jumps need to be built to a standard that is challenging, allows for speed and bravery and takes in terrain, but doesn't kill when an error is make.

[Reds-n-Greys]

Good start, and I'm glad this is being taken seriously. But would any of those initiatives have saved the horses' lives this weekend?

The only thing I've heard that would have likely made a difference is Denny's radical statement about getting rid of xc fences with vertical faces.

# 4 might have.

[mjrtango93]

Clarification on the points needed....

for the rotational does that mean that horse and rider (no matter what horse) are suspended. That could be problematic for the pro's if a baby hangs a leg somewhere and flips. Can they not show anything for that time?

for the fall of horse related to the jump, does that mean that some of the horses that submarine in the water on landing are included? Or that the time my darling horse tripped directly after a fence and fell would count? Or like my 2 star in the mud we slipped going up the bank and bellied at the top?

I could think without a lot of clarification these could get hairy. How would they know if it was a full rotational or just a fall? Just off what the jump judge says? Or will there be video? Trust me I love fence judges and know that we can't do this without them, but most have 0 horse experience and wouldn't know what was what anyways.

Seems like a good jumping off point but a nightmare to put into effect and police properly.

[pony grandma]

You mean 'if they survive' a rotational fall? Then they have to sit in the corner?

Is it more like you are thinking that a penalty will make them reduce the chance of such a fall, like anyone would plan for one?

[pwynnnorman]

The idea would be to ensure that a rider is really, really sure that they are capable of taking this horse, at this moment in time, safely around the course. And to give them a really, really good reason to withdraw or retire if their round starts to go south.SCFarm

Definitely a laudable idea. I just don't see how it would work. Seems to run counter to the prevailing attitude of eventers such that many might simply not make the connection.

"Wildarse is a difficult ride, but I'm sure I can get him around the course anyway!"

How many riders will stop thinking that way and instead conclude that "Wildarse is a difficult horse, so I better not compete him today"?

[LLDM]

You mean 'if they survive' a rotational fall? Then they have to sit in the corner?

Is it more like you are thinking that a penalty will make them reduce the chance of such a fall, like anyone would plan for one?

Yes, the idea (I'm guessing) is to put the "Fear of God" back into the ULRs, heck into everyone. It's called "Personal Responsibilty with Teeth".

If your life or your horse's life isn't enough of an incentive, how about the loss of your liveyihood? Or your ability to to chase points?

If this is what it takes, I am all for it.

SCFarm

[LLDM]

Definitely a laudable idea. I just don't see how it would work. Seems to run counter to the prevailing attitude of eventers such that many might simply not make the connection.

"Wildarse is a difficult ride, but I'm sure I can get him around the course anyway!"

How many riders will stop thinking that way and instead conclude that "Wildarse is a difficult horse, so I better not compete him today"?

Then they will get some vacation time to mull it over. It's a start.

Heck, pwynn, we aren't allowed to shoot them...

SCFarm

[pwynnnorman]

Well, OK. I'll admit that shooting riders is certainly an effective way to reduce the number of errors they make. :D

[vineyridge]

Is anyone from here thinking of going?

I'd like to see scientists like Reed and IFG and others with safety experience (albeit not eventing related) and design engineers there for their perspectives on things.

Could the CoTH board raise funds to send representatives?

[poltroon]

I'm not sure how much they really help - no one intends to have a rotational fall - but I'm not sure they hurt, and there's a message being sent that has value.

For example, do you think it would make an impression on up and coming Prelim riders if Darren Chiacchia, on the Olympic short list, were to be suspended from competing for three months and would have to requalify with 4 rounds of Training to run Prelim again? (Assume he had been uninjured.) I think it might. It says not just that he had a tragic accident, but that he has to prove his skills again.

It's curious that we don't scratch because we fear death, but that's because we don't think it can happen to us. But we all know we can be eliminated.

Does anyone know how many rotational falls there have been that have not led to serious injury? That's a key statistic.

[crittertwitter]

29 April 2008

Therefore, we are working closely with FEI to do whatever we can to better protect riders and horses and to repair the public image of our sport. We are proposing today that within the U.S. the following five initiatives be put into effect:

If a horse has a rotational fall, horse and rider are suspended from competing for three or six months
If a horse has a rotational fall, horse and rider lose their qualification at the level at which they are competing.
If a rider falls off on the course they are eliminated.
Open oxers on courses at every level are made frangible.
If a horse falls related to a jump both horse and rider are suspended from competing for one month.We don't have all the answers, we are deeply concerned about what is going on in the sport of eventing and we need your help.


While it's wonderful to know that things are in the rumination phase of change, I don't think that options 1, 2, or 5 will be effective. It points fingers, but doesn't solve anything. Hate to point out the obvious, but most horses who have rotational falls are "suspended" for LIFE (option 1). Neither horses nor riders intend to have a fall, so penalizing them for something that acts in itself as the biggest punishment (e.g., a fall, an injury) will not make them safer. Penalizing a fall *after the fact* does not make the sport safer. The idea is to prevent rotational falls. As far as better preparation? Both of those horses and riders prepared... spent lots of money and time preparing. You can prepare as well as you want, but a catastrophic fall could happen to anyone. The fences need to move. That's my only suggestion. The immobile obstacle is the only thing these accidents have in common and is therefore the only clearly identifiable cause.

[JAGold]

I don't see the point of a three-month suspension following a rotational fall. Suspensions wouldn't have prevented any of the recent accidents, would they? None of them were the second rotational fall within 3 or 6 months, were they?

Further, the consequences of a rotational fall are often a lot higher than 3 months off from competing. I don't think the threat of a suspension would provide any additional incentive to riders to alter their tactics. Riders are well aware of the real consequences -- injury or death. No one goes out thinking "I'll take a chance on having a horrific fall at that fence. I might die, but if I don't, well, I'll be 5 seconds faster!"

As I see it, then, the idea of suspending riders and horses involved in such falls is meant to appease the masses more than really make the sport safer.

[JER]

Well, OK. I'll admit that shooting riders is certainly an effective way to reduce the number of errors they make. :D

Rotational falls also do a pretty good job at reducing numbers. Statistics show that 25-30% of rotational falls cause death or serious injury to the rider. Which means that some horses and 1 out of 3 or 4 riders who have rotational falls are not going to be available to serve their suspensions. Or perhaps their suspension will end around the same time as their hospital stay.

(Not a pleasant line of thought, is it?)

[RAyers]

My letter and how I propose to help:

"The following is based on my experiences in failure analysis in both the medical and aviation industries, and my current membership on several Safety and Environmental oversight committees for both academia and industry.

These are my ideas for what needs to be done.
As I stated, given that safety is a process and not an end, I
believe that NO subject is outside consideration. We must examine
everything from XC course design to rider instruction, to fence
materials, to ground jury responsibilities.

To accomplish these tasks I propose groups of people lead by an
oversight committee of 6-8 people with specific expertise. Each
member of the committee will have a task and area to work wherein
they can create a team to enable them to accomplish established
goals. The overall number of people on the task force is variable
based on need but the core committee will remain. I also believe at
least ONE person on the oversight committee should be a
NON-eventing person from the public. They will have equal say in
all matters. All issues will be considered with recommendations
passed onto the FEI, USEF, USEA governing bodies. At the same time
this committee should be able to have a sufficient
presence/appropriate representation in the governing bodies to be
able to be effective, e.g. the task force shall have some veto
power on issues related to safety.

The broad areas of consideration and what they would do:

1) Accident Data/Reconstruction (This must be done in order to understand the problems and questions.)

MUST include CD, TD, Organizer, Ground jury after any major
incident (horse death, rider death or severe injury)

2) Course Design and Construction

a) they would examine how course design and fence design affect the accident rate
b) Develop specific engineering capabilities to design fences and materials that reduce severity of impact, rotation, etc.

3) Medical/Veterinary
a) Look at accident data, including horse necropsy, rider medical data (e.g. armband, EMT reports etc.) to see trends in rider or horse fitness
b) Examine other sports where significant risk of injury or death occurs to see if processes or equipment can be adapted to Eventing

4) Rules/Governance
a) Examine how rules/qualifications affect rider/trainer decisions. How rules can be tailored to encourage safety.
b) Incorporation of safety findings into rules
c) This effort should also be split between FEI and USEF and USEA

5) Equipment
a) work with other areas [3, 2, 1] and equipment manufacturers to develop new devices and equipment capabilities specific to Eventing

6) Instruction/training
a) Collect and compile data from the ICP program. Track accident rates to ICP qualifications and rider qualifications.

7) Safety Fund Raising/Education

a) Establish a Safety Fund that encourages support of safety research, education in Eventing and subsequently all equine disciplines.
b) Develop safety campaign that encourage every rider to be responsible and knowledgable
This is my broad outline. At the same time, we MUST develop
collaboration with British Eventing and their research groups.



Reed... yada, yada, yada.

[LLDM]

While it's wonderful to know that things are in the rumination phase of change, I don't think that options 1, 2, or 5 will be effective. It points fingers, but doesn't solve anything. Hate to point out the obvious, but most horses who have rotational falls are "suspended" for LIFE (option 1). Neither horses nor riders intend to have a fall, so penalizing them for something that acts in itself as the biggest punishment (e.g., a fall, an injury) will not make them safer. Penalizing a fall *after the fact* does not make the sport safer. The idea is to prevent rotational falls. As far as better preparation? Both of those horses and riders prepared... spent lots of money and time preparing. You can prepare as well as you want, but a catastrophic fall could happen to anyone. The fences need to move. That's my only suggestion. The immobile obstacle is the only thing these accidents have in common and is therefore the only clearly identifiable cause.

The death penalty doesn't bring people back to life either. It's called disincentive. The point it to back people off. And hit them in the pocketbook. I think this does that.

If people get punished too harshly until we get this stuff sorted out, so be it. It serves the greater good. Since we have erred on the side of being too fair to the riders, the pendulum must swing the other way. At least until everyone (people and horses) starts surviving the XC phase on a regular basis.

SCFarm

[SGray]

re #5 If a horse falls related to a jump both horse and rider are suspended from competing for one month.

? how many events would you compete in within a month under optimal conditions? I'm assuming that you are not going to compaign weekly as a dressage or H/J competitor might

[poltroon]

re #5 If a horse falls related to a jump both horse and rider are suspended from competing for one month.

? how many events would you compete in within a month under optimal conditions? I'm assuming that you are not going to compaign weekly as a dressage or H/J competitor might

It does happen sometimes that you'd run twice in a month, particularly horse trials at the lower levels. Certainly if you did have another event planned that month, I think a fall of the horse suggests you shouldn't run.

But I expect the intended effect is rather like the 30 day suspensions that the USEF Hearing Committee hands down (sometimes clearly timed for the off season, even) - to be a red card as much as actually forcing a scratch.

[LLDM]

re #5 If a horse falls related to a jump both horse and rider are suspended from competing for one month.

? how many events would you compete in within a month under optimal conditions? I'm assuming that you are not going to compaign weekly as a dressage or H/J competitor might

This will hit the Pros hard and the points chasers some too. Not so much folks like me.

Go look at the Leading Rider and HOY points on the front page of www.useventing.com (http://www.useventing.com) Go ahead, click on some names. Yes, it can have a big effect!

SCFarm

[TB or not TB?]

Reed, that is exactly what we need, thank you. :yes:

[SGray]

thanks for the explanations

[JAGold]

This will hit the Pros hard and the points chasers some too. Not so much folks like me.

Go look at the Leading Rider and HOY points on the front page of www.useventing.com (http://www.useventing.com) Go ahead, click on some names. Yes, it can have a big effect!

SCFarm
First, top riders are much less with points than their fans are. They go out and do their job and let the chips fall where they may. I'd guess that COTH posters are more aware of the rankings than the people on that list!

Second, how many of those people have competed within a month of a fall of horse related to a jump? And more importantly, how many people on that list were involved in a second accident within a month of a fall of horse? I'm pretty sure the answer is "none," which implies that month long suspensions wouldn't have prevented any accidents. And I don't think owners would move their horses if a rider was given a 3 month suspension. Again, the fall itself might give owners more pause than the suspension, but event owners tend to develop long-term relationships with the riders they work with.

I think the suspensions have much less "bite" than taking away the qualifications for the horse and rider for the level at which the fall took place. And that provision could use some fine-tuning. Setting aside any issues caused by the accident itself, does anyone really believe that Darren isn't qualified to ride in a prelim horse trial?

[JER]

Is anyone from here thinking of going?

I'd like to see scientists like Reed and IFG and others with safety experience (albeit not eventing related) and design engineers there for their perspectives on things.

Could the CoTH board raise funds to send representatives?

I'd like to go.

I'm an EMT and therefore have learned a thing or two in the real world about 'accidents' and safety.

I just hope TPTB really do want the common rabble to attend. It's no fun to show up for something with good intentions only to realize you're not wanted. I will be contacting KB and DOC about this.

[RunForIt]

I've already emailed David thanking him - this letter was a HUGE step for him to take as he represents the ENTIRE scope of our sport; I'm thinking DOC had to swallow hard, and step up.

thank you, Reed, for stepping up several days ago and as much as you love eventing at the upper levels, recognizing that for myriad reasons, a screeching halt needed to be requested at the ULs.

Horses are not part of the replaceable equipment - NO MORE. I feel horribly for Laine's injuries; her mother must be in anguish. Laine had a choice; Frodo only had talent, training, and trust.

[LLDM]

First, top riders are much less with points than their fans are. They go out and do their job and let the chips fall where they may. I'd guess that COTH posters are more aware of the rankings than the people on that list!

Second, how many of those people have competed within a month of a fall of horse related to a jump? And more importantly, how many people on that list were involved in a second accident within a month of a fall of horse? I'm pretty sure the answer is "none," which implies that month long suspensions wouldn't have prevented any accidents. And I don't think owners would move their horses if a rider was given a 3 month suspension. Again, the fall itself might give owners more pause than the suspension, but event owners tend to develop long-term relationships with the riders they work with.

I think the suspensions have much less "bite" than taking away the qualifications for the horse and rider for the level at which the fall took place. And that provision could use some fine-tuning. Setting aside any issues caused by the accident itself, does anyone really believe that Darren isn't qualified to ride in a prelim horse trial?

You missed my point. Which was to answer the question of how often people compete. Pros and (or should I say "or") people who chase points both compete often - ergo the rule would effect them (but not people like me who compete one horse and don't chase points so don't compete every week or two.)

And again, it's not about the list - it was an example. I have no idea how many second accidents have happened within a month. That is so not the point. The point is to make them sit home and think about, practice more and not jump right back in without changing the behavior that got them on the ground in the first place.

And, maybe Darren, or anyone, shouldn't be riding 3, 4, 5 or 6 horses in the same horse trial or event. No, not even at a "lower" level. This is a recent and, IMHO, very bad way that eventing has changed.

SCFarm

[closetoperfectionfarm]

Agree, that was a big step for him to take and I thought it was very heartfelt.
I must admit, I had started to lose some respect.
Does anyone know when these new rules will go into effect? The letter said, it had proposed these "now" to the FEI, but does that mean also to go into effect now, or just were put forth for consideration now?
Also, on the fall issue, there are some slow, sort of "slide off and land on your feet with the reins in your hands falls", these do not seem to fall into any of those appropriate catagories, so perhaps an appeal process could also be implemented regarding the type and severity.
Just a thought.

[rebeginner]

To quote LLDM, "And, maybe Darren, or anyone, shouldn't be riding 3, 4, 5 or 6 horses in the same horse trial or event. No, not even at a "lower" level. This is a recent and, IMHO, very bad way that eventing has changed."

I agree. This is one of the side effects of the short format. Or was it the precipitating catalyst for the short format?

[Beverley]

My short answer is I disagree with all five proposals. In essence they dumb down the sport without addressing the real problems. I shall articulate my reasons in comments to USEF/USEA.

[erroneous]

I think officials should be allowed to stop horses/riders who are struggling on course BEFORE they have a fall.

Though this obviously could not be implemented immediately.

[JAGold]

You missed my point. Which was to answer the question of how often people compete. Pros and (or should I say "or") people who chase points both compete often - ergo the rule would effect them (but not people like me who compete one horse and don't chase points so don't compete every week or two.)
Competing frequently does not equate with point chasing. Professionals really don't pay nearly as much attention to those rankings as is being implied.

And again, it's not about the list - it was an example. I have no idea how many second accidents have happened within a month. That is so not the point. The point is to make them sit home and think about, practice more and not jump right back in without changing the behavior that got them on the ground in the first place.
And here you miss my point. The prospect of serious injury or death, and the same for their horses, gives top riders far more pause than a sanction such as a suspension! I really don't think anyone understates the serious consequences of dangerous riding or mistakes. What people may understate is their own probability of being involved in an accident. But the changes proposed in David's letter don't cause a reevaluation of the probability of an accident. They just change the costs of the accident if it occurs. If people already perceive the cost as very high -- and I really, really think they do: neither top riders nor anyone else thinks of their horses or themselves as disposable -- then adding a small penalty on top doesn't change the overall calculation.

In mathematical terms, the "expected cost" of an accident is the cost times the probability that the accident will occur. If the cost is "C," the probability a rider believes he faces of being in an accident is "p," then the expected cost is p*C. If we add a penalty "e", then it becomes p*(C+e). But if "p" is very close to zero, or "C" is very very large, then p*C is approximately equal to p*(C+e). In other words, under the conditions that riders don't believe there is a high probability of being in an accident, but do believe that the costs of the accident are already high, then the new suspensions don't have the deterrent effect that you claim.

And, maybe Darren, or anyone, shouldn't be riding 3, 4, 5 or 6 horses in the same horse trial or event. No, not even at a "lower" level. This is a recent and, IMHO, very bad way that eventing has changed.
This "recent" trend certainly predates the wave of serious accidents we have all been discussing. Moreover, none of David O'Connor's proposed changes address the number of horses a rider competes.

[LexInVA]

To quote LLDM, "And, maybe Darren, or anyone, shouldn't be riding 3, 4, 5 or 6 horses in the same horse trial or event. No, not even at a "lower" level. This is a recent and, IMHO, very bad way that eventing has changed."

I agree. This is one of the side effects of the short format. Or was it the precipitating catalyst for the short format?

A little bit of both really. The upper levels have become a business much in the same way that the upper levels of H/J have. You have wealthy horse owners financing riders and throwing horses at them to develop and sell.

[TB or not TB?]

Lex! I was beginning to think you had disappeared. The world order is restored.

[QHEventr]

My short answer is I disagree with all five proposals. In essence they dumb down the sport without addressing the real problems. I shall articulate my reasons in comments to USEF/USEA.

I agree! The real problems need to be addressed. I am OK with a mandatory "rest" period for the horse and possibly rider for bad falls of any kind, but in this sport FALLS WILL HAPPEN! I am in no way sweeping things under the rug, but the problems need to be addressed before under prepared pairs make it to the ring, NOT AFTER a fall has occured

Johanna

[LexInVA]

Lex! I was beginning to think you had disappeared. The world order is restored.

What made you think I was gone? I've been posting on and off all day. Mostly on this forum.

[TB or not TB?]

What made you think I was gone? I've been posting on and off all day. Mostly on this forum.

Hmm maybe I missed your posts because they were, for the most part, unmonumental, without your brand of apt snark and "telling it like it is." :lol:

[vineyridge]

How much of this flurry of official attention, do you think, is related to the NY Times--The New York TIMES!!!--putting stories about eventing's safety in its august pages twice in less than a month. Eventing (and other equestrian sports) have always been completely ignored by the Times until this.

[LLDM]

Competing frequently does not equate with point chasing. Professionals really don't pay nearly as much attention to those rankings as is being implied.

Where do you get that? I said Pros compete frequently and people who chase points compete frequently, ergo they will be most affected by a one month suspension for a fall. I did NOT say that all people who compete frequently chase points. Assume what you like.;)

And here you miss my point. The prospect of serious injury or death, and the same for their horses, gives top riders far more pause than a sanction such as a suspension! I really don't think anyone understates the serious consequences of dangerous riding or mistakes. What people may understate is their own probability of being involved in an accident. But the changes proposed in David's letter don't cause a reevaluation of the probability of an accident. They just change the costs of the accident if it occurs. If people already perceive the cost as very high -- and I really, really think they do: neither top riders nor anyone else thinks of their horses or themselves as disposable -- then adding a small penalty on top doesn't change the overall calculation.

Now who is generalizing? Maybe not all top riders think the same way?

In mathematical terms, the "expected cost" of an accident is the cost times the probability that the accident will occur. If the cost is "C," the probability a rider believes he faces of being in an accident is "p," then the expected cost is p*C. If we add a penalty "e", then it becomes p*(C+e). But if "p" is very close to zero, or "C" is very very large, then p*C is approximately equal to p*(C+e). In other words, under the conditions that riders don't believe there is a high probability of being in an accident, but do believe that the costs of the accident are already high, then the new suspensions don't have the deterrent effect that you claim.

I see your logic, but disagree with your premises. They may feel that a suspension for a non-fatal or non-serious fall is *more* likely than a fatal or serious fall. But I don't read all upper level minds. Maybe KB and DOC do?

This "recent" trend certainly predates the wave of serious accidents we have all been discussing. Moreover, none of David O'Connor's proposed changes address the number of horses a rider competes.

No, not yet. Like I said, it's a start. And, I think, notice on the *type* of thing that may be coming if these trends continue.

SCFarm

[imissvixen]

Horses don't choose to compete in these events. If a horse experiences an unusual injury, like those incurred in a rotational fall, during an event, its owner and rider should be charged with animal cruelty and aggressively prosecuted.

[poltroon]

How much of this flurry of official attention, do you think, is related to the NY Times--The New York TIMES!!!--putting stories about eventing's safety in its august pages twice in less than a month. Eventing (and other equestrian sports) have always been completely ignored by the Times until this.

We were flurrying before the first New York Times article came out. I think Kevin's Red Hills letter was before that article was published.

[LexInVA]

Horses don't choose to compete in these events. If a horse experiences an unusual injury, like those incurred in a rotational fall, during an event, its owner and rider should be charged with animal cruelty and aggressively prosecuted.

Therein lies the problem. Horses are (by law) considered nothing more than simple livestock yet they are also considered companion animals.

[TB or not TB?]

Horses don't choose to compete in these events. If a horse experiences an unusual injury, like those incurred in a rotational fall, during an event, its owner and rider should be charged with animal cruelty and aggressively prosecuted.

I absolutely agree. But why stop there? Let's charge any dressage rider who uses Rollkur, or forces their horse around in a false frame. That's arguably crueler because the horse is living it every second they're being ridden. Let's also charge hunters that lunge for hours and drug their horses, because lunging too much causes joint damage, and have you seen the side effects of those drugs? Oh, and the jumpers - they pole their horses and put sharp things in their boots! Let's not forget the saddleseat people, do you know what they do to their horses' tails? And the TWH folks with their soring. Ropers cause cows misery all day long, and sometimes they even break their necks! Also, can't forget the WP folks with the peanut rollers who tie their horses' heads down and use hideous bits, and inject their tails not to move. Plus there's the halter world, what with their overfeeding to gain muscle and HYPP problems. We also have the racing industry - what horrible, horrible people. The less said the better, IMO. Endurance riding causes deaths too. Burn them at the stake! How about breeders - do they realize the mare's life is in danger every time she's bred?! Heartless cows. Foxhunters are just the root of all evil, no questions asked. And have you ever seen a carriage driving accident? They ought to be skewered if they're not already impaled on the shafts! Minis are being bred as deformed dwarfs, and it's intolerable cruelty. I also happen to know of trail riders who get on once a month, bust ass for 4 hours, and put the horse away hot and wet. HAVEN'T THEY HEARD OF COLIC!? And then there's vaulting - that is WAY too many people to put on a horse. Think of his poor bones! But wait ---- who else is left???



ETA, sorry for the snark, folks. I think I'll just get a drink the next time. I've become a terrible grumpus in my old age.

[imissvixen]

After further thought I would also make the event organizers and the USEF and USEA culpable and throw the book at all of them. Look at it this way, Michael Vick is in jail in part because the dog fights were held at his house.

[Jazzy Lady]

After further thought I would also make the event organizers and the USEF and USEA culpable and throw the book at all of them. Look at it this way, Michael Vick is in jail in part because the dog fights were held at his house.

Ya... 'cuz that's the same thing! :rolleyes:

[Hidden]

imissvixen... Troll troll Troll your boat , all away from here!

[eventrider]

So if this has been said please bare with me but....
How many of the riders that have been injured have had previous rotational falls on ANY horse in the month prior to their injury?
How many horses have suffered a rotational fall in the previous 6 months prior to their injury?

I think they are trying to do something, but this seems ridiculous as far as solving the problem. If my novice horse stops dead at the water jump entrance and I am unseated, then I cannot show him again for a month? That seems counter-productive. There has to be a better way to solve this. Maybe slowing down speeds on x-c and have a crack-down on unsafe riding. Maybe we need more qualified people out on course to monitor this during the course.
I think that there is less room for rider error now with the courses the way that they are, and thus we are seeing more injuries from that error, which is going to happen. I think we need to address the heart of the issue..the difficulty of the course and the design of the fences combined with the speeds allowed.

Christan

[Threeday33]

My first thought was how would these proposed changes have helped any of the recent tragedies. Yes, maybe it is a start. But I still don't think we are anywhere close...

I had a rotational fall with Harley in a clinic a couple of years ago. It was competely rider error. Both my horse and I were/are fine, thank goodness. I had never done that before and I will do my best to never do that again. Once a rider has experienced this, my guess is they all feel the way I do. If the horse and rider are okay, they replay it over and over and over again, trying to figure out what went wrong. They think about what could have happened and thank their lucky stars that they got let off easy. They do not blow it off and ride recklessly after a fall. If anything, they ride smarter and safer. They completely understand the consequences, and the possibility of a suspension, even if it is for life, is at the bottom of that list. They can suspend riders and horses all they want, but what good does it do if, like others have said, the rider is in the hospital and the horse can't compete anymore anyway?!?

I think increasing the qualifications at all levels for both horse and rider, including the age of horse/rider, is a good idea and can not hurt in any way. I am contemplating an advanced move up on Harley the end of this year. He and I are qualified now to run advanced, but I want to be overqualified because we are not ready yet. I wish others would be okay with being overqualified and not just move up because they are allowed to. This is the rider's responsibility and we need to recognize that we are responsible for deciding (hopefully with a trainer's help) whether or not we are ready.

[JAGold]

I agree completely with eventrider and Threeday33. It's clear there is a problem and there need to be changes. But many of the proposals that David suggests are poorly targeted. Suspensions matter only if we actually believe that three months away from competition is a bigger penalty than serious injuries, and I just don't believe that people are competing with that attitude. I've never competed above prelim, but I've spent a lot of time riding and working with people who have, and the hard realities of the dangers of the sport are much more salient in an upper level barn than away from one. To many of the upper level riders, it's their friends, horses they have ridden, being hurt or killed over fences they have jumped. And that is not taken lightly.

Chrissy, I remember when you and Harley fell and the conversation we had afterwards. I thought then and I think now that you handled things as a responsible horsewoman and person, in a way that IS emblematic of the sport we all love. (And on a lighter note, if you move up to advanced while I am out of the country, I want an international text message the minute you are done!!) --Jess

[RunForIt]

Once a rider has experienced this, my guess is they all feel the way I do. If the horse and rider are okay, they replay it over and over and over again, trying to figure out what went wrong. They think about what could have happened and thank their lucky stars that they got let off easy. They do not blow it off and ride recklessly after a fall. If anything, they ride smarter and safer. They completely understand the consequences, and the possibility of a suspension, even if it is for life, is at the bottom of that list. They can suspend riders and horses all they want, but what good does it do if, like others have said, the rider is in the hospital and the horse can't compete anymore anyway?!?



But what if HORSE and rider aren't ok, what does the data indicate riders do? And there is data available to assess that question if ithe data is gathered. This is a recreational sport that as its currently set up, tolerates animals and humans being hurt, maimed - sometimes dying. The game doesn't happen without horses. Are horses "equipment" that though valued, can be put through the "that's just the way it is" spin?

[bascher]

I'm a hunter rider, so I really don't know that much about eventing. However, I have a question about the proposals, so please don't flame me if I seem to be not very knowledgeable! I'm not sure I understand how punishing riders for a rotational fall is fair. I mean, if it was blatant rider error that seems to be a normal occurance with the rider, perhaps they just should consider moving down to a lower level until they are able to avoid these situations. However, I'm going to assume that even the top riders such as Karen O'Connor, Phillip Dutton, etc make rider errors every now and then. Is it fair to suspend them for not being absolutely perfect when they normally don't make these mistakes on a daily basis? That being said, as I stated before, I don't know that much about eventing or what has been done in recent years to increase the safety in the courses or anything like that. It seems to me that it would be more beneficial to make the jumps safer and only go after those riders who are clearly not ready to ride at the level that they are at. I know this last point probably isn't feasible because whose to say who is qualified and who isn't, but it's just a thought. Thanks for listening to my ramble; I feel that even though this is an eventing accident it affects each and every discipline because after all, we are all fundamentally horse lovers to the core and wish to make kind of competition as safe as possible.

I also wanted to add that after reading this topic, it made me think about this: what if some riders feel that they would rather keep competing than risk suspension? So they compete and potentially have a rotational fall (hopefully not of course!) but the accident still happens. They are suspended, but is this going to deter them from competing ever again? i've never had a rotational fall thank goodness, but it seems that even people who have still get back on continue to ride. So how are these proposals going to stop the falls from happening? I would like to find a way to make the jumps safer and I know that they are implementing different pins and such, but I would personally target my efforts towards making the jumps safer.

[IFG]

I agree completely with eventrider and Threeday33. It's clear there is a problem and there need to be changes. But many of the proposals that David suggests are poorly targeted.

I completely agree. We can draw an example from medicine. In recent years, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has gained acceptance in the medical community. You can read a description here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/9/1192

Basically, the tenet of EBM is that changes in medical care and health policy should be based on research.

I agree that we are all desperate to address the recent issues in eventing, but I think that we need to base our interventions on research and evidence.

There have been studies (already cited on mutiple threads) that have analyzed those factors associated with an increased risk of horse and rider falls. There is also, presumably, data in the USEF and USEA databases available for data analysis. Basing policy change on published research studies and on results from data analyses is more defensible and probably more effective than basing policies on anecdote and opinion.

[Gry2Yng]

I agree! The real problems need to be addressed. I am OK with a mandatory "rest" period for the horse and possibly rider for bad falls of any kind, but in this sport FALLS WILL HAPPEN! I am in no way sweeping things under the rug, but the problems need to be addressed before under prepared pairs make it to the ring, NOT AFTER a fall has occured

Johanna

Proposal is shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped.

No sane person would go out on course believing it is likely they will have a rotational fall. We all know we CAN fall. We go out on course thinking the odds are in our favor that we won't.

My personal opinion is that we have to address three issues 1) speed and 2) respect for the fences, 3) respect for the time it takes to learn to do this sport well/safely.

As times have changed fences have gotten more forgiving. They are fewer vertical faces, more solidly built obstacles, more/better ground lines, better footing and many wide oxers and corners are now constructed so you can bank them, instead of leave a hind leg trapped. So in effect, you can feel safer going for time.

I rode the CCI** at Bromont in 2003. First half of the course was very 80's. Let me tell you, it backed off both me and my horse. I went to my stick 4 times in the first 10 fences - in the previous 3 years of riding that horse I hadn't used a stick 4 times total. Second half of the course was built and rode completely differently - like a modern course.

It is my opinion that making the fences fall down will not solve our problem. Then every Tom, Dick and Harry will think it is a good idea to go out eventing at Advanced. After all, the fences fall down. And every rider that already goes too fast, doesn't set up properly and can't keep their leg on when a bad distance shows up will be saved by fence construction instead of learning to ride.

We have to take away the incentive for the younger/greener pairs to ride for time. I don't know if they do it for points, to get the eyes of the selectors or because they feel invincible and it is fun. It has to stop.

I have lost count of the number of times that a 23 year old on a nice young horse rides an intermediate or advanced course faster than John Williams or Bobby Costello and wins the division because he/she is the only one without time faults - scaring the pants off everyone in the process.

You should not make time at your first prelim or your first 4*. Current rules provide no incentive to do otherwise, however. If you want to go to Hong Kong you'd better make the time. Forget that the Olympics is hardly a 4*. Our system encourages ambitious young riders to go faster than they should.

[RunForIt]

No sane person would go out on course believing it is likely they will have a rotational fall. We all know we CAN fall. We go out on course thinking the odds are in our favor that we won't.



So, since rotational falls have been happening, are we to infer that ULRs are not sane? I think your last sentence carries the most weight, I'd just revise it in the sense that the riders who ride those courses either don't think, or don't think it could happen to them. Its one of the two. Sadly though, both involve the welfare of a very trusting horse.

[adamsmom]

I had a rotational fall with Harley in a clinic a couple of years ago. It was competely rider error. Both my horse and I were/are fine, thank goodness. I had never done that before and I will do my best to never do that again. Once a rider has experienced this, my guess is they all feel the way I do. If the horse and rider are okay, they replay it over and over and over again, trying to figure out what went wrong. They think about what could have happened and thank their lucky stars that they got let off easy. They do not blow it off and ride recklessly after a fall. If anything, they ride smarter and safer. They completely understand the consequences, and the possibility of a suspension, even if it is for life, is at the bottom of that list.

That's the difference between you and some riders Chrissy.
Too often some riders do not analyze what went wrong, or go the opposite way and blame the horse, the course designer, the footing, etc. - anything but take responsibility themselves.
THAT, IMHO, is the problem. You, and riders like you who exercise sound judgment and decision-making, are our only hope. And instructors who also teach rider responsibility as a fundamental.

[Gry2Yng]

So, since rotational falls have been happening, are we to infer that ULRs are not sane? I think your last sentence carries the most weight, I'd just revise it in the sense that the riders who ride those courses either don't think, or don't think it could happen to them. Its one of the two. Sadly though, both involve the welfare of avery trusting horse.

No, the implication is that they don't believe it can happen to them, not that they are insane. Therefore, they would not be deterred by the penalty because they do not believe the penalty would apply to them. If they aren't afraid of being mamed or killing their horse, they aren't going to be worried about a penalty. Once they are proven wrong, it is too late.

[crittertwitter]

It is my opinion that making the fences fall down will not solve our problem. Then every Tom, Dick and Harry will think it is a good idea to go out eventing at Advanced. After all, the fences fall down. And every rider that already goes too fast, doesn't set up properly and can't keep their leg on when a bad distance shows up will be saved by fence construction instead of learning to ride.


Ya know, this is what I am hearing here... Buried deep within the opposition to design change is elitism and arrogance. Also oozing throughout the dialogue in the past few months is this idea that if you make a mistake, you deserve what you got. And, finally, I keep hearing that eventing would be something less if cross country fences were safer... that people would no longer respect the levels.

But, really, so what if you have some not so great riders going Advanced? They'll get big, broad Es. This is, after all, a Competition; and I think losing is enough of a consequence.

As far as being saved by fence construction, I've said it once already today, but it's appropriate again: what is wrong with making the fences more forgiving and less dangerous? Who really looks at a safer course and says, "Heh! Well, this isn't for me... I just don't get the same rush now that the fences are safer. I might as well go Advanced."

The qualification standards were designed so you didn't have every Toma and Harriett moving up before they were ready. Tightening up the standards would be ok, as would suspensions. In the meantime, though, people will still make mistakes. Most of the time those mistakes go by without consequence (it has happened to you), but when they don't, there should be a cushion in place to prevent the worst case scenario as well as we can. Complacency doesn't do it.

Improving our riding is a fine idea, but if we wait until we're all Perfect, there won't be any events.

[Bensmom]

I have to agree that the proposals don't adequately address the problem, though they do function to make the public believe something is being done.

I am impressed with Reed's suggestion. So much so that I am, if I can work it out to be gone, planning to drive back to Lexington to be at the meeting. (10.5 hours in the car two days ago was so much fun, I can't wait to do it again! ;) :lol: :lol: )

But, if I want to have an opinion about how the sport is changed, I think I ought to be willing to be part of the solution.

So, anyone else coming to Ky in June? Shall we seek a group rate at one of the hotels?

Libby

[RunForIt]

I have to agree that the proposals don't adequately address the problem, though they do function to make the public believe something is being done.

I am impressed with Reed's suggestion. So much so that I am, if I can work it out to be gone, planning to drive back to Lexington to be at the meeting. (10.5 hours in the car two days ago was so much fun, I can't wait to do it again! ;) :lol: :lol: )

But, if I want to have an opinion about how the sport is changed, I think I ought to be willing to be part of the solution.

So, anyone else coming to Ky in June? Shall we seek a group rate at one of the hotels?

Libby

with the price of gas, I'll probably be camping...but will be there.

[sfir]

as I understand it, under this new rule change, if Phillip Dutton has a rotational fall on a CCI** horse at Jersey next month he would not be allowed to take Connaught (the Rolex winner) to the Olympics.
I do think some of these rule changes would more adversely affect our top riders that ride multiple horses well at multiple levels more so than riders who are struggling with one horse at a level they should not be riding at.
Under this rule David O'Connor himself would not have been allowed to ride Outlawed at the Foxhall CCI*** - which he won on that horse after a fall in a horse trial prior to that event.
Ruthie

[Mac123]

Forgive my ignorance, but I have an honest question:

What is suspension supposed to accomplish in preventing rotational falls? While I'm sure that pilot error or unsafe riding practices contribute to some falls, it seems to me that if the fences were designed differently (ie. safer) rotational falls would not occur at all.

As an outsider looking in (jumper rider, here), different fence construction means the difference between walking away from a non-rotational fall because the fence is designed properly and never walking again because of hitting a solid fence.

While I can see how suspensions may cause people to ride smarter, consdering the injury/death rates, I seriously doubt that anyone intentionally flips their horse over a solid table. So why punish the rider with a suspension? Is it really the rider's fault 100% if the time that the horse gets hung up? It's not as if this is an intentional effort. (or maybe it is, I dont know).

I can see suspension if a committee reviewed the case and determined that the fall was truly the riders fault, but how does a suspension fix this problem? There will still be freak accidents that will be horrific until something about the fence itself changes.

Help me understand, I'm honestly just not connecting the dots.

[RAyers]

as I understand it, under this new rule change, if Phillip Dutton has a rotational fall on a CCI** horse at Jersey next month he would not be allowed to take Connaught (the Rolex winner) to the Olympics.
I do think some of these rule changes would more adversely affect our top riders that ride multiple horses well at multiple levels more so than riders who are struggling with one horse at a level they should not be riding at.
Under this rule David O'Connor himself would not have been allowed to ride Outlawed at the Foxhall CCI*** - which he won on that horse after a fall in a horse trial prior to that event.
Ruthie


Tough. Equal application of the rules to all riders regardless of stature. The moment exceptions are made, the rules become moot and pointless.

Reed

[staceyk]

Hi,

Penalizing rotational falls is like penalizing those involved in a car wreck as a means of preventing future car wrecks. It may help some, but it's too late. If we want to avoid wrecks, we need to identify the "bad driving habits". In eventing this would mean a mandatory "rest period" if you or your displays the traits that studies show predict a fall.

And to take the driving analogy further. If the problem is *really* that the roads are dangerous/not well designed, let's fix that first of all.

[RAyers]

It is my opinion that making the fences fall down will not solve our problem. Then every Tom, Dick and Harry will think it is a good idea to go out eventing at Advanced. After all, the fences fall down. And every rider that already goes too fast, doesn't set up properly and can't keep their leg on when a bad distance shows up will be saved by fence construction instead of learning to ride.

I hope you realize that we can design/make monster tables that would require the entire weight of a horse to collapse. So, if Harry decided to be unsafe, and slammed the table, they would be in big trouble. The exception would be the horse and rider may just walk away without being killed.

Using the fact that fences don't come down is another cop out. You have airbags and seat belts in your car. Does that make you drive faster or drive into a wall? The same can be said about our own vests and helmets.

No, solid fences must be kept is a red herring.

Reed

[CookiePony]

It's only 3.5 hours in the car for me... I am hoping to go.

[RAyers]

Hi,

I am pretty sure I read on this board that the best predictor of rotational falls, or serious injury(don't recall which), is having lots of refusals. Penalizing rotational falls is like penalizing those involved in a bad car wreck as a means of preventing future car wrecks. If we want to avoid wrecks, we need to identify the bad driving habits like speeding, cellphone use, etc. If you have poor control of your horse, if you have refusals, if you fall off, those are good, clear indications that something is wrong. Why not penalize those instead?

Thanks for listening, and if I'm totally off, enlighten me!

WRONG!

The most recent study in the UK showed that the LESS refusals, the more likely the fall.

This is why data MUST be collected. False ideas like is presented above have to be cut off.

Reed

[sfir]

this seems to be a knee jerk reaction that will not improve the safety of the sport.
Nearly all of our very top riders have been involved in a rotational fall at some point in their career and it is not always due to bad riding or ill prepared horses.
Why not have licensed officials (TD's Dressage judges etc) have some sort of course in evaluating xc riding and requiring atleast 2 of them to be out on XC during the event to pull riders that are riding badly BEFORE accidents happen? It seems to me the point should be to try and PREVENT rotational falls not to retroactively punish horses or riders that are involved in one that may well be a fluke and NOT due to bad riding.
Ruthie

[CoolMeadows]

29 April 2008

If a horse has a rotational fall, horse and rider are suspended from competing for three or six months
If a horse has a rotational fall, horse and rider lose their qualification at the level at which they are competing.
If a rider falls off on the course they are eliminated.
Open oxers on courses at every level are made frangible.
If a horse falls related to a jump both horse and rider are suspended from competing for one month.We don't have all the answers, we are deeply concerned about what is going on in the sport of eventing and we need your help.

Sincerely,

David O'Connor, USEF President
Kevin Baumgardner, USEA President

I'm so glad to see #3. In the recent case of Corinne, brave soul as she obviously is, she WAS riding compromised. Over a huge track. I know the "kick on" mentality runs high in a good event rider but truly, this type of situation - a rider continuing the course with a significant injury is a fatality (horse and/or rider) waiting to happen.

I have really mixed emotions towards the new rotational fall rules as they lay the entire blame of the accident squarely at the feet of the rider. I'm not skirting rider responsibility but surely there are sometimes other factors at play. The only mention towards jump design is the requirement that open oxers must be frangible. What about tables and vertical face issues? What if a course designer decides he wants to plop in a drop, three short strides to a bounce to a broken 4 3/4 out over a maxed out table? (OK, OK that's a wee bit overboard but still... what responsibilities do the designers/organizers hold and what are their penalties for failing the riders and horses?) The UK now requires that a jump be removed from the course if a horse falls at it. I'm just seeing a bit of a one sided stance from these rules as they stand. I agree whole heartedly with the sentences, but I feel that more rules addressing the actual prevention of rotational falls need to be put in place along with these two.

[leftofcenter2]

I right this in all of the humbleness i have inside of me..... as I only even became aware of this sport two years ago, but i have quickly fallen in love with it. I actually haven't even competed in an official USEA recognized event. BUT... the one thing i have had is unbelievable instruction.. not just in riding.. but in horsemanship... and really what this whole sport is about... the Horse. Again i'm somewhat of an outsider to eventing. As i read these boards there is one thing that i've noticed is that maybe one thing that has been forgotten is the horse. While i believe that anyone who gets on a horse and competes in this sport OBVIOUSLY cares about horse.... but as this sport has gotten bigger it seems that money and getting to the top have secretly snuck into the sport. Well it seems that way from someone who hears stories of what it used to be. I hear these stories about it always being about a series of questions.. an adventure.... a journey for you and your horse that you were going to conquer and conquer it well. Not so much about moving up the ranks.

So ultimately i don't point any fingers at ALL! My heart... as a newbie to the sport... that one day wants to be at rolex.... is for us to remember the animals that we sit on.. that were a team... that ultimately it's about doing what you do well at whatever level your at. I want to be the best damn begginer novice rider i can be..... and i want to understand my teammate as much as i can. I know i'm no expert.... but lets forget about getting up the levels but doing well and understand our equine partners... there the reason we have this UNBELIEVABLE sport.

[DizzyMagic]

Proposal is shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped.

Good analogy - I much agree!

But I don't agree that riders going too fast is the key issue in rotational falls. Slowing down and riding carefully will NOT prevent such falls. The only fall of this kind that I've ever seen in person was the result of a rider coming very slow and collected to an absolutely vertical fence, and burying him at the base of the fence so that when the horse picked his knees up to jump, they both caught the fence right on the forearm under his shoulder, and horse and rider began that slow and awful sommersault. In the case of verticals (not oxers), these falls seem to happen when the horse tries to jump from a spot that is too close to the base of the fence. It's a case of a missed distance, a misjudged takeoff, and a fence that is upright enough to catch the horse high on his forearms and unyielding enough to convert the horse's momentum into a flip.

This particular fall, which occurred at an intermediate horse trial at Morven Park many years ago, was the scariest one I've ever seen - and even though both horse and rider ultimately walked away, even tough I love this sport so very much, this fall left me feeling sick to my stomach and it took the shine off my enjoyment of it for a long time afterward. The horse landed so close to the rider, the bulk of his body right beside the young man's chest. The horse took some of his impact on his neck, which twisted at an awful angle, and he struggled to rise for a time and had a hard time keeping to his feet, staggering for balance for what seemed like an impossibly long time. The rider was seen by EMTs at the scene but he was unhurt; the horse was attended by vets and trailered off the course, though I saw him being examined later and he looked really good. I later heard that there was no lasting damage. Happy ending.

I understand why these are the falls that kill - the full weight of the horse plus the momentum of the crash itself often comes down right on the rider's vital organs. To this day, whenever I see that rider (who was a young student of David O'Connor's), I can't keep the image of that fall from coming into my mind, and I can't shake the feeling that he came within a whisker of being crushed to death in front of me.

Of all the crashes I've seen, and I've seen a few really bad ones, the one I described above where neither horse nor rider were seriously injured is the one that has haunted my mind the most. There was an awful psychological power in seeing that particular type of fall from about 20 feet away. I wonder if I'd been at Rolex this weekend and seen Laine and Frodo fall whether I'd be joining those spectators who witnessed it and are saying they won't be back to eventing.

[Adamantane]

This thread and the process participants are using to thrash proposals around is enormously impressive.

Had never before seen a mathematical treatment of how the effectiveness of punishment in deterring behaviors changes under different circumstances. Neat. Wish I had thought of that. Jess, is that standard treatment in some social academic discipline, say, sociology, or did you just create it yourself?

Also appreciate the awareness of unintended consequences, breakdown of what is involved in accident and what might be done about each (horse, rider, fence/course), and possibly objective markers that could be more predictive and allow possibly even better strategies that nobody's even come up with yet.

I've been lucky enough to be on rare teams where everyone was so interested in coming up with the best possible outcomes that they put aside whatever personal vesting they had in their own proposals and just worked to their shared goal. Never expected to see this on a COTH thread, but then by far this isn't a typical thread.

Can't wait to see what you all devise.

My only thought from the outside looking in is that as I understand it, especially at lower levels those most prone to careless or heedless actions may be among the last to recognize this in themselves. That suggests any strategy relying on the rider to rationally self-calculate how much perceived net risk is too much, is likely in some situations to be the least effective with the very people it is most intended to deter.

[DizzyMagic]

I'm so glad to see #3. In the recent case of Corinne, brave soul as she obviously is, she WAS riding compromised. Over a huge track. I know the "kick on" mentality runs high in a good event rider but truly, this type of situation - a rider continuing the course with a significant injury is a fatality (horse and/or rider) waiting to happen.

I have really mixed emotions towards the new rotational fall rules as they lay the entire blame of the accident squarely at the feet of the rider. I'm not skirting rider responsibility but surely there are sometimes other factors at play. The only mention towards jump design is the requirement that open oxers must be frangible. What about tables and vertical face issues? What if a course designer decides he wants to plop in a drop, three short strides to a bounce to a broken 4 3/4 out over a maxed out table? (OK, OK that's a wee bit overboard but still... what responsibilities do the designers/organizers hold and what are their penalties for failing the riders and horses?) The UK now requires that a jump be removed from the course if a horse falls at it. I'm just seeing a bit of a one sided stance from these rules as they stand. I agree whole heartedly with the sentences, but I feel that more rules addressing the actual prevention of rotational falls need to be put in place along with these two.


I really agree with what you say here. It just seems off that the response to the recent accidents is to propose those first 2 rules, which, if they had existed during the past year wouldn't have prevented any accidents. A rotational fall is so likely to result in a critical injury that it seems like the focus MUST be on preventing it. I surely would like it better if Frodo were alive to regain his qualification... and I'm not sure those rules would have much impact on the next 3 to 6 months of Laine's life, when she's just lucky to be alive.

I also really like the idea of removing a jump from a course when a horse has fallen at it - I didn't realize the UK had done that. That would definitely save lives and prevent injuries - I've hoped for a rule like this for a long time, since two horses died at the same fence at a Bromont 2* many years ago.

[belambi]

Interestingly enough Its worth remembering that the Olympics are barely/if at all 4*.
The timing of this.. along with the attempts to globalise all equestrian sports may well backfire. There will be some very interesting rides at HK that we will all suggest should not be there.. but they somehow make it through the qualification system.

I think that watching this video here of the course walk for this weeks Badminto points out that current thought is to make the 'easy routes' VERY VERY time consuming.. I am in two minds about this.. and certainly not sure if its such a good idea.

http://www.badminton-horse.co.uk/latest_news/video_previews/course_preview.aspx

[denny]

I think we can respect these proposals for what they are, just a few ideas to get riders to slow down and think before driving a tired or wavering horse to continue.
It`s an interesting thought that the idea of a mandatory 3-6 month suspension carries more weight than fear of death, but I actually believe it may be so.
Gen. Sidney Shachnow, my neighbor in So. Pines, was commander of all Special Forces in the US, so he knows a thing or two about risk.
Sid told me that whereas the late teen-mid 20s kids were fitter and braver (in the crazy sense), Special Ops soldiers tend to be in their 30s. I believe it was Sid who told me that there is an actual part of the human brain, the part that correlates action with consequence, that doesn`t actually develop until somewhere in our 20s, so kids that age make sometimes dumb choices. Someone on this board will know about that.
Anyway, David and Kevin are looking for a quick, temporary fix, and good for them to make a start.
As they both acknowledge, the real work is yet to come.

[Threeday33]

Good point, Ruthie. I think the obvious questions here is How many riders have had a rotational fall within 3 or even 6 months after a rotational fall (on any horse)? I don't know the answer to this question, but it seems that if we are trying to prevent rotational falls, this question can help us decide if these ideas will help. My guess is that a rider does not often have 2 close together. Jess, I totally remember our conversations after my fall. One of the things that you told me when I was debating whether or not to ride with Lucinda a couple of weeks later is that the odds were extremely high that I would not make that mistake again. I am surprised that riders would blame the horse, footing, fence, etc. for their mistakes, when the easy solution is to learn how to ride properly and maybe even move down a level. Someone please tell me a negative to increasing the qualifications for horse and rider at all levels. I think some many falls can actually be prevented if we keep horses and riders at appropriate levels.

[Threeday33]

I agree that this is a start and commend them for trying to get something done now. It is very hard for me to believe that the suspension carries more weight than the other risks associated with a rotational fall. I guess that is exactly what I am struggling with. Maybe it will help...I'm sure they will be looking into other possible changes as well. I will unfortunately not be able to attend the meeting. I will send a letter and hopefully send my husband and/or father (who lives in Lexington) to the meeting!

[denny]

How many of you who ride would feel pretty darn comfortable and safe if you went to your next event and rode one or two levels BELOW the level you entered?
On the other hand, how comfortable and safe would you feel if you had to ride at the level ABOVE that which you entered?
Think about that.
Now, why isn`t riding at the level of your and your horse`s skill level about the most critical decision you can make?
Isn`t that the "elephant in the room" question?
I would guess ----only a guess----that most serious falls happen to horses and riders who are being challenged by the level, not to those totally competent and at ease at the level.
Yes, accidents can still happen to Philip Dutton riding Connaught at novice, but not very likely.

[riderboy]

This seems to be eventings 9/11. I'm very encouraged by this outpouring of concern and the passion we all seem to feel for making this sport the best it can be.

[annikak]

I applaud them for making the effort-
but I tend to agree that they have missed the target- as we are not totally sure what the target IS..and I think there is a plural of IS there someplace.

I agree with JAGold- I do not see where the connection is between the mandates (except with #4- the Open Oxer- A classic place where frangible pins can and should be used IMO)

I cannot think of once accident that has stirred this pot of controversy that any one of the above (again except 4) would have prevented.

Someone mentioned the owners - present company excepted- maybe there is more of a push to recognize them now then before. I think even on this BB there was a push several years ago to bring attention to the owners. Perhaps in one case that may have been an issue.

But for the others, riders and horses, maybe not always in combination, have been experienced at that level.

As far as any of the riders this past weekend, or at Redhills, any one of them, I am POSITIVE would turn back the clock if they could- esp. if they had the information that X + Y = Z or could = Z. I have only total respect for the riders that have had issues- part of the problem as I see it...really, every one of them has been an outstanding rider.

The issue is something else. I will use my pollyanna abilities to look forward that think that we will find out what it is and fix it. This is an outstanding sport, with outstanding people, and I am certainly proud to be an eventer.

[denny]

Just to add---The Peter Principal postulates that you will be promoted to the level of your incompetence, right?
So if I`m pretty competent at, say, training level, and I move up to preliminary, and feel overfaced, but stay at preliminary, out of some sense of ego, or whatever, am I not the Peter Principal in action?
And am I not, therefore, at considerably increased risk of injury?
So how do we protect people from themselves? Or, perhaps, how do we protect people`s horses from their riders?
QUALIFICATION-----That`s such a key to this mess.

[LISailing]

Kudos to David and Kevin for thier re-action. As they stated this is a start and now let's become activists, not re-activists. Rules have change in the past and they will change in the future. If it works, we'll see the results. If it doesn't, we can still change it. All I know is that we need a starting point, and though I may not totally agree with some of the changes, I am will to accept them to see if they can make a difference.

[breakthru]

I would be interested to know if there is any way to determine whether or not any of the horse/rider combinations that experienced rotational falls recently have ever competed in a long format? Of course we need to look into frangible pins, possibly slower speeds, possibly different course design, possibly different consequences, methods for qualifications, etc.... but I also wonder if more of these horse/rider combinations had more experience finding a spot to a fence at a gallop, in rhythm, if it wouldn't help prevent this.

Alot of the sticky, scary fences I saw at Rolex (not to mention all the scary rides at any lower level horse trial) seemed that way because the pair had no rhythm, couldn't rate their horses within a steady, balanced canter/gallop.

[Tackpud]

After reading this letter last evening I did write to the e-mail address supplied with the following:

I read on the Chronicle of the Horse forums an open letter from David O'Connor and Kevin Baumgardner about the issues that have arisen concerning safety in Eventing. Thank you for putting this letter out to the public and showing them your concern for the state of the sport.
I do, however, question a couple of the five initiatives that you are proposing for the following reasons:

1) If a horse has a rotational fall, what training will the horse and rider receive during their suspended period? I would ask that you look into what went into the fall and how that rider can become more educated to avoid that situation in the future. Just sitting out for 3 or 6 months doesn't really teach anything. I understand it would give them time to better prepare for the future, but without education, what are they preparing?

2) Why should both the horse and the rider lose their qualification at the level at which they are competing? Perhaps it is a horse competing for the first time at that level with an experienced rider and the horse makes an error - why should an experienced rider lose their qualification? Or the opposite - what about an advanced horse that is being ridden by a Young Rider for the first time? Shouldn't the horse be allowed to compete with another rider to regain it's confidence?

3) What is the difference in suspending a horse and rider for a rotational fall compared to any fall? And why would the time span be different? I certainly understand that rotational falls have more severe consequences, but a fall is a fall and that shows a lack of education in some aspect of the horse and rider's training. Again, what training would they receive in the suspension period that would hopefully prevent another fall in the future?

While I am not an event rider, I have competed in the high levels of jumpers in the past. I have also tried to stay current in all aspects of horsemanship - and all disciplines. Therefore, I am not going to say that I have answers anymore than people who are competing at the high levels of combined training, but I do understand horses and the need for a horse to understand what it is being asked to do. I think the whole issue of safety revolves around one question - does the horse understand what we are asking it to do?

Is the course built from a horse's point of view - can a horse cantering up to a jump on a cross country course look at it and figure out the question being asked at that obstacle? Has the horse already been asked too many questions that day? Do the cross country courses of today ask a horse to think beyond it's capabilities? Would a horse in nature really jump some of the things we are asking it to do? NO - so why are we building these questions? If cross country is about jumping at speed, why are parts of courses so technical that the forward impulsion of the horse is almost being stopped at many different places on the course to ask the horse to jump obstacles whose placement on the course demands gymnastic ability? Some of the combinations I have seen on cross country courses are harder or contain trickier spacing than a Grand Prix Jumper course. Is that really cross country?

Thank you for reading my thoughts. My prayers are with those who have been hurt or lost their horses.

Haven't received a reply, but I'm sure they have been swamped.

[imapepper]

After reading this letter last evening I did write to the e-mail address supplied with the following:


Is the course built from a horse's point of view - can a horse cantering up to a jump on a cross country course look at it and figure out the question being asked at that obstacle? Has the horse already been asked too many questions that day? Do the cross country courses of today ask a horse to think beyond it's capabilities? Would a horse in nature really jump some of the things we are asking it to do? NO - so why are we building these questions? If cross country is about jumping at speed, why are parts of courses so technical that the forward impulsion of the horse is almost being stopped at many different places on the course to ask the horse to jump obstacles whose placement on the course demands gymnastic ability? Some of the combinations I have seen on cross country courses are harder or contain trickier spacing than a Grand Prix Jumper course. Is that really cross country?

Thank you for reading my thoughts. My prayers are with those who have been hurt or lost their horses.

Haven't received a reply, but I'm sure they have been swamped.
[/SIZE]

I was trying to say this on another thread. Thank you for putting it so much better than I could.

[SLR]

Not to hijack the thread, but Denny as the mother of a YR and one of the not so concious 18-25 year old male types. How do they get experience at the level without riding it? He is very comfortable at Prelim. 3 CCI* under the belt. One CIC**. I'm not so, with all the accidents at Intermediate and above. Takes instruction 2 x a week during competition season. Rides regularly with former Olympic (Sydney & Athens) eventer. What's a young rider to do? They have to get the experience somewhere. And believe me he takes more lessons/clinics than competitions. Not chasing points in other words.

[Gry2Yng]

Ya know, this is what I am hearing here... Buried deep within the opposition to design change is elitism and arrogance. Also oozing throughout the dialogue in the past few months is this idea that if you make a mistake, you deserve what you got. And, finally, I keep hearing that eventing would be something less if cross country fences were safer... that people would no longer respect the levels.

But, really, so what if you have some not so great riders going Advanced? They'll get big, broad Es. This is, after all, a Competition; and I think losing is enough of a consequence.

As far as being saved by fence construction, I've said it once already today, but it's appropriate again: what is wrong with making the fences more forgiving and less dangerous? Who really looks at a safer course and says, "Heh! Well, this isn't for me... I just don't get the same rush now that the fences are safer. I might as well go Advanced."

The qualification standards were designed so you didn't have every Toma and Harriett moving up before they were ready. Tightening up the standards would be ok, as would suspensions. In the meantime, though, people will still make mistakes. Most of the time those mistakes go by without consequence (it has happened to you), but when they don't, there should be a cushion in place to prevent the worst case scenario as well as we can. Complacency doesn't do it.

Improving our riding is a fine idea, but if we wait until we're all Perfect, there won't be any events.

First, I am not saying that changes to fence design would not be a good thing, I am saying it will not solve the problem. So many have thrown out the idea that a collapsable fence will make the problem go away. I think this is a multi-dimensional problem. If we go rushing off to make collapsable fences there will be unintended consequences. We have to get our arms around the problem.

Second, there is NOTHING elitist or arrogant in my statement. I LOVE this sport. I wish everyone would participate, but there are already plenty of riders who take their life into their hands every weekend who do not have the ability/training to do what they are doing. We need to stop encouraging the Peter Principle as Denny mentions. If you do not have respect for the sport you should not be doing it. Not because I want to keep people out, but because people and horses need to be safe.

I also don't think if you make a mistake you deserve what you get. We all make mistakes. A well trained combination making a mistake is different than some one who feels immortal racing around a course. Yes, collapsable fences may save the well trained rider from injury. I am all for that. But we have many issues to address.

[JAGold]

Had never before seen a mathematical treatment of how the effectiveness of punishment in deterring behaviors changes under different circumstances. Neat. Wish I had thought of that. Jess, is that standard treatment in some social academic discipline, say, sociology, or did you just create it yourself?

Adamantane, it's a standard "expected value" approach from economics. It's used to analyze decision making in many, many different situations, such as whether a person decides to take a job, get married, or commit a crime. (I'm a PhD student in economics, so that sort of treatment plus a lot of statistical analysis is my bread-and-butter!) --Jess

[MaryKay]

Good analogy - I much agree!

But I don't agree that riders going too fast is the key issue in rotational falls. Slowing down and riding carefully will NOT prevent such falls. The only fall of this kind that I've ever seen in person was the result of a rider coming very slow and collected to an absolutely vertical fence, and burying him at the base of the fence so that when the horse picked his knees up to jump, they both caught the fence right on the forearm under his shoulder, and horse and rider began that slow and awful sommersault. In the case of verticals (not oxers), these falls seem to happen when the horse tries to jump from a spot that is too close to the base of the fence. It's a case of a missed distance, a misjudged takeoff, and a fence that is upright enough to catch the horse high on his forearms and unyielding enough to convert the horse's momentum into a flip.

This particular fall, which occurred at an intermediate horse trial at Morven Park many years ago, was the scariest one I've ever seen - and even though both horse and rider ultimately walked away, even tough I love this sport so very much, this fall left me feeling sick to my stomach and it took the shine off my enjoyment of it for a long time afterward. The horse landed so close to the rider, the bulk of his body right beside the young man's chest. The horse took some of his impact on his neck, which twisted at an awful angle, and he struggled to rise for a time and had a hard time keeping to his feet, staggering for balance for what seemed like an impossibly long time. The rider was seen by EMTs at the scene but he was unhurt; the horse was attended by vets and trailered off the course, though I saw him being examined later and he looked really good. I later heard that there was no lasting damage. Happy ending.

I understand why these are the falls that kill - the full weight of the horse plus the momentum of the crash itself often comes down right on the rider's vital organs. To this day, whenever I see that rider (who was a young student of David O'Connor's), I can't keep the image of that fall from coming into my mind, and I can't shake the feeling that he came within a whisker of being crushed to death in front of me.

Of all the crashes I've seen, and I've seen a few really bad ones, the one I described above where neither horse nor rider were seriously injured is the one that has haunted my mind the most. There was an awful psychological power in seeing that particular type of fall from about 20 feet away. I wonder if I'd been at Rolex this weekend and seen Laine and Frodo fall whether I'd be joining those spectators who witnessed it and are saying they won't be back to eventing.

Amen. I was at the Rolex and at that fence when Laine and Frodo came through. And it has haunted me since. I too am not sure I will be back-it was horrific. On Sunday, I found myself holding my breath at the stadium jumping-I couldn't really relax even though I told myself the rails would drop. I just don't know if I can truly enjoy cross country-without have anxiety about the riders/horses getting around the course safely and not witnessing another catastrophic accident.

Regardless of speed, appropriate riding skills, those jumps have to be forgiving. There will always be "reckless" riders but we have to allow for errors-even the best riders are only human after all. It is insane that a misjudgment will more than likely cause a horrific accident. With today's technology, it is reprehensible to me, that those jumps don't move. We have to give rider and horse a chance when something goes wrong. I would like to go out on the cross country course knowing everything has been done to make it as safe as possible and if there is a horrific accident-that is the exception, not the norm. The proposals are "reactive" not "proactive". As others have said riders don't go on the course anticipating a rotational fall and if it occurs, what good is a suspension when the rider is in the hospital and the horse is deceased? And as DizzyMagic describes not only does the rider live with the consequences (if they survive) but the spectators live with the memory of having witnessed it and sadly some of those were kids.

[sm]

I do appreciate the sincerity of the OP, so I don't mean this to be argumentitive: But why are we assuming there needs to be more rotational falls in the future? Demand the course designers IMMEDIATELY ELIMINATE BUILDING them. Yes, there can -- and there will be -- additional deaths on course, but stop intentionally setting up death traps like rotational falls. Take some much needed lessons from SJ!!!

This is is a problem that requires several solutions, RAyers recommendation earlier regarding task committees, spanding all areas, is a great idea:



As I stated, given that safety is a process and not an end, I
believe that NO subject is outside consideration. We must examine
everything from XC course design to rider instruction, to fence
materials, to ground jury responsibilities.

To accomplish these tasks I propose groups of people lead by an
oversight committee of 6-8 people with specific expertise. Each
member of the committee will have a task and area to work wherein
they can create a team to enable them to accomplish established
goals. The overall number of people on the task force is variable
based on need but the core committee will remain. I also believe at
least ONE person on the oversight committee should be a
NON-eventing person from the public. They will have equal say in
all matters. All issues will be considered with recommendations
passed onto the FEI, USEF, USEA governing bodies. At the same time
this committee should be able to have a sufficient
presence/appropriate representation in the governing bodies to be
able to be effective, e.g. the task force shall have some veto
power on issues related to safety.

The broad areas of consideration and what they would do:

1) Accident Data/Reconstruction (This must be done in order to understand the problems and questions.)

MUST include CD, TD, Organizer, Ground jury after any major
incident (horse death, rider death or severe injury)

2) Course Design and Construction
a) they would examine how course design and fence design affect the accident rate
b) Develop specific engineering capabilities to design fences and materials that reduce severity of impact, rotation, etc.

3) Medical/Veterinary
a) Look at accident data, including horse necropsy, rider medical data (e.g. armband, EMT reports etc.) to see trends in rider or horse fitness
b) Examine other sports where significant risk of injury or death occurs to see if processes or equipment can be adapted to Eventing

4) Rules/Governance
a) Examine how rules/qualifications affect rider/trainer decisions. How rules can be tailored to encourage safety.
b) Incorporation of safety findings into rules
c) This effort should also be split between FEI and USEF and USEA

5) Equipment
a) work with other areas [3, 2, 1] and equipment manufacturers to develop new devices and equipment capabilities specific to Eventing

6) Instruction/training
a) Collect and compile data from the ICP program. Track accident rates to ICP qualifications and rider qualifications.

7) Safety Fund Raising/Education
a) Establish a Safety Fund that encourages support of safety research, education in Eventing and subsequently all equine disciplines.
b) Develop safety campaign that encourage every rider to be responsible and knowledgable
This is my broad outline. At the same time, we MUST develop collaboration with British Eventing and their research groups.

[VicarageVee]

I think this is a start. And obviously, changes need to be made.

That said, I want to be able to continue after a fall on course, and although I think suspensions are a good idea, as well as a loss of qualifications, I do think that competitors should be allowed to compete through Training if they have a rotational fall/horse fall at Prelim or above. We do need to continue to gain experience, even or especially after a fall.

[Sannois]

First, I am not saying that changes to fence design would not be a good thing, I am saying it will not solve the problem. So many have thrown out the idea that a collapsable fence will make the problem go away. I think this is a multi-dimensional problem. If we go rushing off to make collapsable fences there will be unintended consequences. We have to get our arms around the problem.

Second, there is NOTHING elitist or arrogant in my statement. I LOVE this sport. I wish everyone would participate, but there are already plenty of riders who take their life into their hands every weekend who do not have the ability/training to do what they are doing. We need to stop encouraging the Peter Principle as Denny mentions. If you do not have respect for the sport you should not be doing it. Not because I want to keep people out, but because people and horses need to be safe.

I also don't think if you make a mistake you deserve what you get. We all make mistakes. A well trained combination making a mistake is different than some one who feels immortal racing around a course. Yes, collapsable fences may save the well trained rider from injury. I am all for that. But we have many issues to address.
What I have been unsuccessfully trying to get across in several of my posts on different threads!

[sporthorsefilly]

CHANGE THE FENCES! What is so difficult about making the fences safer for horse and rider, to me this is a no brainer!

I admit, I love the "ideal" of the 3 day test. I also admit I am chicken, I hate solid fences, as I love horses and both horses and riders do make errors, but it shouldn't cost them their lives. I've ridden over solid fences and I've ridden over six foot fences, horses jump what "looks" solid as well as they jump solid fences.

In my 20's I recall seeing Charles Plumb, father of Michael Plumb, in a wheel chair, crippled after a fall, in X country. Seeing anyone crippled from a horse accident had a startling effect on me. I may watch eventing, but I would never think of competing in it NOR send one of my horse out there.

If Eventing is to continue, it needs to be a safer sport for both horse and rider.

I love that idea of a suspension if you have a rotational fall...I assume this means IF you survive and IF your horse survives. Really get a grip, I have yet to see a Puissance Wall that didn't encourage the horse to clear it, but it was forgiving enought to come down if the horse or rider didn't clear it.

It is time to end those solid fences before anyone else ends up in a wheelchair or any other horse has to be euthanized because of a solid fence. Forget the bravado, think of the horse, it is why you ride, because you love horses. This isn't a test of bravery, courage and training it is a test of SURVIVAL. WHY????

[seeuatx]

CHANGE THE FENCES! What is so difficult about making the fences safer for horse and rider, to me this is a no brainer!

I have yet to see a Puissance Wall that didn't encourage the horse to clear it, but it was forgiving enought to come down if the horse or rider didn't clear it.


(I'm not just picking on your words, they were the closest and i did not want to fish through pages and pages ;) ).Now here is a critical point. I agree that there is some modification needed to the fences buuuuuut,

There is a huge difference between the speed/pace/impulsion/self carriage/ etc. that is needed to jump a puissance wall or a SJ type jump, and what is needed when on open varied terrain working at speeds. Just think about the difference in the canters that you need to approach a skinny 3' vertical in the ring, and what is needed to jump a log of the same height.

If you were to interchange the two types of fences, horses would be working in a compacted canter all the time. Now, here is another difference. There is a reason those puissance classes and jumper classes are so short.... horses cannot maintain that canter for long periods of time. It is exhausting. They would not be able to maintain anything close to that type of canter for the entirety of an XC course. And if one of those jumps was to be flat out galloped? Well, that would be a pretty nasty crash.

From listening to everyone that seems to think SJ type jumps are the answer, I assume no one else here has been flipped on over one of these types.... but I have. I had a "rotational fall" after a 2' vertical in a ring several years ago, when the horse didn't quite get his knees up enough ,the pole was kicked out in front of us. The pole got caught up in the horses legs and over we went. Somehow we both walked away with a few scratches and some burn from arena sand.

There is a reason XC poles must be heavy... the more speed = more force, which can knock rails out in front causing more accidents.

Do I believe that there should be some revamping to the fences? Absolutely. I firmly believe that the frangible pin is a great invention... as long as the fences are heavy enough to fall down and not out. But, to hold SJ type jumps up as the be all and end all of safety.... well, it is plain folly.

As for the new rules, I actually like them. Maybe, just maybe it will give people pause. If nothing else, it was a way for the Powers that be to do something *now* (which is what everyone was clamoring for wasn't it?), with out making rash changes before the study results come back.

[JAM]

These posts by Denny and SLR aptly illustrate the conundrum, since they are both valid but conflicting points. We need to make sure people are riding at the appropriate level, but you can't get experience and confidence at a level unless you're actually riding, not just schooling, at that level. This is a very tricky question, and one that probably is individual to each rider and horse/rider combination. For example, I would argue, from some personal experience, that if you stay at a certain level TOO long (even if you're doing very well at that level), the move-up can actually become harder. I would also be very reluctant to deduce from the fact that the two most recent tragedies happened to very young riders that this is exclusively an age/experience issue; as the Darren and Ralph Hill incidents demonstrate, the fates do not seem to discriminate between the young and restless to move up and the unquestionably skilled, experienced, veteran international competitors.

To this I would add what other posters have mentioned on this thread: while it is entirely appropriate to be focusing on rider issues, in order to satisfactorily address the more frequent incidence of catastrophic consequences of rider mishaps and the like, we must simultaneously also be focusing with at least equal intensity on the other issues -- course and fence design, frequency of competition for horses and riders, number of rides per event for riders, effects of a full-year schedule involving travel across the country, short vs. long format, rider and horse fitness in the short format age, etc.

How many of you who ride would feel pretty darn comfortable and safe if you went to your next event and rode one or two levels BELOW the level you entered?
On the other hand, how comfortable and safe would you feel if you had to ride at the level ABOVE that which you entered?
Think about that.
Now, why isn`t riding at the level of your and your horse`s skill level about the most critical decision you can make?
Isn`t that the "elephant in the room" question?
I would guess ----only a guess----that most serious falls happen to horses and riders who are being challenged by the level, not to those totally competent and at ease at the level.
Yes, accidents can still happen to Philip Dutton riding Connaught at novice, but not very likely.


Not to hijack the thread, but Denny as the mother of a YR and one of the not so concious 18-25 year old male types. How do they get experience at the level without riding it? He is very comfortable at Prelim. 3 CCI* under the belt. One CIC**. I'm not so, with all the accidents at Intermediate and above. Takes instruction 2 x a week during competition season. Rides regularly with former Olympic (Sydney & Athens) eventer. What's a young rider to do? They have to get the experience somewhere. And believe me he takes more lessons/clinics than competitions. Not chasing points in other words.

[sm]

From listening to everyone that seems to think SJ type jumps are the answer, I assume no one else here has been flipped on over one of these types.... but I have. I had a "rotational fall" after a 2' vertical in a ring several years ago, when the horse didn't quite get his knees up enough ,the pole was kicked out in front of us. The pole got caught up in the horses legs and over we went. Somehow we both walked away with a few scratches and some burn from arena sand.

You made the point a jump was designed to give, designed so you both can walk away. Getting caught up and flipped over with a pole that is flipping over with you (not immobile) is still a more successful solution then intentionally not allowing any give at all.

There are easy and forgiving "blocks" which make up SJs faux solid brick wall: I'm thinking of the thoughts and the ingenuity behind safety in SJ --- not necesarily using the exact same SJ jumps in XC.

Safety's a many-faceted issue, as RAyers pointed out... The OPs points and not intentionally building for rotational falls are things that can be done right away.

It's time XC designers started thinking if they're not part of the solution then they're part of the problem. STOP puropsely building in rotational falls.

[sporthorsefilly]

Your input makes sense, I rode over "outside courses" in the 60's and 70's, so galloping over uneven terrain, and jumping isn't new to me...though I wasn't going more than say 12 mph. I agree that fences in X country need to be fairly solid...but we don't need horses or people killed. I also agree that should the fence "fly apart" it can be hazardous. The other side of the coin is, if a fence is hit that hard, it is safer to avoid flying debris than to haul away the horse and rider.

Even in English Steeplechasing the fences are forgiving. Falls are often because horses bump each other, land wrong or take off wrong. They are going at speed and often bunched up. I applaud people who train their horses to the supreme test, but make it safe and enjoyable. If not made safer, eventing will begin to be a victim of its own rules. I am sure their are mothers out there right now that are telling their sons and daughters NO to eventing. I know I would, and that is sad. Let is be the ultimate test, not the survival test.

[seeuatx]

I think we are on the same page :yes:. In my mind I was picturing something different than what I think you were pointing at, SM and Sporthorsefilly. I totally agree.

[denny]

One way:
School at home much bigger and trickier than the move up level, but mainly over show jumps.
Example---You want to decide if you should move up from training to preliminary.
I want to know that my horse is more than capable of the size and technicality, so I build up gradually to stadium tracks that are intermediate sized, at least 3`9, up to 4`3 , big spreads, off rollbacks, sometimes, tricky approaches.
If he`s a star, then build those same big jumps on terrain, up and down hills, add ditches, banks, skinnys, corners, bounces.
Basically I want to feel that I`m sitting on a horse who has the scope and the willingness to handle at the very least one level higher than I am aiming for, with individual higher jumps.
Back in 1971, before I did my first advanced 3-day at Dunham, Que., I had a big grey horse named Cat, who was a former barrel racer from Oklahoma. I bought him for $800.00, and had by then brought him to successful intermediate.
I knew he was a good jumper, because I`d done a bunch of jumper shows, but I wanted to find out how good.
So I built a fence in my ring in Strafford, and kept raising it til he cleared 6 feet.
Now, granted, I didn`t need to do that high, but I wanted to be able to say I`d jumped 6 feet (20 something year old male, you get the picture), and after I did that, I figured Cat should be ok at 3`11.
Go build a 5 foot fence if you want to go intermediate, and see what happens! Don`t use the events to practice, do hard stuff at home first.

[wookie]

the highest level i have ridden is training so i am sure some will say,, not qualified to give an opionion. i don't really agree with david o'connor and kevin's suggestions. frankly,, they too me don't really address the problem. i don't have the stats here,, but i have a few questions.
1. does suspending a horse and rider for having a rotational fall really get at the root of why it occurred in the first place? and secondly,, the horses and riders who have been injured or worse in the past fifteen months--how many rotationals did they have prior to that horrible day? any?
2. so now if a horse falls on course,, a stumble or takes a incorrect stride and falls,, that horse can't compete at that level? having volunteered i can tell you that some falls are simply just accidents and you can't prevent them..
you ride, you gallop, and you and your horse may fall. i have seen some horrible falls totally not related to a fence.
3. frangible pins at oxers only now? yes darren was injured at such a fence, but ralph was at a corner, ellen-table, laine- vertical faced flower box, debbie was at a ditch and wall i believe,, and the other lady in ocala- table,
and so on. sorry kevin and david,, but you need to expand your frangible pin idea to tables. those big imposing, vertical faced things.
4. and if your rules to suspend and eliminate for a month etc are imposed though i certainly hope your large lower level rider base gets to vote,, do riders get there money back from the events they may have entered but now can't? sorry, but the rising cost of everything makes me ask this.
what would my suggestions be?
1. frangible pins at more then just an oxer
2. you all discussed speeds,, but then nothing.
3. extreme vertical fences/tables... examine them
4. course walks offered at all levels...volunteered by ulr.
5. require every competing member to jump judge at an event once a year.experience at knowing what you are looking at is important.
this is just a start...
oh and listen to denny,, what a wise man.
6. if you fall off,, your done... i do agree here. look at the fact that laine fell off in a previous rolex and rode with broken neck, and now corrine is hospitalized s/p fall with blood in lungs.. if you fall,, take a breather and thank your lucky stars you still can.

[snoopy]

One way:
School at home much bigger and trickier than the move up level, but mainly over show jumps.


Don`t use the events to practice, do hard stuff at home first.



:):):):):):)!!!!!!

[Debbie]

Don`t use the events to practice, do hard stuff at home first.


I think this may hit at the heart of at least one set of problems. There are sooooo many events now and a mindset/culture that encourages entering and using the event as a schooling exercise. Rather than preparing at home, we've borrowed a page from the H/J playbook and go on a circuit and train the horses and riders up at the events. Competition records (frequency of outings) have been the focus of several threads on here and it's a trend I don't recall existing all that long ago.

[Beverley]

April 30, 2008
Dear Messrs O’Connor and Baumgardner:

I am responding to your April 29 letter regarding safety issues in eventing. By way of background, let me begin by saying that I have no ‘public’ credentials as a trainer or rider. I have been riding horses all my life, and have been a horse owner since 1965. My primary interest is foxhunting, which I’ve enjoyed since 1971. I have evented a few times, mainly way back in the 70s when one started at training level. The most recent event in which I participated was in 1997- I entered and won novice on a horse that had not previously evented, but was a made foxhunter. I’ve also been a jump judge at a number of events over the years. In 2003, one of my horses competed at novice level with another rider, and I intended to go on and event him some more myself, but living in Utah, with only one event in the state, I lost my enthusiasm- if I have to haul 8 to 10 hours to compete, I’d rather haul that far to go foxhunting. I have enjoyed a number of events as a spectator, starting with the very first Ledyard and including the ’96 Olympics in Atlanta.

In a lifetime of enjoying horses as an amateur, I have witnessed death and serious injury to both horse and human in a variety of activities including rodeos, foxhunting, flat, timber and steeplechase racing, cutting, and just trying to catch a horse in a pasture (death by kick to head). Horses are dangerous, just because of their size. They can kill you when they don’t even mean to hurt you. People need to accept that they risk death and injury every time they climb aboard a horse, or even work with one on the ground. People also need to accept that while we have lots of safety improvements compared with 20 to 30 years ago, including helmets and vests, they are NOT a substitute for knowledge, skill, experience, and physical condition.

Every serious death and injury to rider or horse in eventing is both tragic and unfortunate. But I urge you to take a deep breath, avoid the knee-jerk reactions or cosmetic fixes, and first look at what, if anything is broken. Then take a hard look at what is broken, and how it got to be broken. Only by undertaking a dispassionate root cause analysis are you going to come up with any meaningful solutions.

In a nutshell, I disagree with the implementation of all five initiatives proposed in your April 29 letter. They all strike me as cosmetic fixes, for the sake of doing or saying something, and they don’t get to the heart of the matter. They contribute to the dumbing down of the sport in my opinion. Yes, rotational falls are bad, always frightening to watch whether in eventing or steeplechasing or out hunting- but I have seen far more people and horses walk away from such falls than be injured or killed by them. Elimination of a rider after a fall likewise punishes the 99.9% who are unharmed by such falls. If you ride horses, you’re gonna fall. If you ride horses and are frightened by the notion of falling, well, you certainly shouldn’t be eventing.

As for the use of frangible pins, I have some concerns about when and how they would be used. Personally, I would much rather jump a solid obstacle, having seen terrible things happen when, for example, a coop rolls when hit out hunting, or for that matter, when rails fly in stadium jumping. So if these pins are to be used, I would very strongly suggest a requirement that a qualified structural engineer be consulted for EVERY obstacle where they are to be used, to make sure that the jump is going to break away or collapse in a manner that isn’t going to make for a worse problem than had it remained solid. And please make those jumps look solid as a rock, I don’t think that now is the time to start teaching horses to brush through xc obstacles as they would national fences. As for suspension for a month after a fall, again, you are penalizing the 99.9% who are unharmed. Such decisions should in my opinion be made only by veterinarian and/or doctor.

I would really rather see you focus your efforts on resolving these problems up front:

Don’t let unqualified horses or riders compete. From the horse’s point of view, it seems to me that even upper level riders are racing through the levels to get to advanced. Let’s revisit the minimum ages and minimum number of events completed at each level beginning at training level for horses. For riders, I think it’s generally agreed that most of today’s up and coming competitors simply do not have experience riding outside of a ring. When I was a kid, we spent hours every day just bombing around the countryside bareback. Few have either the opportunity or the inclination to do that these days. Nevertheless, it remains the rider’s responsibility to be prepared and so they need to get the necessary xc seasoning however they can BEFORE they start competing.

Go back to the basics on cross country design. You need to start by reminding yourselves of the purposes of the three phases: Dressage to test training and obedience, cross country to test endurance and bravery, stadium jumping to test their fitness to continue and their tractability after all that galloping and jumping. Recognizing that the fitness and endurance components of cross country have been eliminated, it seems to me that the wrong approach to modifying xc courses has been taken. These courses are rapidly degenerating to nothing more than stadium jumping outside the arena. And in my opinion, that is completely wrong.
Thinking back to training courses I rode in the ‘70s, as well as the courses I saw at Ledyard- biggest and baddest that we had in this country at the time, I think- well, they were awesome and intimidating to look at, for the rider, but relatively straightforward for the horse, in that they were either going to jump it reasonably well or stop. Thinking of the table at Ledyard, for many horses it was not an issue, the few that did have some quandaries simply banked it and went on.

If indeed the statistics support the notion that there are more bad falls these days, I would suggest that the cross country course design needs rethinking- no matter the cosmetics or nice finishing touches, the LINES of the fence should be such that either the horse can jump it- or scramble over it- with relative safely, or he will have the smarts to refuse. Leave ‘overly technical’ in the stadium phase where it belongs. Give these horses fences that can be negotiated at a more consistent pace, and give them negotiable distances in the combinations. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with a trappy fence here and there as a fair test, but in general, galloping like crazy between obstacles and then having to slow to a crawl to safely negotiate those obstacles is not what cross country is supposed to be about. As I’m sure you know, that sort of ‘stop and go’ is far more taxing to a horse, both mentally and physically, than a relatively consistent, even if faster, pace over a distance of several miles. I think it needs to be remembered that each jumping effort is also testing the horse’s endurance. The whole point of eventing is to test a horse, not to fry it physically and mentally.

The new, and to my mind erroneous, way of thinking for both xc and stadium courses in eventing is also spreading downward to the lower levels, unfortunately. When my horse competed a few years ago at novice level, I will say that the xc course design was okay, but the stadium layout was generally more complex than it should have been for a novice horse. At that level, everything should be inviting for the horse. You might design an obstacle so that it gets the rider thinking a little bit, but for the horse, it should build experience in a positive way. A horse green to jumping a course of jumps shouldn’t be asked to do rollbacks, or tight turns to an odd distance, for example.

As for the riders at beginner novice or novice, I’m reminded of the old foxhunting adage that if you every actually watch people foxhunting, particularly at the jumps, you’ll be much too frightened to ever try it yourself. I have seen riders at the lower levels that frankly should not be there. They have not even mastered basic fundamentals of position and control on a horse, and yet they are out there competing, either because they are deluding themselves or have a trainer deluding them for profit. They are a danger to themselves and to others.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the accidents at Red Hills and Rolex involving highly qualified riders. With regard to Amy Tryon’s incident at Rolex in 2007, I think it is fair to say that there was a lapse in judgment. With regard to the terrible incident resulting in rider injury and horse death at Rolex’s fence 5 this year, I wasn’t there and haven’t seen pictures or video, but I did look at the fence on the Rolex web site and can only speculate with myself that a lapse in judgment, perhaps coming in too fast, could have caused a fall. Honestly, I don’t know how you deal with that problem. Adrenaline does weird things to people who are otherwise sane and sound of mind. When I pit-crewed for a friend some years back in a 100 mile endurance ride, I practically had to slap her silly to get her to take needed nourishment and fluids along the way. Out hunting, I have jumped obstacles or negotiated terrain myself that probably a reasonable person in a quiet moment wouldn’t have done. So, my thought on that is, you cannot prevent human beings from doing stupid things. You CAN, when it is appropriate to do so, suspend riders for some meaningful period of time when lapses in judgment cause death or serious injury to a horse. And it also needs to be remembered that as with rotational falls, the vast majority of rider errors/lapses in judgment do not lead to catastrophic consequences. But it’s not something you can prevent up front.

I think that like everyone else, I have lots of questions and no answers. But in summary I’d like to offer the following points for your consideration:

Eventing, like racing or the rough stock events in rodeo, is a high risk sport. We all agree that safety is important, but there is nothing that can eliminate the fundamental risks associated with riding horses at speed or over obstacles. Don’t sugarcoat things. Don’t dumb things down to the lowest common denominator. Remember that no reasonable person throws a leg over a horse in ANY discipline intending to ride it to its death. That doesn’t make each horse injury or death any easier to accept, but it does need to be kept in mind when dealing with the ‘horse abuse’ hue and cry.
Eliminate the mindset that the cross country phase needs to be made more technical to compensate for the loss of roads and tracks and steeplechase. Take cross country back to its intended purpose as a fair test of endurance and bravery. If you get more clean rounds, so be it, I doubt anyone will be bored. If the dressage or stadium scores become increasingly important, well, it is THREE phases, so I don’t view that as a bad thing. To me, it is preferable to making cross country nothing more than stadium jumping on an outside course.
Take another look at the qualifications for both horse and rider. An under prepared horse should not be allowed to move up just because its rider is in the upper echelon. An under prepared rider should not be allowed to move up just because he/she feels they have paid enough entry fees to have earned the right.
Emphasize that no matter how much safety has been or will be addressed, it really does boil down to the individual rider’s responsibility. If a rider sees something on the course that could be an issue for his/her horse, he/she needs to do the right thing and scratch- even if no other rider has an issue. Perhaps this decision could be made easier if refund of the entry fee, or most of the entry fee, were an option.
Rather than implementing rules that penalize falls, which MOST of the time do NOT result in injury, implement rules that penalize unsafe riding or poor judgment. You’re going to need additional qualified manpower to enforce such rules, but the benefit might just be identifying under prepared riders before they get to the levels where they, or their horses, might be hurt.I applaud and support you for confronting and addressing the serious issues facing the sport of eventing. I urge you to take a hard look and focus on doing the right thing, even if it is not the most popular thing.

[Outfox]

As usual, well said, Beverley.

[DizzyMagic]

Amen. I was at the Rolex and at that fence when Laine and Frodo came through. And it has haunted me since. I too am not sure I will be back-it was horrific. On Sunday, I found myself holding my breath at the stadium jumping-I couldn't really relax even though I told myself the rails would drop. I just don't know if I can truly enjoy cross country-without have anxiety about the riders/horses getting around the course safely and not witnessing another catastrophic accident.

MaryKay - I can't imagine how much worse this was for you to see. I felt that way after the fall I described, even though both horse and rider were ultimately ok. I was working off some of my board at the time as an eventing groom, but I still seriously considered walking away. It was MONTHS before I could watch a xc round with any enjoyment - and I still wonder why that fall had so much psychological impact, even though all was well in the end.

This time, though, I think I'm going to stick around and raise my voice. I love this sport and I've found eventers to be the best all around horsemen in the world. Plus, I've got several young friends coming along at the advanced level. They are going to make mistakes, and sometimes their mistakes will be bad ones - I want them to be alive to learn from them.

We've talked a lot about the rider's judgement and responsibility, and a lot of blame has been laid at the riders' feet, but as this conversation has progressed, I'm arriving at another conclusion: Can our sport's leadership look Sarah in the eye, *knowing* that frangible pins would likely have saved The Quiet Man's life? Can we think about Laine and Frodo and go on ignoring the issue of vertical fences? And if, next time, it's one of my friends facing critical injuries and life-altering changes, could I live with myself if I didn't at least TRY to make a difference?

[imapepper]

Beverley -- Great Letter!!!! :)

[MaryKay]

MaryKay - I can't imagine how much worse this was for you to see. I felt that way after the fall I described, even though both horse and rider were ultimately ok. I was working off some of my board at the time as an eventing groom, but I still seriously considered walking away. It was MONTHS before I could watch a xc round with any enjoyment - and I still wonder why that fall had so much psychological impact, even though all was well in the end.

This time, though, I think I'm going to stick around and raise my voice. I love this sport and I've found eventers to be the best all around horsemen in the world. Plus, I've got several young friends coming along at the advanced level. They are going to make mistakes, and sometimes their mistakes will be bad ones - I want them to be alive to learn from them.

We've talked a lot about the rider's judgement and responsibility, and a lot of blame has been laid at the riders' feet, but as this conversation has progressed, I'm arriving at another conclusion: Can our sport's leadership look Sarah in the eye, *knowing* that frangible pins would likely have saved The Quiet Man's life? Can we think about Laine and Frodo and go on ignoring the issue of vertical fences? And if, next time, it's one of my friends facing critical injuries and life-altering changes, could I live with myself if I didn't at least TRY to make a difference?

DizzyMagic: When I read your original post, I could really relate. It is the "psychological impact" that you aren't prepared for after seeing something so horrific. I literally had a nightmare on Saturday night and still get physically ill when I think about it. But what about the kids? I was behind a mother who was trying to console her young daughter and they left immediately following the accident. Clearly, there is always risk in riding but enough is not being done to allow riders/horses to make mistakes and have a reasonable shot of surviving them. I couldn't agree with you more. I certainly am not the most knowledgeable person on this subject, but like you, I will not be quiet about it. I have submitted my letter to both Dave and Kevin for whatever it is worth. Thanks for your post-I feel a little better knowing I am not the only one reeling from the psychological impact of seeing something like that.

[Anyplace Farm]

Yes, but suspending a rider/horse for a rotational fall doesn't keep the horse that fell alive.
So how would this work? ... Frodo is suspended now?

- I think that training and qualifications are seriously important - but they are personal responsibilities and should not be legislated because .... as keeps getting pointed out these were not rookies riding out of control. They were experienced horse people who made a mistake.

We have to demand an environment where the answer to a mistake is not death. Fences that break fall down are not going to encourage bad riding - RAyers point is perfect - does having a airbag make you play chicken with a truck? - But it may keep you alive if you don't see the truck coming.
Our x-cntry jumps need to be built to a standard that is challenging, allows for speed and bravery and takes in terrain, but doesn't kill when an error is make.

SPLAT, I'm with you. If a certain construction of obstacle perpetuates a rotational fall, then that sort of jump should either not be on the course or should be designed to collapse upon impact.

[seajay]

Bad falls happen to people who are competing well within their abilities and who have done the homework required to be at the level. I moved a horse up to training who had competed at novice 8 times...in the ribbons every time without a single x-c fault (and only 2 rails). On jump 18 of our first training (after 17 uneventful fences) she slipped on takeoff, chested the jump and we both went flying...thankfully we are both fine, but it would have added insult to injury to be sat down for months even though we were well prepared. We had been schooling training and prelim fences for 6 months before the move-up.

I just see this as trying to take the heat off the course designers...we have provisions for dealing with dangerous riding...and not all bad falls are the result of dangerous riding or inexperienced riders. If they were, why are the big guns the ones having the wrecks the past few months?

[SLR]

Amen Seejay:winkgrin:

[SLR]

Sorry SEAjay

[bip]

Bad falls happen to people who are competing well within their abilities and who have done the homework required to be at the level. I moved a horse up to training who had competed at novice 8 times...in the ribbons every time without a single x-c fault (and only 2 rails). On jump 18 of our first training (after 17 uneventful fences) she slipped on takeoff, chested the jump and we both went flying...thankfully we are both fine, but it would have added insult to injury to be sat down for months even though we were well prepared. We had been schooling training and prelim fences for 6 months before the move-up.

I just see this as trying to take the heat off the course designers...we have provisions for dealing with dangerous riding...and not all bad falls are the result of dangerous riding or inexperienced riders. If they were, why are the big guns the ones having the wrecks the past few months?

I agree that some people would be unfairly punished, but if someone is willing to enter a competition knowing that a complete fluke could kill or maim them or their horse, then they should also be willing to accept elimination/temporary suspension for the same.

However, I completely agree with you that this measure alone is insufficient. We can't keep asking riders to attempt the most dangerous types of fences, and then punishing them when things go wrong. It is a three pronged approach: 1) Remove the most dangerous types of fences with safer alternatives that ask a similar question, 2) Figure out a qualification system that weeds out the unprepared, and 3) Punish riders who somehow make it through the more rigorous qualification system, over safer jumps, and still manage to have a wreck. Sure, some percentage of those wrecks will be complete flukes and it won't be "fair" to be punished. But then, shouldn't a little "unfairness" fit within our understanding of "acceptable risk"?

When we regain control of the situation, we can re-evaluate the fairness/effectiveness of #3. But for now, people surviving rotational falls are lucky enough to be alive, let alone bellyaching about missing a competition or two.

[Sannois]

As usual, well said, Beverley.
Wonderful response! Thankyou for that Beverly!

[seajay]

Let me tell you how spooky it is to have had one of these falls and looking back to know that there isn't a single thing you would have done differently that would have prevented it (aside from not showing up that day). We took a page out of Denny's book by doing the really hard (prelim level for me) stuff at home competently before ever rolling off the trailer at a show to do training, took it slow, and we still had a wreck. We choose to point our horses at solid fences and like it or not bad falls are a possibility.

I was at Rolex near where Frodo fell and trust me I have had a lot to think about the last few days... even though the circumstances were different the end result could have easily been the same.

If you event, you take the risk and nothing short of outlawing jumping and galloping will eliminate the possibility...although we can certainly crack down on dangerous riding (suspensions anyone) and fix the courses to mitigate the risk. But, in the end we make the choice to pursue this sport...

[tikidoc]

As a disclaimer, this is the perspective of someone who is new to eventing (have competed BN only, always wanted to event, never lived somewhere where it was much of an option until recently) but who has been riding/jumping for 30+ years. My professional background is in science and research (medicine).

I think everyone agrees that there is no one simple answer to the problem. That includes O'Connor and Baumgardner. I applaud that they are at least addressing the problem, proposing some rule changes that may have some impact on the problem, and seem to be open to listening to the eventing community's suggestions with the meeting in June. I think the criticism that the proposed changes will not solve the problem are valid, but it is acknowledged in the letter that this is just a start.

I think it is apparent that the fences/courses need to be safer. Part of the solution is frangible pins for some fences, but more needs to be done. Should there be an approval process for courses (or is there already one)? For individual fences? Licensing for course designers? Required safety courses for course designers? Should the recommended speeds not only vary by level but be individualized for the course in question?

I also think that the criteria for moving up the levels need to be reviewed. Are they stringent enough? Should we go back to the long format?

I think the most important thing is to systematically review all the recorded adverse events that have happened at events in the past couple years, at all levels. Especially adverse events that included serious falls (rotational or otherwise), or rider or horse injury. We need to look at the obstacle involved, the experience/performance record of both the horse and rider, any other falls recorded for that rider (either during that event or recently), the track record for that event/course. The only way to predict what effect the proposed changes will have is to examine the previous adverse events. Is there any pattern? We need hard data in order to decide what the most effective interventions will be.

[flyracing]

(I'm not just picking on your words, they were the closest and i did not want to fish through pages and pages ;) ).Now here is a critical point. I agree that there is some modification needed to the fences buuuuuut,

There is a huge difference between the speed/pace/impulsion/self carriage/ etc. that is needed to jump a puissance wall or a SJ type jump, and what is needed when on open varied terrain working at speeds. Just think about the difference in the canters that you need to approach a skinny 3' vertical in the ring, and what is needed to jump a log of the same height.

If you were to interchange the two types of fences, horses would be working in a compacted canter all the time. Now, here is another difference. There is a reason those puissance classes and jumper classes are so short.... horses cannot maintain that canter for long periods of time. It is exhausting. They would not be able to maintain anything close to that type of canter for the entirety of an XC course. And if one of those jumps was to be flat out galloped? Well, that would be a pretty nasty crash.

From listening to everyone that seems to think SJ type jumps are the answer, I assume no one else here has been flipped on over one of these types.... but I have. I had a "rotational fall" after a 2' vertical in a ring several years ago, when the horse didn't quite get his knees up enough ,the pole was kicked out in front of us. The pole got caught up in the horses legs and over we went. Somehow we both walked away with a few scratches and some burn from arena sand.

There is a reason XC poles must be heavy... the more speed = more force, which can knock rails out in front causing more accidents.

Do I believe that there should be some revamping to the fences? Absolutely. I firmly believe that the frangible pin is a great invention... as long as the fences are heavy enough to fall down and not out. But, to hold SJ type jumps up as the be all and end all of safety.... well, it is plain folly.

As for the new rules, I actually like them. Maybe, just maybe it will give people pause. If nothing else, it was a way for the Powers that be to do something *now* (which is what everyone was clamoring for wasn't it?), with out making rash changes before the study results come back.
Well, we can use the PRINCIPLES of showjumping fences, not actually use standars and light rails. This is basically what the frangible (sp?) pin is doing, but need to be easier to build. So we need to mass produce (in a sense) xc jump cups that are screwed (or what ever) to the uprights. These "cups" (which have a downward breakaway motion) would have the "poles" screwed to the cup portion so they don't move and in addition would have a forward block that even in the case of the pole breaking loose of the cup it coudn't fall foward and tangle the horse. This cup would allow many of the current jumps to be used, not rebuilt entirely which when it cost 50,000 per level to put a nice course would not be feasible or taken lightly by the funders.

Anyways, it just seems like the frangible pin must be to hard/expensive to put into courses, because it is hardly ever done. And almost NEVER done at smaller events. I'm not a course builder, owner, or anything so I don't know the reason why, but it seems the frangible pin has been a good option for a while now and is being extremely underutilized.

[Gryhrs]

Tikidoc - I agree with the need for more data.....but I am too "forum illiterate" to figure out how to copy your quote. I am a quantitative kind of girl and would like to see all the numbers before trying the shotgun approach. The USEA website has safety statistics for 2006 and 2007 but I could not find the information for prior years. (BTW - verticals don't look so hot in the numbers.) I would also like to compare old Ominibus books and see if speeds have become faster over the years...or how distances have changed...old format vs new. Surely the USEA has some quant nerd (and I mean this in the nicest way) looking at this...if not I will quit my job and volunteer to be USEA geek.

The other issue which is certainly more subjective is the xc footing on take-off and landing. The Fork did not have any major accidents that I am aware of and by all accounts the owner is a complete footing fanatic (and I REALLY mean that in the nicest way) .......is it a coincidence that the event was uneventful from an accident point of view? But if speeds and technicality have increased the footing surely becomes much more influential.

[Gryhrs]

I really hate to bring THIS subject up- I know we drug test our horses-but anytime someone sees a lapse in judgement one should probably CONSIDER the fact that drugs or alcohol could possibly be a factor. Should we put this on the table in some as yet undetermined capacity? i.e. drug testing riders who have had a bad fall or randomly testing riders after they have completed XC.

[wabadou]

Going around an upper level course once is exhausting. In the days of the long format, unless I'm wrong, you just didn't see riders riding 3/4/5/6 horses cross country on one day !!

Surely fatigue must play in, reflex, response and judgement-wise when a rider is riding multiple horses over an upper level course especially when you are talking about a 4* event like Rolex***.

I know it wouldn't be a popular choice with the ULR who do this but realistically, should limitations be considered for the number of horses 1 person can compete in one event, especially in the upper levels??

[knowonder]

I am a safety coordinator for a fairly well known horse trial here on the East Coast. We have BN, Nov, Training, Intermediate and Prelim divisions. I can tell you that I am far more scared with some of the BN/Novice/Training rides than I am the Int and Prelim rides--and this goes for stadium and xc. I truly believe that the answer to preventing "most" of these falls (you can never "prevent" the freak accident) is 1. implementing more stringent rules on what a rider/horse must complete in order to move up a division and 2. making the fences more "movable/collapsable/etc." if the horse does hang a leg and really hit one.

You can't prevent every accident, but many accidents I have worked could have been prevented if those two issues had been addressed. The one thing any TD/GJP/Safety coordinator dreads is the rider that decides to "move up" at your event. I have a special star by your name and am watching you very closely all weekend. I have even had my EMT's on special alert just from watching some of the dressage/stadium rounds and sure enough those "out of control/out of their league" rider/horse combos often have spills on XC.

I do not personally event, as I come from the HJ world, but eventers as a whole are some of the most down to earth conscientious people who care deeply for their horses. I just know that as a community you will find the answers.

I will be at the KY Horse Park announcing The Egyptian Event while the big meeting is going on--I may just have to wander over there and see what is brewing...

[FlightCheck]

The title says it all, I think.

Bensmom and I will be going, along with our friend Beth (an endurance rider we've converted to the Dark Side)

The decision to go was not easy; I had the funds set aside to compete in our area championships that weekend.

But the time has come to be part of the solution.

[Ray]

Yes, but suspending a rider/horse for a rotational fall doesn't keep the horse that fell alive.
So how would this work? ... Frodo is suspended now?

We have to demand an environment where the answer to a mistake is not death. Fences that break fall down are not going to encourage bad riding - RAyers point is perfect - does having a airbag make you play chicken with a truck? - But it may keep you alive if you don't see the truck coming.
Our x-cntry jumps need to be built to a standard that is challenging, allows for speed and bravery and takes in terrain, but doesn't kill when an error is make.

The key is DEMAND. Its time. Make XC easier so that everyone lives. Every time. No horse death tolerance, no more life flights of riders. :cry:

Make it longer, but less technical, and make fences breakable. Then, make SJ much more technical. please.

[denny]

You know, here`s a radical idea. Simply make every level one level lower.
Make the training xc courses prelim, the prel.xc, int, the 2 star becomes 3 star, the 3 star is now 4-star, etc. (The current 4-star xc goes away)
It won`t happen, but what an easy way to lower the stress levels and the danger levels across the board.
Then make the big questions get asked in show jumping, and, presto, far fewer falls, because speeds are slower, heights lower, spreads narrower, etc.
Face it, folks, the Classic 3-day event is gone. Is there even a place for eventing in the 21st century? That`s the big question right now. And that`s because we`ve finally reached the famous "tipping point", the point beyond which the general public, the rest of the broader horse community, and finally even the broad event community, will no longer tolerate the degree of danger to both riders and horses.
So, as many have concluded, make xc easier.
Is this a radical departure? Of course it is. Will it save eventing? It well might, and if so, it`s worth it.
Hell, at the end of the day, someone will still get 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. And far fewer accidents.
This may be the only real solution. At least until totally, radically different jump construction techniques are perfected, which may take years.
We don`t have years.

[denny]

Added---And as for the great riders who feel cheated by the lessening of the challenges---Go ride in the Maryland Hunt Cup like Mike Plumb and Bruce did.
That should satisfy your need for an adreniline rush.

[JAGold]

I really don't see how calling the problem by a different name -- by relabeling levels such that a training becomes prelim, etc. as Denny proposed above -- solves anything at all. There have been serious accidents below the 4* level, so we aren't taking away the risks by taking away the 4*. And relabeling the levels may just cause people to move up sooner -- either because they really (believe they are) ready for the challenge of the course specifications, not the name of the level, or because it's become easier to cruise around to a clean if not polished round at the lower level.

I'm pretty sure that all relabeling the levels would mean is that there would be somewhat fewer accidents at the new "prelim," and about the same number of accidents at the new "intermediate" and up as there now are at prelim through 3*.

If we think the problem is that horses and/or riders are competing at levels for which they are underprepared, then we have to address that directly, not through a back door like changing the names of the levels.

[denny]

But if true 4-star horses only had to jump 3-star jumps, and so on----
Just a simple way to make the xc easier across the board.
The problem is simple. In the old days, what was tested on the 2nd day was speed and endurance, with some jumping tests, to be sure, but over not nearly so hard jumps.
Now the jumps are hard, the speeds and distances easier.
So horses are having crashes, because hard jumps that don`t come down are a lot more dangerous than rails that fall.
Leave it alone, if you like, and watch them fall, or make it easier. Simple.

[denny]

PS--I evented all through the 60s, all of the 70s, all of the 80s, all of the 90s, and evented two weeks ago, so I`ve experienced the changes in a way that many have not.

[jhodkin]

Sorry about the essay, but this is a complex problem and therefore it has complex things to consider...

I think there are a number of factors at play here:

1. Information on what is happening around the world is much more available than it was when I was eventing. I only knew about incidents that happened in my locality, never mind the rest of the UK and certainly not the world. Going back even 10 years, in the UK I would not have known about the death of the rider in Austria, the death of the rider in Ireland or the horse deaths in the USA. Having the worldwide web is a great blessing, but with it comes access to much more bad news as well as good news. The point I'm trying to make is that in previous years most of us would have been unaware of how many deaths or injuries were occurring and with greater access to information, comes a greater awareness of injuries.
Although clearly incidencies have gone up, I don't think that in reality they have gone up as dramatically as we perceive they have.

2. Many, many more people are now eventing which is a wonderful thing. In the last few years, membership in the UK has increased dramatically. With an increase in people taking part, it naturally follows that there will be more incidencies. That's just a statistical fact. Therefore more accidents doesn't actually automatically mean there is now a problem (although I'm not saying there isn't a problem!, just that if you increase partipants you will automatically increase accidents as they are directly linked).

3. Change in format. Mmmmm a tough one as there's simply not enough data yet to tell us empirically what impact this has had. My gut feeling, and this is just a gut feeling - is that by removing the stamina element from the format a number of knock on effects have happened -
a) Horses are not always as fit as they were for a long format competition
b) Riders are not always as fit as they were for a long format competition
c) Horses are run more frequently
d) Horses are not always given a couple of months off after a major competition like they used to be with long format
e) In order to compensate for the 'reduction in challenge' by removing phases A-C, course designers have tried to make up for that by demanding a higher standard of rider techinical competance (which is not always there), and therefore misjudgements/mistakes by the rider have potentially increased
f) Increased course techinicality has in some instances resulted in a higher degree of gymnastic ability being required from the horses (which some of the older, big galloping tracks didn't quite do in the same way). Some horses are perhaps not quite gymanstic enough to deal with these questions, ....especially if they are not quite as fit as they used to be... (Back to point a))
g) In order to take these 'techincal' fences safely, a slower speed with a collected canter & lots of impulsion is required. Great if you can do this, but again a tired rider &/or tired horse may struggle. The other issue is, that because you have had to slow so much for the fence, the cruising speed between fences MUST be higher in order to still cover 570mpm. Perhaps this may be a contributing factor to the increase in Pulmonary embelism cases we have had. Again - speeding up then slowing down, then speeding up ad nauseum is far more tiring than maintaining a consistent speed. Any great xc rider will tell you secret to safe and fast xc is to get into a rhythm and interfere with your horse as little as possible. The demands of the 'modern' track, and the demands of good xc riding may therefore now be at odds (conflicting).
h) If falls are occurring later in the course the elements of tiredness and technicality may come into play, if they are earlier in the course, it MAY by the result of having no phases A-C to warm up and settle the horse. I have seen many horses coming out the start box and almost running blind because they are so keen. If a horse is fighting the rider and/or running through the bridle with it's head up, there is no way it is going to be able to adequately weigh up the question it's about to tackle, and the rider is fighting a losing battle to try to put the horse in the right spot to jump it safely.

4. Rider 'education'. I get what David and the likes are saying about the fact that riders are coming through the sport is a different way to how we used to, but I believe this is just a part of the problem, and in no way the problem in totality. I remember seeing complete nutters rider round xc courses in my day too, but the fences weren't so technical and you could get away with being a mile off and still getting away with it. I totally agree with David's proposals in Trainer education. We are one of very few sports where just anyone can train someone without ever being assessed themselves. I hope they are keeping information on who trains the people who are falling.... That might be quite enlightening in itself...

BTW - Reed - I would be very interested in your views on this next bit, given your job background. You commented on another thread that people wouldn't ride differently if fences were all collapsable. I would have to disagree with you on this based on my education (although as this was some 20 years ago (ahem), it may have been superceeded). When I did my degree, I did my dissertation on 'The Environmental Impacts on Road Accidents'. Part of reserach involved working through the papers produced by the British Road Transport Research Centre (as it was called then). One of these was a paper regarding the 'Risk Homeostatis Theory'. In a nutshell what it said was - as human beings, we operate at our optimal levels with a certain degree of adrenelin running through us. For each individual, this level of adrenelin is different. In the case of cars - the theory was that if you asked an individual to drive a car from A-B as fast as they could, but the car had no power steering, no anti-lock brakes, no airbag, no sports suspension etc. they would drive it more carefully than if you gave them the same car but with improved safety measures. In other words, if you put someone in a high risk situation they will take steps to reduce the risk to a level they are comfortable operating at. At the other end of the spectrum, if you remove large amounts of risk from a situation, people will take more risks themselves to move the adrenelin level back up to where they operate best. Based on theory, I would contend that if you made fences out of polystryrene for example, the fear factor is virtually negligable, which if you then apply this theory, would mean people would take more risks - i.e. ride faster. take more acute lines etc. to get the risk level back up.
- Just another piece on information to throw into the mix. Views welcome

I completely agree that something must change. However I don't think all the evils can be laid at the door of one cause and hysteria certainly isn't helpful. Also, I don't agree with the suggestion of a temporary suspension of competing as has been suggested, as this hurts the very people that make our sport possible - the organisers, sponsors and volunteers that run events. If you decide to take a temporary break whilst you contemplate your naval, which results in events that have already spent out money to set up going bankrupt, you may find you have no sport left to come back to... Organisers once bitten are twice shy.

As a final note - our sport is a noble one steeped in history, but it is just that - a sport. I have no desire 'dumb-down' or degrade the challenge our sport presents to it's competitors because this is the exact reason we do it, BUT -
We cannot stand back and say 'welcome to our sport, you'll love it - but by the way, if you make a mistake you could die' - this attitude is simply not acceptable and we must take CONSIDERED steps which are backed by LOGIC and/or EMPIRICAL evidence to move the sport to a safer place. More knee jerk stuff is not what we need, after all without evidence to support it's efficacy we may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire and actually make the situation worse.

[SLR]

Yes Denny, It could be done TODAY as a sort of cease fire in the killing,until they get it straightened out. So what if it takes a few years? But then we have those pesky FEI events.

[Petstorejunkie]

Yeah, I applaud it, for sure...but who decides if it was a rotational fall and how will that prevent more? Riders don't know that their decisionmaking (or whatever) will result in that kind of fall--or any fall at all--so kinda "punishing" them (I don't know if that's really the intent though--I'm not sure what the goal of suspending them is, alas) isn't going to prevent such falls from happening, is it?
I see it as them saying you need to go back to your barn and train a bit more before attempting this level of competition again. I see it as a reality check

I think that will help in the short term but in the long term suspensions arent going to do squat.

[One Star]

I don't know if this has been posted anywhere in the myriad of threads concerning safety and what to do about the rash of accidents in our sport, but I'm going to throw this out there, and also send a copy to Kevin and David.

What I'm proposing for cross country is a "Yellow and Red Flag Warning System" similar to that in race car driving. When dangerous driving occurs, a yellow flag is waved to alert that driver that he is on notice, and the next flag waved will be red and the driver is out of the race.

This system would involve having Flag Stewards, who would be responsible for various sectors of the cross country. Each Flag Steward would need to have an unimpeded view of every fence in his or her sector, and a radio. Ideally these stewards would be members of the ground jury, the TD, the event organizer, or other educated officials acting as representatives of the safety committee for the event. They would NOT be volunteer cross country jump judges.

If Control is made aware of potentially dangerous riding by a jump judge, or can see it first-hand, they would radio to one of the Flag Stewards, who would be responsible for waving a yellow flag at the oncoming rider, well in advance of the next jump. This rider would in effect be put on notice that they need to modify their riding and slow it down and rebalance their horse before jumping the next fence. The penalty for not doing so would be a red flag of elimination.

Obviously, there are other logistics that need to be considered and worked out, but this is just an initial proposal.

If such a system were in place at Rolex, Lainey might have received a yellow flag at Fence Two or Three, and the fall that occurred at Fence Five might never have happened.

Just a thought.

[Hidden]

Speed Kills.. In all sports, cars, skiing, horses etc. Start with Time allowed.. this is the fastest, cheapest, easiest solution. Then move on to fences and course design, qualifications etc...

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Bensmom and I will be going, along with our friend Beth (an endurance rider we've converted to the Dark Side)

[snip]
But the time has come to be part of the solution.

Delighted to see you'll be there, FlightCheck! I think your perspective as an educated person who watches and briefly describes so many rounds at so many events should be invaluable. Any insights you can share?

I have wondered for a couple years now if the TD watch list at any one event or series of events could be correlated with accidents and near misses....

[LAZ]

Speed Kills.. In all sports, cars, skiing, horses etc. Start with Time allowed.. this is the fastest, cheapest, easiest solution. Then move on to fences and course design, qualifications etc...


This is not strictly true--speed does not kill. Stopping abruptly from speed does.

In auto racing there have been many attempts to slow speeds down--reducing downforce, limiting motor size, increasing weights, adding chicanes on the track, etc. Speeds have not really decreased much in racing, but the safety measures instituted have helped reduce fatalities and serious crashes.

I don't think merely reducing speed is going to do anything for us.

[JAGold]

But if true 4-star horses only had to jump 3-star jumps, and so on----
My point is that the true 4* horses may "only" be jumping 3* jumps under your scheme, but the true prelim horses and riders will just move up and go intermediate. If pairs that are unsafe but technically qualified are now running around prelim, then just renaming the levels won't keep them from running around the new intermediate and facing the same dangers.

Leave it alone, if you like, and watch them fall, or make it easier. Simple.
I'm not saying we should leave things alone. I'm saying that if there are fundamental problems such as dangerous design of fences or poor preparation of horses and riders, then we need to address those problems directly, not by renaming the status quo.

[Hidden]

Sorry LAZ..I do think that slowing things down will significantly help. Remember when there were penalties for going too fast? In response to the kids in the lower levels who were outright dangerous riders because they really speed around the course. I firmly believe that Speed does Kill. The fact is at higher speed you have less time to react and therefore more errors are made. Again it is the fastest, cheapest and easiest thing to implement immediately.

[Jumper_Dad]

The USEF and USEA need to ALSO hold course designers accountable for rotational falls -- it's just not a rider responsibility issue and the whole community needs to be held responsible for these types of incidents. Please let David and Kevin know how you feel about this...that this is not just a rider issue and impacts course designers, event organizers, owners (those corporations where sometimes a horse is more of a commodity than a trusted and valued partner) and there is a distinct difference between what's happening at the Upper Levels (CCI 3-day International competitions) and what most amateur riders are experiencing at Horse Trials (1-day format). Most professionals compete a number of horses at all levels, so if (for example) Phillip Dutton has a fall on a Prelim course with a green horse, does that preclude him from competing about Prelim for the requisite time discussed in the joint USEF/USEA letter??? That's nonsensical...

[jhodkin]

I also have to say that I'm not sure that it's a speed thing. Many of the rotational falls have been at slow speeds. I witnessed Simon Long's death at Burghley a few years ago and it was from almost a trot, Sherelle Duke's was a slow rotational as was Caroline Pratt's. From what I've seen if the fall happens at speed the rider is more likely to be thrown free and away from the falling horse.

Eventers don't jump as fast as racehorses and they have very few rotational falls and very, very rarely does the jockey end up under the horse... perhaps it's about fence shape after all as steeplechase fences aren't upright.... :rolleyes:

[Davignport]

Why not look at making the fences smaller and not as solid as they are now. If a horse hits some of fences now, the horse comes apart rather than the fence. Just because the horses can jump higher and farther, do they really have to? I think some type of suspension for horses and riders is a starting point, but why not look at making the courses safer and smaller at the same time. We all know what good athletes these horses are, but why have to prove it by giving their lives? I think everyone would enjoy the cross country even if there were smaller fences. It seems there have been too many horses die and riders critically injured lately not to look at some type of change in the makeup of the courses.

[DizzyMagic]

Leave it alone, if you like, and watch them fall, or make it easier. Simple.

I don't think it's that simple - sometimes *easier* can cause more mistakes. At least that's what happened to me in skiing many, many moons ago. I was a very solid blue run skier, having good fun on mogul runs and wondering if I could soon join my buddies on the blacks. On a very green connecting run (easiest of the easy), I lost my balance and fell. Landed on my ski pole and broke 2 ribs. Very nearly ended up in the trees on the right side of the run (which would have meant much worse than a couple of ribs). I fell on this run, rather than on one of the difficult runs, because it was easy, I was bored, and I just flat wasn't paying close enough attention.

Human beings (and horses) make mistakes, and in high risk sports mistakes have consequences. I want to do all I can to minimize those consequences for the people, the horses, and the sport I care so much about.

[DizzyMagic]

The USEF and USEA need to ALSO hold course designers accountable for rotational falls -- it's just not a rider responsibility issue and the whole community needs to be held responsible for these types of incidents. Please let David and Kevin know how you feel about this...that this is not just a rider issue and impacts course designers, event organizers, owners (those corporations where sometimes a horse is more of a commodity than a trusted and valued partner) and there is a distinct difference between what's happening at the Upper Levels (CCI 3-day International competitions) and what most amateur riders are experiencing at Horse Trials (1-day format). Most professionals compete a number of horses at all levels, so if (for example) Phillip Dutton has a fall on a Prelim course with a green horse, does that preclude him from competing about Prelim for the requisite time discussed in the joint USEF/USEA letter??? That's nonsensical...


I totally agree. I haven't fully figured out what to write in my letter, but it's going to include those points!

[denny]

We ask why there are more falls now. Part of the reason is because the fences are harder than they used to be, maybe as a consequence (unintended consequence, perhaps) of the speeds being slower---(no chase), and the distances being much shorter.
In other words. the second day---second phase, if you will,---now tests DIFFERENT THINGS than it did 25 plus years ago.
Eventing tests jumping skills twice, more so now than then. Once on xc, again in show jumping.
And horses are failing the test. OK to fail when the jumps fall, not OK when the horses fall.

[asanders]

We ask why there are more falls now. Part of the reason is because the fences are harder than they used to be, maybe as a consequence (unintended consequence, perhaps) of the speeds being slower---(no chase), and the distances being much shorter.
In other words. the second day---second phase, if you will,---now tests DIFFERENT THINGS than it did 25 plus years ago.
Eventing tests jumping skills twice, more so now than then. Once on xc, again in show jumping.
And horses are failing the test. OK to fail when the jumps fall, not OK when the horses fall.

Thanks you. This might be the most concisely put explanation of the 'problem' I've seen.

Can you (concisely or not) describe what should be tested in each phase? The dressage test, (kind of like a breed standard, or figure skating standard) is fairly prescribed (we can disect one and say exactly what each movement is 'for', and what the 'ideal' qualities should be. Stadium is pretty straight forward too (helped by also having analogous single event counterpart in show jumping), but what is the 'standard' for XC?

Disclaimer (as usual): I am not an eventer, but this is really interesting because whatever you in the eventing world decide to do, I'm sure will have some repercussions through other horse sports.

[Sannois]

I know this has been said many times, but as a long time eventer and trainer and pro, do you yourself feel that alot of the problems are caused by horses not conditioned properly or not up to the task of these tougher courses.
Are alot of riders not putting the time on the individual animal so that it is ready to face these types of courses?
I know when the discussion several years ago was about the short format the concern was that many riders felt they did not need to condition as hard and also could compete in more events per year. Just tossing this around.
There were many examples when the short format was started that horses were going out of the start box hot and heavy and not settling and burning themselves out early in the course. Because they did not have the roads and tracks and steplechase to take the edge off and settle. Then do the horses have what it takes for the trappy stop and start type questions as they come up. Like I said just thinking outloud.

[Thomas_1]

I was asked to repost the following to this thread and I ALWAYS do what I'm told ;)

Did you know that:

The accident incident rate has reduced year on year for the past 5 years.

Did you know that:

- British Eventing has over 10,000 members and over 12,500 horses registered
- There are over 66,000 cross country rounds each year
- Over 1,300,000 cross country fences are jumped annually

Did you know that:

Every time there's a rider fall at an event sanctioned by the FEI or BE then a Rider Fall Form has to be completed and returned to the Technical Delegate.

The form is comprehensive in terms of collecting information. It contains EVERYTHING relating to the circumstances, the environment, the jump: construction and type etc etc, the ground, the surrounding factors, the rider, the horse, the weather, the distance out. This forms the basis of accident investigation and ultimately accident analysis and prevention.

And here's the factual statistics for BE Sanctioned events. From these you will see there's been a year on year reduction of seriously/fatally injured riders as a percentage of the number of competitors. And that encouragingly all the indicators are showing a trend to reduction. (The same is mirrored in the FEI data)

Seriously/Fatally injured riders as a percentage of the number of competitors.
For UK events between July 05 and June 06: Indicator 1 = 0.11%
In total there were 1721 riders who fell in the BE and FEI UK events between 01 July 05 and 30 June 06. Of those 27 were seriously injured and there were no fatalities
For UK events between July 04 and June 05: Indicator 1 = 0.14%
In total there were 66 seriously injured rider and 1 fatality injured rider, out of 47,934 competitors recorded in the database for BE events between July 04 and June 05.
For UK events between July 03 and June 04: Indicator 1 = 0.17%
In total there were 69 seriously injured rider and 1 fatality injured rider, out of 41,221 competitors recorded in the database for BE events between July 03 and June 04.
For UK events between July 02 and June 03: Indicator 1 = 0.24%
In total there were 108 seriously injured rider and 1 fatality injured rider, out of 44,962 competitors recorded in the database for BE events between July 02 and June 03.

Indicator 2 is Horse somersault falls as a % of competitors: Again year on year decrease: 0.20%, 0.15%, 0.13%, 0.10%

Indicator 3 is Non somersault horse falls as a % of competitors: 0.52%, 0.51%, 0.41%, 0.32%

Indicator 4 is Unseated rider falls as a % of competitors: 2.79%, 2.87%, 2.66%, 2.53%

Did you know that:

There's some right garbage and anecdotal misinformation and presumption on the internet?

[seajay]

why not make them all brush jumps? Just a thought...anything vertical with some height at least?

[Jumper_Dad]

Definitely a laudable idea. I just don't see how it would work. Seems to run counter to the prevailing attitude of eventers such that many might simply not make the connection.

"Wildarse is a difficult ride, but I'm sure I can get him around the course anyway!"

How many riders will stop thinking that way and instead conclude that "Wildarse is a difficult horse, so I better not compete him today"?

...or more appropriately, "Wildarse's owners wants him to be a the 3-star level by the end of this season and ready for Rolex next year and if I don't get him around the course, they will find another rider who will then who's going to pay all the bills around the farm...

[Thomas_1]

why not make them all brush jumps? Just a thought...anything vertical with some height at least? Because then it wouldn't be eventing!

[Beverley]

...or more appropriately, "Wildarse's owners wants him to be a the 3-star level by the end of this season and ready for Rolex next year and if I don't get him around the course, they will find another rider who will then who's going to pay all the bills around the farm...

Gee, you've just jogged my memory- a few years ago a prospective buyer for my eventing prospect said she WOULD be taking whatever horse she bought to Prelim within a year. That was her schedule. Horse's experience (a few novice level completions), talents, etc seemed irrelevant to her. I refused to sell her the horse.

[Fence2Fence]

I was asked to repost the following to this thread and I ALWAYS do what I'm told ;)

Did you know that:

The accident incident rate has reduced year on year for the past 5 years.

Did you know that:

- British Eventing has over 10,000 members and over 12,500 horses registered
- There are over 66,000 cross country rounds each year
- Over 1,300,000 cross country fences are jumped annually

Did you know that:

Every time there's a rider fall at an event sanctioned by the FEI or BE then a Rider Fall Form has to be completed and returned to the Technical Delegate.

The form is comprehensive in terms of collecting information. It contains EVERYTHING relating to the circumstances, the environment, the jump: construction and type etc etc, the ground, the surrounding factors, the rider, the horse, the weather, the distance out. This forms the basis of accident investigation and ultimately accident analysis and prevention.

And here's the factual statistics for BE Sanctioned events. From these you will see there's been a year on year reduction of seriously/fatally injured riders as a percentage of the number of competitors. And that encouragingly all the indicators are showing a trend to reduction. (The same is mirrored in the FEI data)

Seriously/Fatally injured riders as a percentage of the number of competitors.
For UK events between July 05 and June 06: Indicator 1 = 0.11%
In total there were 1721 riders who fell in the BE and FEI UK events between 01 July 05 and 30 June 06. Of those 27 were seriously injured and there were no fatalities
For UK events between July 04 and June 05: Indicator 1 = 0.14%
In total there were 66 seriously injured rider and 1 fatality injured rider, out of 47,934 competitors recorded in the database for BE events between July 04 and June 05.
For UK events between July 03 and June 04: Indicator 1 = 0.17%
In total there were 69 seriously injured rider and 1 fatality injured rider, out of 41,221 competitors recorded in the database for BE events between July 03 and June 04.
For UK events between July 02 and June 03: Indicator 1 = 0.24%
In total there were 108 seriously injured rider and 1 fatality injured rider, out of 44,962 competitors recorded in the database for BE events between July 02 and June 03.

Indicator 2 is Horse somersault falls as a % of competitors: Again year on year decrease: 0.20%, 0.15%, 0.13%, 0.10%

Indicator 3 is Non somersault horse falls as a % of competitors: 0.52%, 0.51%, 0.41%, 0.32%

Indicator 4 is Unseated rider falls as a % of competitors: 2.79%, 2.87%, 2.66%, 2.53%

Did you know that:

There's some right garbage and anecdotal misinformation and presumption on the internet?


4 horses dead and 2 succuessful riders almost fatally injured at two of our events in an approxmiate one month period is not anecdotal misinformation.

[vineyridge]

Thomas, first of all your statistics come from BE and the FEI. Not from USEA, which may have very different problems.

Second--the FEI has just published its safety report for 2007 and worldwide, the number of rotational falls increased to 60 at the FEI level from just over 50 in 2006.

Third, people are dying. Maybe not in Britain, but in France and Austria and Ireland and the US. 12 within the last 18 months or so. I don't know if the problem of the elite riders like Ralph Hill and Darren Chiacchia having falls from which their survival was questionable is a worldwide problem, but it's definitely a US one.

Fourth, you guys have always had a much better organized and systematic setup for rider training. We don't have that here. Pony Club is the closest thing we have, and it is nowhere near as rigorous as BHA instruction. If the Pony Club instructors are good, the kids get good training. If not, not. Many riders don't even have pony club experience. Pony Club numbers here are dropping, kids are afraid to ride out of the ring, and the USPC is changing its direction to cater to the ring riders.

Fifth, have you noticed how many people on this forum resist the idea of foxhunting? I doubt if that has been a problem with BE riders--at least until recently. Heck, I have read that MORE English riders are foxhunting now than were riding before the ban.

Maybe our problems are unique to the US, but without our own statistics from our own data, we'll never know. That's what so many of us have been begging USEA and USEF to do--collect data and study it before making changes that haven't been supported by data.

[Thomas_1]

Thomas, first of all your statistics come from BE and the FEI. The fei statistics virtually mirror the BE ones.

Not from USEA, which may have very different problems. Perhaps they do. I personally think that overuse of Warmbloods is a contributory factor but I suspect that opinion will put the cat among the pigeons.

Second--the FEI has just published its safety report for 2007 and worldwide, the number of rotational falls increased to 60 at the FEI level from just over 50 in 2006. Rotational falls have indeed increased in the past year and from 23.5 to 26.7%. However over the past 6 years the trend has been significantly down and hence shouldn't be taken out of context.

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa178/classic-carriages/rotationalfallsstatistics.jpg

http://www.fei.org/Disciplines/Eventing/Documents/V1.4%20Safety%20statistics%20Report-Public-2008%2004%2021.pdf

Fourth, you guys have always had a much better organized and systematic setup for rider training. We don't have that here. Pony Club is the closest thing we have, and it is nowhere near as rigorous as BHA instruction. If the Pony Club instructors are good, the kids get good training. If not, not. Many riders don't even have pony club experience. Pony Club numbers here are dropping, kids are afraid to ride out of the ring, and the USPC is changing its direction to cater to the ring riders. I entirely agree that the boom in international eventing which has led to the number of events and competitors doubling in the past five years has also resulted in dangerous numbers of relatively inexperienced riders taking part.

The most important factor in eventing safety is undoubtedly and evidentially the rider. Its accepted that many in the sport today do not have a history of cross-country horsemanship. Its also accepted throughout the sport by those who are involved in Safety that training and education have a part to play in accident reduction.

Maybe our problems are unique to the US, but without our own statistics from our own data, we'll never know. That's what so many of us have been begging USEA and USEF to do--collect data and study it before making changes that haven't been supported by data. I absolutely agree that proper empiracle study and good accident investigation based on facts is essential.

[Lexi]

Second--the FEI has just published its safety report for 2007 and worldwide, the number of rotational falls increased to 60 at the FEI level from just over 50 in 2006.yes there was an increase from 51 in 2006 to 60 in 2007.

but there were also 56 in 2005, and 59 in 2004. and the number of FEI starts was considerably lower in 2004/2005 than in 2006/2007. what does that tell you? (assuming accuracy of the data....and you did not question that in forming your own conclusion)

[vineyridge]

It could say something about the increased technicality in course design since the advent of the short format. The outcry when dressage determined the winners seems to have promoted more technical course design, so the let up fences become more dangerous. Its an ongoing process, changing course designs to mirror changes in the sport, and those changes might be just beginning to have a significant effect.

What I'm wondering is whether the short format over old style courses did reduce rotational falls. Be interesting to see stats on that question.

[Sannois]

I have for a long time felt there is some correlation to the use of Warm bloods and crosses as opposed to the TB.
I know it was a hotly debated issue back when the talk of the short forum was introduced.
My own personal opinion so dont everyone that has sport horses or warmbloods kill me. I see a big difference in the agility and athletisism between the the TB and non TB.. OK teddy is a major exception. LOL
I saw it on Sat.
Back to what you posted, I know there are deaths in the UK but nothing like here. on an annual basis.
Someone said well gee this is the US, so we dont care about what happens there, Maybe we need to.

[Thomas_1]

How many rider deaths have there actually been in the USA over the past 6 years?

How many competitive events are there?

How many competition riders are there?

[bip]

I have for a long time felt there is some correlation to the use of Warm bloods and crosses as opposed to the TB.

It doesn't make sense that people would use a more expensive horse (by not a little bit) if it didn't perform as well.

[Thomas_1]

Since when were Warmbloods more expensive than Thoroughbreds??????

A quality eventer is a quality eventer.

You don't get quality eventing t/b's standing about as rejects in auction markets for $500!

[imapepper]

I have for a long time felt there is some correlation to the use of Warm bloods and crosses as opposed to the TB.
I know it was a hotly debated issue back when the talk of the short forum was introduced.
My own personal opinion so dont everyone that has sport horses or warmbloods kill me. I see a big difference in the agility and athletisism between the the TB and non TB.. OK teddy is a major exception. LOL
I saw it on Sat.
Back to what you posted, I know there are deaths in the UK but nothing like here. on an annual basis.
Someone said well gee this is the US, so we dont care about what happens there, Maybe we need to.

Teddy is a large part TB with a little Arab and sprinkle of Shetland....I believe pwynn's foundation stallion Theodore is a TB.....maybe double check her site for the exact mix ;) It sounds a little funky when you write it, but you sure can't argue with her results with Teddy and quite a few other ponies that she has on her site.

[Sannois]

Teddy is a large part TB with a little Arab and sprinkle of Shetland....I believe pwynn's foundation stallion Theodore is a TB.....maybe double check her site for the exact mix ;) It sounds a little funky when you write it, but you sure can't argue with her results with Teddy and quite a few other ponies that she has on her site.
Like I said Teddy was my total exception to what I was saying about warm bloods and crosses as opposed to straight tbs. His TB really shins through.
Not sure what the shetland does, LOL wonder what his barn personality is like! ;)

[TB or not TB?]

Thomas, you have numbers from only one study from only one country from only a small sampling of events. A whole picture this does not make. It's like the old joke "Chocolate may be better for you than previously thought! In a recent 3 day study..."

There have been 8 deaths in the past 10 years of US citizens (9 if you count Eleanor), in the past 6 years there have been 5 (6 w/ Eleanor), to answer your question.

Additionally, out of 35 deaths total in 10 years, 14 were in the past 18 months. That is 40%, kids. There is NOT an increase in overall eventers to explain that one away.

[Thomas_1]

Well actually I don't. I posted the FEI empiricle study too. That was based on 13,643 starters. From that total there were 781 falls (including unseated rider and falls not at fence)

You're clearly struggling to understand the statistics though. Just like the old joke "on average everbody has one testicle"


Did you know:

- British Eventing has over 10,000 members and over 12,500 horses registered
- There are over 66,000 cross country rounds each year
- Over 1,300,000 cross country fences are jumped annually

[IFG]

yes there was an increase from 51 in 2006 to 60 in 2007.

but there were also 56 in 2005, and 59 in 2004. and the number of FEI starts was considerably lower in 2004/2005 than in 2006/2007. what does that tell you? (assuming accuracy of the data....and you did not question that in forming your own conclusion)

On another thread, someone said that with the advent of the short format, because phases A,B, and C are no longer needed, more horse trials have become recognized by the FEI as *,**,***,**** events. I am not sure if this is the case, but in the FEI report, the number of starters has increased dramatically between 2003 and 2007.

If the increase is due to the addition of new events, and if the new events are easier, then the apparent decrease in accident rates may be due to the newer trials contributing to the denominator, but not to the numerator. The way to determine whether the rate had changed over time for events with a long-standing FEI affiliation would be to remove the data from the newly sanctioned horse trials from both the numerator and the denominator. That would give a truer measure of the trend in accident rates over time.

One could argue that because the new events CAN contribute to the numerator and denominator, they should not be removed, but if the newer events are easier, their inclusion may obscure a trend in accident rates. Removing them (or adjusting for the difference statistically) is the only way to know.

[TB or not TB?]

To Thomas:
Hey two studies, well slap me on the ass with a dead cactus, that has GOT to be the whole picture. :winkgrin:

You asked how many US riders had in the past two years, and I told you. God what a jerk I am. :rolleyes: I also noted how great a percentage of the deaths had been in the past 18 months, as it is relative to forming the overall picture.

I frankly don't care enough to correspond further, since for a while now you have been despairaging any attempts to analyze the issue other than by the powers that be (or anyone that would disagree with you). That, my friend, is why we are in this mess in the first place.

To the rest of the world:
Carry on.

[closetoperfectionfarm]

[QUOTE=Sannois;3181982]

I have for a long time felt there is some correlation to the use of Warm bloods and crosses as opposed to the TB.
I know it was a hotly debated issue back when the talk of the short forum was introduced.
My own personal opinion so dont everyone that has sport horses or warmbloods kill me. I see a big difference in the agility and athletisism between the the TB and non TB..


REALLY interesting thought and actually very obvious, and one I haven't thought of, but it makes total sense, everyone wants the big fancy warmblood movement for the Dressage, but then OH OH... here comes the X-C that is made for the quick agility of a TB.
Also really interesting thought was posted by maybe Denny(?) on another thread about the new saddles keeping the riders in the tack rather than launching them like the old slick ones.
I applaud everyone's passion and thoughts but don't like when someone says..
SHUT UP blah blah blah, that is just plain RUDE.

[DizzyMagic]

How many rider deaths have there actually been in the USA over the past 6 years?

How many competitive events are there?

How many competition riders are there?

I've been following this thread, but I seem to have taken a wrong turn somewhere... Why are we talking about the past 6 years? Why not the past 3 or 5 or 10??

[TB or not TB?]

REALLY interesting thought and actually very obvious, and one I haven't thought of, but it makes total sense, everyone wants the big fancy warmblood movement for the Dressage, but then OH OH... here comes the X-C that is made for the quick agility of a TB.


Hmm I thought I was keeping track of it but I guess not - I will track down the breed of horse that was involved in the death of a rider by rotational fall. While this is just a small cross-section, it will be interesting nonetheless.

[Gnep]

I think the letter is just BS and a sign of a absolutely confused and unprepared leadership.
Pin all open oxers at all levels, pin at Novice ? That would not work, 40 cm ( about 1.5 feet ) drop requiered include material thikness 12 to 24 inches at least, and how many rotationals at Novice and Training, I think 0 was the number.

Every Oxer has to be pinned, great, but who is going to pin them. No pining clinics available.

Why should a rotational drop anybody a level. Ok if you get hit by your horse and live, good idea, part of the rehab so to speak. 2 or 3 levels down would be better than.

If I crash/rider at 600 plus galloping, between fences ( it realy rattels your brain ) than it is Elimination only, no other consequences. Or my horse stops and I take a dive into the rather solid jump, even better go over the jump, thump
If my horse falls because of a jump 3 to 6 month suspension for both rider and horse?

Were is the differance between me lawn darting alone and or having my horse join me.
Suspension, even if my horse gets a clean bill from a Vet, and I check out ?
A crash is a crash, why does the horse make it so special.

I agree with the elimination of a rider after the crash, but does that mean he/she can climb on the next horse and get going again ? As long as you can walk you can ride ?

Gee when your horse falls down, than your are suspended. Bad girl, bad boy you crashed your horse, zzzzzzzz.
And the other one gets hauled of in the meat wagon and rides in 3 weeks again, or might even climbs back on the next horse, the moment they can stand up.

I am sorry but I fail to take this serious, its bull shit. Panict reaction, damm we had a nother bad day for eventing, what are we going to do, lets get some rules, that sound good, fast hurry, any ideas, don't we have that stuff from the savety advisers, Darrens and Ginas Group.
Good thinking, wow, you are on top of things..........................................
Wow, that is a plan.

Instead off : reviewing qualification rules for UL, make them as tough as possible especialy X-C, zero jump faults, 30 secs over time horse and or rider, as an example.
Don't grand father anybody in, review every qualification according to the new rules, 2 years back. Kick them out if they can not hack it.
Not 4 results make it 6, or past P 10, and your last show results have to be qualification results.
You produce horse or rider 3 results in a row that aint qualifikation results in X-C, you go back and so on, and so on

Jump design

Course design

Real meassures that go to the core of the problem

What were they thinking, going into Rolex, after Red Hill, without having been prepared for a nother " bad day for Eventing ".

[vineyridge]

As Drvm keeps posting over and over, event horses have rarely been full TBs at the upper levels. They have usually been 7/8 or so TB. None of the O'Connors best horses have been full TB, nor have most of the other international riders had full TBs. Andrew Hoy is about the only one who has really upper level pure TBs in the past few years--and BD, of course.

[Thomas_1]

Andrew Hoy has half brothers of mine

[canterlope]

I am sorry but I fail to take this serious, its bull shit. Panict reaction, damm we had a nother bad day for eventing, what are we going to do, lets get some rules, that sound good, fast hurry, any ideas, don't we have that stuff from the savety advisers, Darrens and Ginas Group.
Good thinking, wow, you are on top of things..........................................
Wow, that is a plan.Gnep, the proposed rule changes that have been put forth have been under discussion at the USEA, USEF, and FEI levels for quite some time . They aren't the result of a knee jerk reaction, panicked reaction.Instead off : reviewing qualification rules for UL, make them as tough as possible especialy X-C, zero jump faults, 30 secs over time horse and or rider, as an example.
Don't grand father anybody in, review every qualification according to the new rules, 2 years back. Kick them out if they can not hack it.
Not 4 results make it 6, or past P 10, and your last show results have to be qualification results.
You produce horse or rider 3 results in a row that aint qualifikation results in X-C, you go back and so on, and so on

Jump design

Course design

Real meassures that go to the core of the problem

What were they thinking, going into Rolex, after Red Hill, without having been prepared for a nother " bad day for Eventing ".Stricter horse and rider qualifications were recently approved during the last rule change proposal process. The Course Design Guidelines were recently revised and this will remain an ongoing process as we go forward. The Show Jumping rules have been rewritten and will go into affect this December. TDs now have the ability to request a review of any course they think is questionable. It looks to me like what you are asking for is being done, so I'm not sure its a fair assessment to say that the sport of Eventing is being guided by confused and unprepared leadership.

The one thing I will give you is that none of these efforts will make a difference unless the riders themselves start stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for their own actions. Looking at Rolex, all of the riders who competed were "qualified" under the rules. However, I don't think it is inaccurate to say that not all of them were "qualified" when taking into account those things that you just can't legislate, like thinking quicker while on course and making better decisions when they do get in trouble while attempting to negotiate an obstacle. Not to pick on Laine, but she is a prime example of what I'm talking about. She knew that Frodo had issues with covered obstacles. Instead of giving him the chance to look at the jump where they crashed and setting him up for it, she made the decision to run him at it to avoid giving him time to commit a disobedience. This was not a good decision on her part and there is no rule that could be written that would have forced her to make a better one.

In the end, it is not just one thing that is causing the problems the sport of Eventing is currently facing and it is not possible to solve these problems using just one approach. The leadership is working hard to do everything it can to keep our athletes safe. Now it is time for the other participants to do their part as well.

[crittertwitter]

Because then it wouldn't be eventing!

But, Thomas, the reality of eventing right now... is that what you want to keep?

[flutie1]

"Andrew Hoy is about the only one who has really upper level pure TBs in the past few years--and BD, of course."

Huh?
USA TB's entered at Rolex (not all ran) -

Courageous Comet - (stakes winner)
Brandenburg Joshua
Buckingham Place
Dobbin
Expedience
Hollywood
Kings Whisper
Madison Park
Mr Big
No It Tissant
Oz
Poggio II
Radio Flyer
Truluck

Livingstone and Paleface are Canadian TB's.

[sm]

"Andrew Hoy is about the only one who has really upper level pure TBs in the past few years--and BD, of course."

Huh?
USA TB's entered at Rolex (not all ran) -

Courageous Comet - (stakes winner)
Brandenburg Joshua
Buckingham Place
Dobbin
Expedience
Hollywood
Kings Whisper
Madison Park
Mr Big
No It Tissant
Oz
Poggio II
Radio Flyer
Truluck

Livingstone and Paleface are Canadian TB's.

adding to upper level full TB:
- The Foreman (US-bred OTTB): 2005 Horse of the Year, as well as 2005 Eventing Horse of the Year

noting:
- Poggio II (US-bred OTTB): 2006 Chronicle of the Horse Eventing Horse of the Year; Individual Bronze Medal, World Equestrian Games Aachen 2006; Team Bronze Medal, Athens Olympics 2004; Team Gold Medal, World Equestrian Games Jerez 2002

- Truluck (US-bred OTTB): USEA's 2006 Horse of the Year; Individual Silver Medal and Team Gold Medal at 2007 Pan American Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

[Gnep]

Canterlope,

Which leadership is working hard, there is none.

Red Hill was seen and treated as just a " bad day for eventing ", as our fearles leader of the top called it.
Darren's crash a freak accident.
Than we had 2 top notch shows without trouble and everybody at the top said, see we were right, a bad day for eventing, a freak accident.
Nobody made a plan in the weeks between Red Hill and Rolex in case Rolex would be " a bad day for eventing, with freak accidents.

This letter shows how unprepared the leadership was for a nother bad day for eventing, its a blind, forced reaction and not a planed and prepared action.

Yes, a lot of riders lag the proper sence of responsebility and that goes from the very top ( Darren ) to the very bottom the nameles Beginner Novice rider.
But using that for an excuse, for not being prepared, does not cut it.

[vineyridge]

Put my foot in it, didn't I? I was thinking purpose-bred TBs, not OTTBs, and not North American. But then I remembered Jam from last year, which is why I included BD with Andrew Hoy.

The Welton dynasty started off being pure TB, but are they still? Not.
http://www.weltonhorses.co.uk/stallions.htm

How many of the elite European, Australian and New Zealand horses, other than AH's, are full TBs? We need research on this also.

God knows, I love TBs as well as anyone, but that touch of non-Blood is almost universal in purpose bred International event horses.

[Jealoushe]

I have for a long time felt there is some correlation to the use of Warm bloods and crosses as opposed to the TB.
I know it was a hotly debated issue back when the talk of the short forum was introduced.
My own personal opinion so dont everyone that has sport horses or warmbloods kill me. I see a big difference in the agility and athletisism between the the TB and non TB.. OK teddy is a major exception. LOL
I saw it on Sat.
Back to what you posted, I know there are deaths in the UK but nothing like here. on an annual basis.
Someone said well gee this is the US, so we dont care about what happens there, Maybe we need to.

Finally..........I thought I was the only one who noticed that the introdustion of all these non -tbs * might * have something to do with it!

[Thomas_1]

There's a heck of a difference between a sports horse purpose bred from t/b with a hint of something else e.g. irish draft, connemara and a warmblood though.

[sm]

throwing this out there:

there are those who think the submissiveness in the now ultra-important dressage phase (think WBs) leads to more XC problems with the horse being too submissive to rider. Not to mention not wirey agile/quick enough.

I don't really have an opinion the influence of the dressage phase, but it's interesting.

[canterlope]

Canterlope,

Which leadership is working hard, there is none.Gnep, it is so nice to know that I and my fellow members of the USEA BOG, the USEA Safety Committee, and the USEF Eventing Technical Committee along with the efforts we have put into our Sport over the last few years are being viewed in such a light. It almost makes me say why bother and just walk away. However, I love this sport way too much to let opinions such as this make me hit the road, so instead I will say you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this particular point.

[Janet]

Gnep, it is so nice to know that I and my fellow members of the USEA BOG, the USEA Safety Committee, and the USEF Eventing Technical Committee along with the efforts we have put into our Sport over the last few years are being viewed in such a light. It almost makes me say why bother and just walk away. However, I love this sport way too much to let opinions such as this make me hit the road, so instead I will say you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this particular point.
Canterlope,

I want to say that I, for one, am VERY grateful for all the work the "leadership" is putting into this effort. Especially the more "behind the scenes" work (that doesn't get announced in press releases) to get some REAL DATA on which to base decisions.

Not an easy problem, and it hasn't been cracked yet. Nothing announced so far is a complete solution. But I am confident you (all) are working in the right direction, and will end up with effective results.

[RunForIt]

Gnep, it is so nice to know that I and my fellow members of the USEA BOG, the USEA Safety Committee, and the USEF Eventing Technical Committee along with the efforts we have put into our Sport over the last few years are being viewed in such a light. It almost makes me say why bother and just walk away. However, I love this sport way too much to let opinions such as this make me hit the road, so instead I will say you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this particular point.

Canterlope,

I want to say that I, for one, am VERY grateful for all the work the "leadership" is putting into this effort. Especially the more "behind the scenes" work (that doesn't get announced in press releases) to get some REAL DATA on which to base decisions.

Not an easy problem, and it hasn't been cracked yet. Nothing announced so far is a complete solution. But I am confident you (all) are working in the right direction, and will end up with effective results.

what may help everyone "appreciate' the work that has been done is to ennumerate issues this group has addressed and the specific outcomes that are in place, approaching being in place, and the "we don't have a clue where to go yet" parts. I think that you know that the USEA has members who have issues, and need evidence of what is being accomplished.

I appreciate your work too - just need to know what's SPECIFICALLY being addressed and where you are in getting stuff accomplished. THANKS :cool:

[sm]

Okay -- group hug.

Now let's get back to fixing what's wrong. Or as RAyers suggested elsewhere, putting things on hold til issues are sorted out and necesary adjustments are made.

I understand Gnep's frustration. I direct my anger at the course designers who knowingly build rotational falls. Let's just pull together and get this fixed.

[gooddirt]

Okay -- group hug.

Now let's get back to fixing what's wrong. Or as RAyers suggested elsewhere, putting things on hold til issues are sorted out.

I understand Gnep's frustration. I direct my anger at the course designers. Let's just pull together and get this fixed.


Lighten up on the course designers. They're taking it hard too.

Does air traffic shut down whenever there is a plane wreck?

The sport isn't broken, just bent.

Be prepared and ride smart.

[J Swan]

Gnep, it is so nice to know that I and my fellow members of the USEA BOG, the USEA Safety Committee, and the USEF Eventing Technical Committee along with the efforts we have put into our Sport over the last few years are being viewed in such a light. It almost makes me say why bother and just walk away. However, I love this sport way too much to let opinions such as this make me hit the road, so instead I will say you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this particular point.

canterlope - I've been extremely disappointed in the amount of histrionic posts on this issue. There is no doubt in my mind that the USEA is every bit as concerned about safety as the participants. Any reasonable person understands that it's a multi-faceted problem with no easy answer. No quick fix.

While there is always more than can be done, I have always been supportive of the USEA's efforts to improve the safety and welfare of both horse and rider. From mandatory helmets and vests, to changes in course design, certification, veterinary care - the USEA has made a great many changes and improvements to the sport over the years.

I'm confident that continued efforts and a focus on rider/horse safety will yield positive results, and I thank all of you who devote your time and energy to accomplishing that goal - whether you work directly with the USEA or are a concerned competitor.

[Janet]

I direct my anger at the course designers who knowingly build in rotational falls.
Have you ever had a conversation with a course designer? NO ONE "knowingly builds in rotational falls".
Let's just pull together and get this fixed.
Yep, and that INCLUDES the course designers.

[sm]

Janet, I disagree on the solid jumps and rotational falls: XC CDs know what will happen if/when a horse gets hooked up in one. That's part of their job to access safety when the inevitable occurs. Ever notice there are no bricks in SJ "brick" walls, ever see the construction?

Yes, I do mean everyone set aside their anger, frustration, and work together. I suggest you re-read my post.

[MaryKay]

Not to pick on Laine, but she is a prime example of what I'm talking about. She knew that Frodo had issues with covered obstacles. Instead of giving him the chance to look at the jump where they crashed and setting him up for it, she made the decision to run him at it to avoid giving him time to commit a disobedience. This was not a good decision on her part and there is no rule that could be written that would have forced her to make a better one.

Is this really true? She knew the horse had issues with that type of jump and that was her plan? What about her coach? Surely, she would have consulted him as to how to approach those types of jumps. There will always be "bad" decisions-we are all human after all, but a bad decision should not have a high potentional of killing or critically injuring rider/horse. The course designs have to allow for error without catastrophic consequences-we have the engineering know how and materials to make the courses much safer.

[poltroon]

Janet, I disagree on the solid jumps and rotational falls: XC CDs know what will happen if/when a horse gets hooked up in one. That's part of their job to access safety when the inevitable occurs. Ever notice there are no bricks in SJ "brick" walls, ever see the construction?

Just for completeness sake, the only rotational fall I've witnessed was over one of those plywood brick walls in an 11 & under class at a hunter show.

[AllyCat]

Admittedly, I'm having a hard time wading through this thread. I've not followed this as I've been on vacation and just checked to see how Rolex went. What a horrible time for the sport, not to mention the families, riders, and all others connected with the horses and riders involved.

That said, I'm having a hard time understanding how points 1,2,3, and 5 are going to help the problem. They both penalize the rider AFTER the fact!!

Can someone explain the logic to me? I'm just not in a state that I can read the entire thread. I'd love some "nutshell" explanation.

Ultimately, I still want to blame the short-format...but that's another tale...

[sm]

Just for completeness sake, the only rotational fall I've witnessed was over one of those plywood brick walls in an 11 & under class at a hunter show.

Sorry, I wasn't at that show, had no idea. That sounds completely stupid to design a sheet of plywood. At the countless shows I've been to beginning in the 1970s: blocks less then a foot high and wide, painted in bricks and mortar pattern, stacked as high as the course specs, that will fly apart on impact. If clipped by hooves, then only a couple of the top blocks come down.

[Janet]

Well, 3 (elimination on first fall of rider) (which was already proposed BEFORE Rolex) would have prevented Dornin(sp?) North's second fall.

And though neither she nor her horse were serioulsy hurt, I have to believe that there is a good chance that a rider who has remounted after a fall is not riding "at her best", and is thus more likely to make a mistake leading to further problems. We know that two of the riders who fell and remounted WERE "riding hurt" and were thus more vulnerable.

[wanderlust]

Chiming in a little late on the "starts vs. injuries" part of the thread. As most everyone knows, you can make numbers say *anything* you want.

As quoted by DOC in the original letter about how safe eventing has become, he quoted USEA starts... everything from BN to ****. Now, as far as I'm aware, the issue really is not happening at BN through T, and that is where what, over 80% of starts come from? That injury rate climbs quite dramatically when you fence it in to Prelim-Advanced.

To further break this down, why look only at starts? I think it makes just as much sense, although makes the stats look MUCH worse, to look at it on an individual basis- i.e. (making up numbers here) 250 riders had at least one run at advanced so far this calendar year. Of those, 2 riders have died or had catastrophic injury at that level, and 4 horses have died at that level.

IMO, that is the true statistic, and even if the # of advanced starters is double that, the statistic is nothing short of horrifying.

[poltroon]

My point is that the true 4* horses may "only" be jumping 3* jumps under your scheme, but the true prelim horses and riders will just move up and go intermediate. If pairs that are unsafe but technically qualified are now running around prelim, then just renaming the levels won't keep them from running around the new intermediate and facing the same dangers.


On the other hand, if the stadium jumping stayed at the same level, riders might not move up. If in order to jump a prelim cross country you also had to jump an intermediate stadium (and do an intermediate dressage test), denny's suggestion might still apply to the lower levels.

We could also look at raising the stadium height relative to cross country height at the lower levels.

[Janet]

We could also look at raising the stadium height relative to cross country height at the lower levels. Two years ago there WAS a rule change proposal to increase the Prelim HT Show Jumping height to 3'9" (to match the CCI* and CIC*). But it was roundly defeated, on the grounds that the gap from Training to Prelim is already very big, and it was not a good idea to make it bigger.

Of course, if you ALSO increasd the Training Show Jumping height to 3'6" or 3'7", the gap from Training to Prelim would not be so big.

[subk]

I've heard that we may be seeing a move of some sort to create a level within the gap between T and P.

[Beverley]

Sorry, I wasn't at that show, had no idea. That sounds completely stupid to design a sheet of plywood. At the countless shows I've been to beginning in the 1970s: blocks less then a foot high and wide, painted in bricks and mortar pattern, stacked as high as the course specs, that will fly apart on impact. If clipped by hooves, then only a couple of the top blocks come down.

No, I think I know what Poltroon meant, not stupid at all and quite common at shows in the 70s, too- a panel made out of plywood and painted to look like a brick wall.

I've witnessed a fair number of rotational falls dating back to the 70s, mainly in timber racing/steeplchasing but including my tb putting a leg in a hole while hunting in WY (he walked away from it and so did most of the race horses).

The only one I've had myself- schooling a green horse over a 'harmless' little two foot fence (rails and ground line). He came away with only a bruised tendon from the pole hitting him as he somersaulted. Me, I'm hardheaded, no harm at all.

[poltroon]

Sorry, I wasn't at that show, had no idea. That sounds completely stupid to design a sheet of plywood. At the countless shows I've been to beginning in the 1970s: blocks less then a foot high and wide, painted in bricks and mortar pattern, stacked as high as the course specs, that will fly apart on impact. If clipped by hooves, then only a couple of the top blocks come down.

Standard wall jump design doesn't start with the 6" blocks on the ground; it starts with a base wall of 2' to 2'6" or so, and then you stack 6" blocks on top of that, and then a 3" cap on top of that. The wall itself would be maybe a foot thick hollow plywood box, then painted and decorated.

In this case, in the 80's, the horse, who, come to think of it was a WB, was maybe a bit too strong for his rider, and he basically ran off with her down a line and hit this wall so badly that he flipped. Fortunately, she was thrown clear.

[sm]

Standard wall jump design doesn't start with the 6" blocks on the ground; it starts with a base wall of 2' to 2'6" or so, and then you stack 6" blocks on top of that, and then a 3" cap on top of that. The wall itself would be maybe a foot thick hollow plywood box, then painted and decorated.

This base wall of 2 or 2'6'' is definitely not what I'm remembering. Which explains why I never saw a rotational fall on a "brick' wall. And probably why you have.

The point is, or should be: design the jump for impact. Which, stands to reason however it is designed, is not a solid jump.

Or are you saying rotational falls are unavoidable?

[ToucheToujour]

Read most of the thread, gotta get back to homework (finals are a mare in heat) but here's what i posted on another board that I thought I'd bring here:

Why not add back in something like an optional roads and tracks with optional warm up fences? That way, if you take your horse out of the stall that day and he's high and fresh and excitable, you have somewhere to get a HORSE under you and between your hand and leg and on your aids. Allowing a horse to relax into his day and giving a rider some warm up space and small fences that were optional could reduce some of the excessive speed seen on course.

I like some of their proposals...I think some of the others are over the top.

Here's what I would propose:

1. I agree that open oxers should be frangible.
2. Must qualify in order to move up...and that should be starting at Novice. I've seen some HORRIBLE Training and Prelim falls caused by rider error. Actually, most of the bad accidents and poor unorganized riding I've seen have been Training through Intermediate, not Advanced.
3. Mandatory education. To compete in recognized events, you must attend 1-2 clinics a year, one of which must be an eventing safety clinic put on by USEF/USEA/your local association on fitness, course design, injury etc.
4. More options on course, even at "simple" fences. You don't always know what horse you have under you each day.
5. Course walking at **** level is a group activity. Yay! Let's have fun together. No, but seriously. Course designer and/or a major level eventer who is well respected and not competing at that event does a few group walks of the course. Discussion encouraged. "Yeah, I can see where if you are just a bit off, you're going to need to add a stride through here." "Be really careful for those of you late in the day: the shadows cast by this jump make it difficult for the horse to get his eye on it!" etc. Individual walks always allowed but something like this.
6. Calling more people on reckless and dangerous riding. You see it at every level, and yet almost no one gets penalized for it. Ridiculous.
7. The eventing equivalent of getting a gate card revoked. If a horse has two accidents in six months, he is suspended from competition for three months. If a horse is spun twice in three months after cross country, he is suspended for three months. This means that if your horse has a fall, dumps you, etc then he is suspended. Or, if he's scrambling through EVERY time he's going cross country and showing up sore the next day, they're going to say, "Lack of competence at this level. Horse spun twice in three months." (And yes, I mean it when I say even a rider fall should be grounds for suspension. I know falls happen but if we're going to be serious, let's be SERIOUS. None of this halfway crap.)

Those are recommendations that I would suggest. I can't make it out to Kentucky, but I am considering writing a letter.

Who knows. Maybe they're all bogus recommendations but either way, the more ideas out there, the better the final product.

[Gnep]

Good work Canterlope, the chorus line showed up.

But the lines of not being appriciated, give me a brake.

Read the letter or response from the Professional Rider Asso after Red Hill, look who signed it and than compare it with the make up of the Group that makes savety recomendations.
Same people, same mind set, just a bad day for eventing.
Well we got 2 now, no big deal, three makes a charm, or what.

USEF refused to help/support and endorse outside help.
USEA has not made any endorsement or offered help, even that it was requested and the leadership is aware of it and are constantly imformed about the activities of that outside help and you whine about not being appreciated because somebody dares to ask real questions, what kinde leadership is that.

And take those recomendation, from the Savety Group, whom do they target, the ULR that are crashing, pfffffffff, no way that would cut their own meat, no they target the amatoers, starting from BN upwards, I don't see any BNs, Ns, or Ts killed horse/rider its P and above that makes the headlines, they better clean up their own stall before they look at somebodies elses stall.
Whos is the majority, below Prelim, the minority gives the sport a bad rap and regulates the sport on top of it and has absolutely no plan no idea how to handle their own screw ups and refuses on top of it any outside help.

An you wonder why I am angry and got even more angry after reading this letter from the Olymp, loaded with the usual BS

[canterlope]

Gnep, it is obvious that you are as frustrated as most of us are about the direction our sport is heading right now. It is obvious that you believe the leadership of our sport is not addressing the issues in a satisfactory manner. And it is obvious that you feel you have some solutions to these issues. However, it is very hard for me and others like me to place any stock in what you have to say when the only method you use to share your opinions is to voice them on this BB in a vitriolic manner and then debase anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you.

So, instead of unloading your anger on this BB and taking out your frustrations on others whom don't necessarily agree with your position, I implore you to come to a meeting of the BOG, Safety Committee, or Eventing Committee and present your case to them. Better yet would be for you to ask to become a member of any of these three groups so you could help guide them towards more productive resolutions of the issues at hand. I know that I would appreciate any assistance that you offered in this manner and I'm fairly sure the other members of these committees would as well.

[Gnep]

canterlope,
You don't get it.

This is not about a nother commitee, or adding a nother person to a commitee, this is not about a summit etc..
How many of those does the leadership need.

It is about making a decision and lead and if that decision is not making everybody happy so be it.
Leadership is not a popularity contest

At the present there is a absolut vaccum of leadership, every decision is pushed aside, here a commitee, there a summit.

Nobody dares to make a decision that concerns the problems of UL, thats were horses are lost and rider end up in the meat wagon.

Leadership is not fluffy words, phrases or letters, it is having a plan, implement it no matter what and some times when the going is tough you have to shove it down everybodies throut.
When things are not going well, than the leaders and that is the Presidents, have to stand up and tell everybody this is the way it is going to be from now on, that is their job.

And I am not frustrated, I am angry, big differance.

Frustrated, I would just throw the towel and say to hell with it

[sm]

canterlope and Janet,

Regarding course design: Denny Emerson will hopefully be there and I hope his suggestions (below) will be heard and whoever respsonsible for the course designers work will make them mandatory.

I understand it will take a while to design all jumps for impact – if and when the committee decides this is their goal. I understand once that is done that there will be "freak" accidents and deaths. However, let deaths not be because of the sheer stupidity of the initial course design.

Denny's suggestions meanwhile are quick and easy and a complete no brainer (CDs should already KNOW this):

I agree with those who say these problems are multi-dimensional, and that it will take quite a while to sort them out.

MEANWHILE---there`s a way to make a couple of quick fix temporary safety measures that would work RIGHT NOW, cost very little, and take very little work.

1.Reduce all speeds by 20-30 mpm

2.Take around a truckload of haybales, and turn all the verticals into at least somewhat ascending faces, with big, visible groundlines.

When I walked the fence where Lainey fell, I said to Corinne something like, "Well, here`s a vertical table disguised as a picnic basket."

A row of big hay or strawbales to create a good groundline would have wrecked the aesthetics, but might well have saved a horse.

And anyone who jumps knows that the faster you gallop, the lower your horse gets on his forehand, a bad way to approach a vertical face.

So give them groundlines and slow them down while the safety committees do their thing.

Simple and cheap and instant.


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.

Note: Use of green bolded text is mine.

[denny]

I can`t be at that meeting. It`s GMHA weekend and we have 11 horses entered, our adult camp starts Sunday, and it`s my 45th Dartmouth Reunion. Other than that, no conflict!
My hay bale/straw bale, slower speeds idea isn`t meant to be a substitute for analytical thinking, just a quick fix way of buying safe time until we can figure out what`s up.
Sort of like that "time out" idea.

[Carol Ames]

I amtrying to remember the event a few years ago, possibly a slection trail, where it was so it was so difficult :eek:that many riders just withdrew and walked awey. couldthat have been FairHill?

[canterlope]

Gnep, you're partially right. I "get" that you are angry. What I don't get is why you think it better to sit and complain about the leadership instead of becoming a part of that leadership which would allow you to use your obvious strength to make appropriate decisions and shove those decision down our members throats if they proved to be unpopular.

[flutie1]

"... At the present there is a absolut vaccum of leadership, every decision is pushed aside, here a commitee, there a summit."

This is a classic "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." To be a "leader" by your definition, Gnep, Kevin Baumgardner should have just charged ahead and made decisions on his own? You would then damn him for not seeking input from everyone - and 750 plus e mails prove that there were a lot of opinions - and God knows, you have opinions too.
I don't get your logic. Care to explain?
Canterlope is right. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[LAZ]

I, for one, feel very sorry for the powers-that-be involved in this problem at this time. They are clearly between the rock and hard place.

Sadly, there is no one answer, there is no one perfect solution.

Quick and knee jerk reactions with no basis in fact are not going to solve the issue. Research takes time, effort and financial sponsorship.

We need to look into some easy fixes on a temporary basis to keep things safer as research into what is really going on is conducted. I think Denny has articulated these well.

In order to solve the issues at hand we must ask:

What has changed in our sport?

--The horses really haven't changed
--The courses appear to be safer than 20 years ago
--The footing (take off/landing and galloping lanes) is much better prepared
--There have always been big tables, verticle fences, hills and dales
--The course designers are competent. The course builders are competent.
--Has our equipment had an unexpected effect? Studs? Saddles? Different bits?

If we can't define a direction to guide our research in a non-emotional, knee jerk way then we are doomed to continue the direction we're going and the demise of eventing.

There is already a division that is lower and slower than Advanced, it is called Intermediate. I want to see our riders doing a better job of getting around at Advanced, not see Advanced turned into Intermediate.

I do not ride at this level, but I have brought along a couple of riders and horses that have gone on to do Rolex. I do not want to see the pinnacle of the sport go away, but I do want to see responsible riders on capable horses ride well-designed courses without undue risk to their willing partners. I believe the riders/coachs/and support teams need to be able to step outside their ambitions and be Absolutely SURE they are ready to tackle the course at hand. If there is ANY doubt, ANY doubt at all by any member of their team they SHOULD NOT RIDE, be it Rolex or Beginner Novice.

Step back, assess honestly, ride safely. Accidents are always going to happen with horses, the trick is to minimize that chance and accept that we, as riders, are ultimately reponsible for the safe completion of the ride--be it the first time on a baby horse or our gallant old veteran that has been around every big track east of the Mississippi.

FWIW--I've offered my help to the USEA and USEF and am currently being utilized in an area that I am familiar with.

[flutie1]

So well said, LAZ.

[denny]

The absolutely BEST solution is if we can have fences that look like current fences, but which fall down, like showjumps, when hit hard.
Then we can still have xc as we know it, but with much less risk.
But that`s gonna take time to figure out. PLUS, all the little organizers all across America, can they afford those kinds of jumps, even if we figure out how to build them?
So what can we do NOW to stop the proliferation of bad accidents?
I don`t think anyone has the total magic answer, but it strikes me that the best way to create a stop-gap measure, to give us some breathing room, is, as I suggested yesterday, slow down the speeds at prelim and up, (maybe training?), and use big groundlines, (haybales, logs, brush piles?) to soften the worst verticals.
What else, short term, and immediate, can you guys think of?

[LAZ]

Denny (or anyone else from this era)

Did you use studs when you were doing the big tracks? When did they come into use? I flat out can't recall.

Maybe in addition to the things you've suggested we should consider getting rid of anything other than the very smallest studs.

I'm tossing this out with very little to support the idea other than the thought that studs allow people to have more confidence in their footing, thus higher speeds/less caution.

Me, I'm trying to think of ideas that won't put the "personal" events out of business. I hate to think how many events we'll lose if we mandate huge changes for jump inventory. I would think the private track owners just won't be able to justify continuing if it involves spending 10's of thousands of dollars on new courses.

[RunForIt]

Its ironic that money seems to be driving so much in eventing, but I agree with you, LAZ, about the costs that venue owners and organizers may be dealt, if eventing is to be made safer. These folks have kept us all riding and competing for years...its not going to be easy. But someone (and someone has got to be EVERYONE) has got to keep asking the hard questions AND confront the soft answers. Penalizing people AFTER they fall isn't going to save horses and riders...

[Gnep]

Flutie,

It is at times necessary to make decision that are based on gut feeling, or to the best of your judgement, knowledge. They are not perfect, by no means, and always need to be developed and reviewed.
Everybody at the present is looking for the Holy Grail, that will fix all the problems, it does not exist, their is no Holy Grail.

Since all the real bad accidents happen prelim and above, more correct, I and above ( disregard Darrens, somebody got caught out rolling the dices once to often ), 2,3,4 stars.
Jumps, straight face jumps and open oxers and vertikals.

Instead of spending huge amount of money organizing and holding this summit, use the money to have a nation wide pin certification program, invest into the development of saver tables, make money for it available and review with the finest comb who and which horse will be allowed to ride X-C I and above, 2,3,4 star, and refuse anybody that has a problem or is doubtful.

Those are the most obvious problems

At times any decision is better than no decision and any decision can always be tweeked, corrected, than no decision.

Leading is a rather shity job at times, but it rquieres to make decisions and it requieres when thinks go wrong to come to a decisions fast and not rol it over to one more summit one more commitee, that is avoiding a decision.
And Flutie they have to charge ahead and take the risk that they might be wrong, take the reins into their hands, there is straight faced jump ahead
Are DOC and KB in a tough situation, yes, the rock and the hard place.

[flutie1]

The absolutely BEST solution is if we can have fences that look like current fences, but which fall down, like showjumps, when hit hard.
Then we can still have xc as we know it, but with much less risk.
But that`s gonna take time to figure out. PLUS, all the little organizers all across America, can they afford those kinds of jumps, even if we figure out how to build them?
So what can we do NOW to stop the proliferation of bad accidents?
I don`t think anyone has the total magic answer, but it strikes me that the best way to create a stop-gap measure, to give us some breathing room, is, as I suggested yesterday, slow down the speeds at prelim and up, (maybe training?), and use big groundlines, (haybales, logs, brush piles?) to soften the worst verticals.
What else, short term, and immediate, can you guys think of?

Question = will eliminating vertical faces and making everything fall down make riders ride the fences better - or will they respect the fences even less than they seem to now? Will it make them stop taking that one little chance over the edge?

[RunForIt]

Question = will eliminating vertical faces and making everything fall down make riders ride the fences better - or will they respect the fences even less than they seem to now? Will it make them stop taking that one little chance over the edge?

You can't stop riders from taking risks - but the options listed in Denny's and Gnep's last post will likely decrease injuries and deaths to horses and riders. Add to that some version of Jumper_Dad's review panel for all catastrophic type injuries and falls (I'd suggest a different assortment of panelists - the ones listed made me think of the fox guarding the hen house), and a mandatory suspension from competing and coaching while the review is completed...then take data, tweak as needed indicatd by data taken at all levels.

If the USEA is serious about stopping situations like what happened at Rolex, then the actions they take ARE going to displease many riders - most certainly many people riding Prelim and above. In some ways, it boils down to this, do what's best for horses AND riders or put on useless band aids thinking the vast majority of members will let this thing die and eventing can continue as is...

If you don't decrease speed, take out the fences that are the site of the injuries, the deaths of horses, the injuries and deaths of riders will continue. Yes, more, LOTS more needs to be done in terms of filtering out riders and horses not ready to compete at all levels. The changes listed by Denny and Gnep will buy time for those kinds of structures to be thoughtfully developed and implemented.

[sm]

Instead of spending huge amount of money organizing and holding this summit, use the money to have a nation wide pin certification program, invest into the development of saver tables, make money for it available and review with the finest comb who and which horse will be allowed to ride X-C I and above, 2,3,4 star, and refuse anybody that has a problem or is doubtful.

Safer tables/jumps might not be that expensive. I don't know what type of design major applies here, but university departments can give this out to their students as a special project. Then contestants submit ideas to a USEA committee. This type of project doesn't need to cost USEA.

Forgive me if this comparison is offensive, but what comes to mind is the Vietnam Memorial was a Yale University class project. In 1981 Maya Lin's entry was chosen out of a field of 1,421 unlabelled submissions in a design competition that was open to all Americans, not just professional architects.

Being proactive, and appealing to all americans regardless of background for a solution: let's just say it won't hurt USEAs image either. This contest should be run by USEA Public Relations, I think we have a winner.

[sm]

more about the contest:

A twelve-page booklet was issued to contestants with an immense amount of detail and registration form (no mailing costs for USEA, today it can be PDF). Ideas to be presented in 2D, no 3D models allowed (maybe space limitations, also great so did not price out talented but broke college students).

Submission of concepts identified by number, no names allowed so the committee in charge did not know who they were judging --- sweet, the way to go when surrounded in a room of politicans.

pages 174 & 175
http://books.google.com/books?id=tcbCO3_lq2oC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=%22maya+lin%22+contest+rules&source=web&ots=J-jCiUCth7&sig=dPrMvGk2I2icdxHC2gYu5HdZn8w&hl=en#PPA175,M1

[Gnep]

Flutie,
it might with a few.

If you have ever ridden in GB, than you will see some Ladies and Gents, called Stewarts and its rather good if you just see them.
They have that very special british way to express their displeasure if you ride like an idiot.

How many riders and horses, dispite being officialy qualified, were not deamned to be worthy to show up in the startbox at Badminton.
And I guaranty, that after the X-C day in Badminton is over, a few will be on that not worthy list for next year.
Luhmuehlen has done that for ever, you behave or you have a nice little chat with the stewarts and you end up on that waiting list.

[tbgurl]

Maybe I'm missing something totally obvious (except for the fact that I know cross country is supposed to be over solid, fixed obstacles) but why can't they just create courses out of regular standard-and-pole jumps to get the knock-down effect without huge cost, at least at first until we can figure out a way to make knock-down cross country jumps that aren't hideously expensive? It won't be as exciting to look at, but if it saves lives and keeps the sport alive, why not?

[Thomas_1]

^ Because then it wouldn't be eventing and not a horse trial at all. It would be show jumping without an arena fence

[imapepper]

Maybe I'm missing something totally obvious (except for the fact that I know cross country is supposed to be over solid, fixed obstacles) but why can't they just create courses out of regular standard-and-pole jumps to get the knock-down effect without huge cost, at least at first until we can figure out a way to make knock-down cross country jumps that aren't hideously expensive? It won't be as exciting to look at, but if it saves lives and keeps the sport alive, why not?

Poles that fall down aren't necessarily the answer. You can fall over poles just as easily and poles can get tangled up in legs. Rotational falls don't just happen in eventing.

[staceyk]

Perhaps something creative could be done with bales of straw.

Half-joking here, but interim measures seem in order.

[Jumper_Dad]

I support the idea of 'red-flagging' riders at events for dangerous riding -- although that's a tough 'concept' to quantify in words, we all know 'dangerous riding' when an educated and experienced eventer sees it -- not just talking about speed...I have a Prelim-experienced TB who goes around xcntry in a 'balanced and safe' manner at about 450-480mpm and that's what we ran at Novice-Rider this weekend and came in very close but over the time fault time but that shouldn't qualify me to be 'red-flagged' as 'riding dangerously' should not be solely based upon speed -- as we all know, it's much more complicated than that and we have all seen amateurs running BN and Novice at below 300mpm who were scary-dangerous out xcntry...bottomline: any rider should be able to be pulled off course by a steward for 'dangerous riding' and sanctioned in an appropriate manner (and have the right to appeal any decision). As with all the great ideas how to fix this problem (whatever the real problem is or becomes), there are no easy fixes but an entire re-look at everything from speeds, to jumps, to rider qualifications, to increased jump judge/steward perogative to stop an accident from happening BEFORE it occurs and institute a investigative protocol and lessons-learned system after an incident does occur so those in the community can learn from others' 'incidents'...all ideas are good ideas and should be considered until it's proven they are not good ideas. WEAR A RED (OR ANY COLOR OF YOUR CHOOSING) RIBBON ON YOUR TACK THIS WEEKEND IN HONOR OF THE QUIET MAN AND FRODO BAGGINS AND ALL OTHER COURAGEOUS AND VALIANT EVENT HORSES WHO LOST THEIR LIVES SERVING THEIR RIDERS !!!

[adamsmom]

Since all the real bad accidents happen prelim and above, more correct, I and above ( disregard Darrens, somebody got caught out rolling the dices once to often ), 2,3,4 stars.

Amanda Bader was riding Preliminary.

[flutie1]

At Rolex, there were 2 or 3 "secret" red flaggers around the course. It's a great idea, but a difficult concept to actually implement.

[NMK]

Flutie--why is it difficult? Can you explain the logistics of it?

I think there should be stewards out there, visible to everyone as a reminder to ride safely. And there should be a little speech about safety at the start box, through control (however organizers can deliver it) to get the word out about why they are there. And every jump judge should have a channel on the radio that they can report "iffy" fences to these people. IMHO, we need to put the responsibility to ride safely back square on us before we leave the box, and this certainly would be a very visible, and audible, reminder.

Any of us that have jump judged can remember a time where they called control about a bad ride. I have one clearly etched in my mind, where a generous mare banked a trakehner. Now the stewards might be able to get them before they continue. Is this something that can realistically be done?

[DizzyMagic]

Gnep, the proposed rule changes that have been put forth have been under discussion at the USEA, USEF, and FEI levels for quite some time . They aren't the result of a knee jerk reaction, panicked reaction.

Canterlope (or anyone?) - is this true? The two rotational fall rules that have been proposed were under discussion for awhile and are not a reaction to Rolex?

Emily

[LAZ]

Flutie--

Just a quick response as I'm awaiting the sheriff (someone got my bank card and drained my account, what a mess).

I don't think the flagging idea would be that difficult to implement--we already have area stewards at the big events, each of those areas could have a flagging station that is known to all competitors prior to the start of x/c. Jump judges could report, via radio, to the area Stewards and chief Steward (TD or president of the ground jury) and a judgment could be made to stop the rider, or black flag them to let them know they're being unsafe and if they don't straighten up, red flag them.

It would take very few more people and would be pretty inexpensive to implement. Knowing you're being watched is a powerful incentive to behave...

LAZ

[LLDM]

At Rolex, there were 2 or 3 "secret" red flaggers around the course. It's a great idea, but a difficult concept to actually implement.

True - That's why I think we should be making riders responsible.

And yes, I DO think it can be done. If there is the will to do so.

The idea is that if we are not responsible, we cease to be riders - at least in recognized competition.

I have thought on this a great deal. You can change anything and everything but the sport will not be "safe" until all riders get it through our heads that we are the ultimate bottom line on protecting our horses and ourselves. No one else can do it for us. The choices are all ours. We can chose to stop. We can choose not to run. We decide when to to half-halt and when to press forward. It is OUR JOB to keep ourselves and our horses out of trouble and away from harm. No one else can do that.

The buck stops with you and I every time we throw a leg over. Period. Everything else we are working on is just helpful! :yes:

Seriously folks - I believe it is time to get draconian. If our leaders have the will, there is a way to turn this around fast. Pull out the red flags and the start handing our dangerous riding points, yellow cards and serious suspension time.

So what if people get penalized unfairly? Consider it a small sacrifice to save our sport and our horses. Deal with it. It's what we can do now. Put the "Fear of God" back into eventing. 'Cause let's face it, this is all based on a lack of respect in a very basic way.

Eventing is not a right. It's a privilege.

SCFarm

[sm]

re stewards: They used to be at the USET team qualifiers at Gladstone headquarters (okay, this was the 70s). A pair of volunteers would go around the course on really beautifully trained horses, thankfully I never saw them in action except for things keeping crowds behind lines. Bascially staying on course but well out of the way, they spent lots of time radioing back and forth, like I said thankfully I never saw them in action.

Anyway, check with the USET for details...

[Debbie]

I think red flagging and pulling people is an outstanding idea, but do you (a ubiquitous you, not directed specifically) want to be the steward responsible for pulling someone up? You may know you were seeing bad riding and poor decision making, but unfortunately that is subjective and preventing the accident that may or may not have happened probably won't get much thanks from the over-eager, competitive rider. Personally, I say tough to that, but what are the liability implications when you have a rider attempting to qualify for whatever?

[NMK]

If more than one jump judge reports a safety issue on the radio, that would take the heat off the steward (in other words it would not merely be his/her decision). Could that happen, logistically? I know when I've jump judged I call control when rider X is clear, but I am not sure of the logistics of actually making this happen. Maybe it's much more complicated. But it sure seems like a great idea to me.

Nancy

[flutie1]

Flutie--why is it difficult? Can you explain the logistics of it?

I think there should be stewards out there, visible to everyone as a reminder to ride safely. And there should be a little speech about safety at the start box, through control (however organizers can deliver it) to get the word out about why they are there. And every jump judge should have a channel on the radio that they can report "iffy" fences to these people. IMHO, we need to put the responsibility to ride safely back square on us before we leave the box, and this certainly would be a very visible, and audible, reminder.

Any of us that have jump judged can remember a time where they called control about a bad ride. I have one clearly etched in my mind, where a generous mare banked a trakehner. Now the stewards might be able to get them before they continue. Is this something that can realistically be done?

A) The timing of using the flag. By the time the Steward has confirmed with the Ground Jury that competitor X is indeed riding dangerously, competitor X is well on his merry way and hopefully hasn't flipped over.

B) It's a tough call. Would you like to be the one to flag Bruce or Karen or Kim or Darren down and tell them they are dangerous? I can't think of very many more things that would be less fun.

The FEI suggested a "Yellow" flag warning system. It didn't work.

I like the idea of an automatic suspension of X amount of time if you've been yellow carded or given DR penalties.

flutie

[canterlope]

Canterlope (or anyone?) - is this true? The two rotational fall rules that have been proposed were under discussion for awhile and are not a reaction to Rolex?

EmilyYes it is. It has been known for quite some time that rotational falls are the most damaging and all three organizations have been investigating ways to deal with them since it became clear that they needed to be addressed.

[pwynnnorman]

I think it should be Control's call--with the help of special flaggers or jump judges adnd/or whoever else (TD, etc.) is/can be involved given the timing of the issue. Control is the only single person who knows--if not actually sees--all. And Control has the experience of however many rounds, however many course designs, however many rides, etc., etc. And Control is, more or less, a public entity and a leader.

One of the things I enjoy about jump judging here in FL is listening to Flight Check command her minions. There's a lot of respect there, between Control and everyone else on the field of battle. Maybe it's time to give Control "special powers" (or at least a few more s/he doens't already, innately, have).

[LAZ]

The FEI suggested a "Yellow" flag warning system. It didn't work.

I like the idea of an automatic suspension of X amount of time if you've been yellow carded or given DR penalties.



In racing if you ignore the flags you're basically doomed. You get fined, suspended, and any leeway you might have had in the past is gone. They take their communications very seriously, and rightly so--it can be the difference between life and death.

I think if eventing treated it the same way riders would believe it was in their best interests to behave. If a few people that are borderline get talked to I bet word gets around that the stewards are to be taken seriously. Independent thinking in eventing and racing are paramount, but not to the point of endangering those around you--in racing that is your fellow drivers and in riding that is your horse.

B) It's a tough call. Would you like to be the one to flag Bruce or Karen or Kim or Darren down and tell them they are dangerous? I can't think of very many more things that would be less fun.


If I were chief Steward (or PGJ or TD, whoever was in charge) I would do it in a heartbeat if there was need. I would hope that their sportsmanship would rise to the occasion and they would recognize and acknowledge that such a thing was done in the best interests of the sport. The sport that gives them joy, satisfaction, and a livelihood. If it didn't, so be it. I still would stand by that it was only for the good of the sport, the protection of the sport and the horses.

[Eventer724]

I agree that this might help with rider responsibility, however, it seems to be more of a reactive instead of pro-active approach to these problems...we need to get at the CORE of this problem, not just solve the functions of it

[denny]

I`m going to keep asking the same question until someone answers it:
Is it better to build xc courses which are too easy for the best, or better to build xc courses which are too hard for the least?
The answer to that question will have a lot to do with determining whether or not eventing is here to stay.

[BigRuss1996]

I believe it would be better to build xco courses which are still slightly challenging for the best but do able enough for the majority. I think this would require a seriously creative course designer...


I`m going to keep asking the same question until someone answers it:
Is it better to build xc courses which are too easy for the best, or better to build xc courses which are too hard for the least?
The answer to that question will have a lot to do with determining whether or not eventing is here to stay.

[RunForIt]

I`m going to keep asking the same question until someone answers it:
Is it better to build xc courses which are too easy for the best, or better to build xc courses which are too hard for the least?
The answer to that question will have a lot to do with determining whether or not eventing is here to stay.

and there's enough of us who are willing to keep putting that question in front of the USEA over and over...no more fluff, no more wringing hands and doing nothing.

Keep asking the hard question - we will too. We're all between that rock and the hard place. I've felt it in the last 24 hours; had to make a difficult decision I wasn't wanting to make, but til eventing has itself sorted out, my horses are staying home.

Long live clinics! :cool: (I pulled out my goals for the year - had written (among others) : New Year's clinic with all the gang in Southern Pines - at Tamarack! - better make sure JLGriffith has the same agenda)

[Eventer724]

Denny...my answer would say: definitely courses that are too easy for the best...as we can see from recent events...it doesn't matter how good you are or even what you are sitting on...it's what you are jumping..personally, I feel that if the best of the best can't find the highest levels well within their reach, then there needs to be a major change..and I second your idea that if we are going to build jumps bigger, let that be in stadium where the jumps fall and not the horses. Building non-collapsible jumps in a field and labeling it cross country..welll we have seen what happens and it is NOT pretty

[Eventer724]

let me second my quote of non collapsible jumps as non collapsible show jumps...just to clarify here