Wow, rider responsibility quote: Why you need a subscription to COTH.

[pwynnnorman]

This is just one tidbit from the COTH commentary of last week. Not only does it provide a valuable viewpoint, but it also shows how valuable a communication organ the sports only weekly pubication is. I think it is just so outstanding that this perspective comes right on the heels of the event that prompted it. Short of these BBs, there's no other way to get accurate, timely pespectives on our industry than COTH.


By pushing so hard to achieve goals, we’re pushing right past the point. Do you know why Amanda [Warrington (deceased). It's her husband presenting this view.] didn’t make the team? Because she didn’t live long enough. Because she pushed so hard to get there that she died in the process. It’s horrible and it’s tragic, but it wasn’t the sport’s fault. Nobody made her run that horse. I never told her not to run the horse. We sat at home and tried to figure out how to make the horse go better instead of saying maybe this horse isn’t an advanced horse. Maybe he’s good at the intermediate level.


[Mod 1 note: I checked with the main office and got the go-ahead to post the full text of the article, which follows.]

Horseman's Forum



No One Can Fix Eventing Except The Riders
May 9, 2008 Issue

The writer has a unique perspective on the serious responsibilities that every upper-level rider must assume.

I feel like 250,000 people out there are yelling that our sport is bad, and there are about 250 riders saying it’s not the sport that’s a problem, it’s individuals. And we’re whispering, and we’re not being heard.

Every article you pick up, every outside influence, is saying that we need to change the sport—we’ve got to make it safer, we’ve got to do all these things. To me it really isn’t the sport that needs to change, it’s the way the sport is being played. You can’t make enough rules to make somebody think.

For instance at Rolex Kentucky, what prompted Emilee Libby to pull up at Fence 7A and not continue? Was it the fact that she had a bad fall or had seen a bad fall? What made her make that decision? That was the best piece of horsemanship I saw all weekend.

The first thing we have to do is stop looking to the organizations—the U.S. Eventing Association or U.S. Equestrian Federation—and stop looking to rule changes, and accept personal responsibility.

It’s like when you stop at a stoplight and the light turns green. Do you just take off, or do you look left and look right before you take off and make sure no one else is coming the other way? I mean, I look both ways before I go. That’s the kind of personal responsibility that we need to take at this level.

At lower levels, it’s different. We’re working with the Instructor Certification Program, and everyone’s
trying to up the standards at the lower levels. But at the top, you’ve gotten there. And you need to have some self-awareness, self-preservation.

In the races, at Saratoga [N.Y.] one year, there were some rumors that the officials wanted to take the
second fence off the backside because that’s where most of the falls occur. But then the falls are just going to happen at the next fence, because everybody is making a move there. They can’t keep changing the sport. Riders who aren’t paying attention are going to keep finding ways to fall.

Learning From Tragedy

I lost my wife Amanda at an event 10 years ago. Let’s use her example as a teaching tool. She made a mistake. I made a mistake, and the sport didn’t make a mistake.

By pushing so hard to achieve goals, we’re pushing right past the point. Do you know why Amanda didn’t make the team? Because she didn’t live long enough. Because she pushed so hard to get there that she died in the process. It’s horrible and it’s tragic, but it wasn’t the sport’s fault. Nobody made her run that horse. I never told her not to run the horse. We sat at home and tried to figure out how to make the horse go better instead of saying maybe this horse isn’t an advanced horse. Maybe he’s good at the intermediate level.

When you are team-bound, when you are goal-driven, you don’t look at life that way until it’s too late. I’m trying to tell people, sometimes it’s better to go home and come back another day. Sometimes it’s better to look at your horse and say, “You know what buddy, I love you, but maybe the four-star, or the three-star or even the two-star level is above you,” and not push your horse or yourself past the point you can do.

I don’t understand why people think that they have a god-given right to go around Kentucky as fast as they can or as fast as they want to. It’s your job out there to take care of you and your horse first. If you don’t like a course, don’t run it. If you think questions aren’t fair, don’t run. Most people don’t do that. Some said this year looked like a soft Kentucky, and I said there’s no such thing as a soft four-star. Maybe this one wasn’t as tough as others, but it’s tough. Don’t mistake it.

Amanda had five advanced horses—Regal Style, Chevalier, Broadstone Harvest Moon, Exodus, and Drizzle was on his way. Berlioz [whom she fell with] was just trying to catch up to the others. Maybe it’s my fault. Maybe I should have said, “Hey Amanda, you know, the horse really doesn’t want to do it.”

But I was 27 years old; she was 28. You don’t think that way. You think, “I need more horses so I can get on the team.” And she would have made the team—Chevalier did go to the Olympics when Bobby Costello took over the ride. It wouldn’t even have taken any more time. But she didn’t get to make the decision because she was too ambitious.

Know When To Call It A Day

You have to be aggressive in this sport. It is X-C; there is an X in front of it. It is an X game. This is an adrenaline sport, and you have to be on the edge. It is tough; it is a thrill. You can’t come out and ride it like it’s the hunters either, but you have to know by the time you get to the upper levels, that there is a day that you have to pull up.

It’s part of the game to say, “This is not my day” and go home. I did it at the Fair Hill CCI*** (Md.)—my horse had two more stops to go [before being eliminated], and the stops he’d had were not horrible, but my horse said, “You know what, I don’t want to do this.” And I said, “OK, let’s go home before we get hurt.” And I went home and didn’t get hurt.

When you have consistent things telling you that you are having a bad day, you’ve got to make the decision: Do you want to pull up, or do you want to go home in an ambulance? I’ve got to tell you: pull up! Walk your horse home. There is no shame in retiring.

Go home, school, figure out what’s going on, and maybe, your horse isn’t a four-star horse. Maybe your horse isn’t a three-star horse. Maybe you’re not a four-star rider. Maybe you’re not a three-star rider. Those are facts you have to face, but don’t kill yourself trying.

Laine Ashker has been going fast since early March, in Florida—she’s had the fastest time cross-country consistently. And is it my fault, me, Danny Warrington, is it my fault for not calling up Laine and saying, “If you don’t slow down you’re going to fall?” But she’s winning; she’s qualified, and everything looks good.

But how many people besides me see this and don’t say anything? No one says anything.

It’s not the sport’s fault because she’s met the qualifications. It’s not the design of the course because everybody else jumped relatively well around Kentucky this year. It is a four-star—there should be a 50 percent finish rate clean. Not everyone should jump around a four-star clean, otherwise it’s a training level horse trial. I don’t think that’s unreasonable at that level. But it should be because a rider retires or makes a good decision, not because a rider keeps pushing until he or she goes home in an ambulance.

You’ve got to wake up and say, “You know what, my day is not going good, and I need to pull up. This isn’t working out.” And live to fight another day. It’s not up to your coach or the USEA or USEF to tell you that. Because you should know. By the time you get to that level, you should know.

Accidents are always going to happen. But if the horse and rider have the right mindset, you’re going to see fewer of them.

I don’t think you can make rules to stop them. They have to stop themselves. You can’t stop every drunk driver from getting on the road. As the rider, you feel that it is not your day. Not every horse is an advanced horse, and not every rider is an advanced rider. As riders, as horsemen, we need to really understand that. Just because you’re qualified to go doesn’t mean you’re ready to go.

Waylon Roberts had a great round, and he’s 19. He comes from a horseman’s family. We can’t make rules that say you’ve got to be at least 25 years old to ride around Kentucky, because that’s not fair either. But you have to have a serious amount of experience before you attempt something at that level. So many of these younger riders go out without the mileage to feel if the horse is tired, or understand the difference between tired and off the bridle.

Let’s Help Ourselves

If we as competitors who love our sport would shout out what is really wrong with the sport, which is the way some people are playing it, then we might have a chance against people who are trying to shut us down. And instead of whispering about what’s wrong, addressing it.

That’s sort of why I’m coming forward and saying that Amanda’s accident had nothing to do with the fence, the day, the footing or lighting or time, or anything but that we were pushing a horse to go advanced that wasn’t really ready or maybe wasn’t an advanced horse.

The reason that I’m talking about Amanda’s fall is that maybe there are others out there who feel that their fall was due to poor judgment on their part, that they may speak out. Because the world believes that the sport is the problem. And I believe it’s the greatest game on the planet when you play it right.

Learn from mistakes you see around you, and don’t expect the organization to do things for you.

Coaches—if you don’t think your kid isn’t ready to go novice, training, preliminary, intermediate, or advanced, don’t let them. Don’t send them out there if they’re not ready. That is a very tough thing to have to live with, and believe me, you don’t want to live with it.

The word “no” has to come out of your mouth. The words “you’re not ready” have to come out of your mouth. The words “your horse isn’t that quality” have to come out of your mouth. If you lose a customer and he goes to somebody else, if we all agree that we’re not going to do this anymore, maybe we can help ourselves help our sport instead of looking at the organizations.

And one more point: I hear people talking about horses that have had these issues, like Amy Tryon last year at Kentucky, or Jonathan Holling’s horse who had an aneurysm at Red Hills (Fla.). And I want to say to people: if you haven’t had a horse break down underneath of you, if you haven’t had a horse have an aneurysm, if you haven’t had a horse flip, if you have not ridden advanced, maybe this isn’t something you need to be talking about. Because you don’t have the experience. And all you have is an opinion.

Because I’ve had all of those things happen. I lost my wife. I’ve had horses break their legs and break down. Between racing and eventing, there’s not a lot that hasn’t happened to me. And don’t judge people until you’ve been in that situation. I mean that in a positive way: I don’t want everybody to have those situations. But listen to the people who have. Don’t push when you shouldn’t push. There’s a day to pull up. There’s a day to go home, and there’s a day to fight again.

We don’t have to change the sport. We have to change way the sport is being played by the players.

Danny Warrington


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danny Warrington is an advanced-level rider and professional teacher and trainer at Warrington Eventing near Fair Hill, Md. He was married to international rider Amanda Warrington, and he rode steeplechase races for 10 years.

[Highflyer]

I thought that was an amazing commentary. It was incredibly brave of Danny Warrington to write it. I can't imagine how hard it must have been.

[Lori B]

I just read that this a.m. with my coffee. I thought it was the most thoughtful thing I've read about eventing. Maybe ever.

[seeuatx]

That is probably the single most eloquent statement that I have read in all of this. I cannot imagine how difficult that was for her husband.

[ZEBE]

Can you point me to the full article or posting. I must have missed it and would like to read the whole thing.

Danny's comments are so profound - those thoughts should be a reminder to everyone.

thanks very much


Barbara C-K

[RunForIt]

Can you point me to the full article or posting. I must have missed it and would like to read the whole thing.

Danny's comments are so profound - those thoughts should be a reminder to everyone.

thanks very much


Barbara C-K

me too - can't find the article in this week's or last week's COTH.

Hey Barb! :cool:

[CookiePony]

When the NY Times interviewed me the reporter asked about a "culture" within eventing that might contribute to accidents at the ULs. At the time, I told her that I really didn't know whether there was such a "culture". This article gets at a possible answer to the question, though.

If Danny Warrington is right, how would we go about changing such a culture of pushing horses and riders beyond readiness/ability?

[CookiePony]

Link to article: http://www.chronofhorse.com/index.php?cat=20508042848022&ShowArticle_ID=1330805083900724

[RunForIt]

...and read again and again - to feel, and to think, and think some more.

This line, at this moment, for me, sums up the state of eventing:
"You can’t make enough rules to make somebody think."

As Danny so eloquently points out, there are many UL riders who are making things work for horses as well as themselves...I keep coming back to the question of rider responsibility for the horse - if the horse or the rider (the best of both species are not perfect) make a mistake, should there be the very likely possibility that the mistake will take their lives?

[Firefox]

Danny, you have hit the nail on the head!! I admire your courage to put that out there and to speak up for our sport!

[RunForIt]

Going out to ride...and to think.

Thank you, Danny. A finer tribute to Amanda could not happen.

[pinkdiamondracing]

Finally someone is stepping up to the plate with a logical reason for some of these horrible accidents that keep happening, IMHO.

I know a certain eventer who, after flying all the way to Burghley to compete, did not like the way her horse was getting out of the ground on XC midway through the course, and after a fence or two, decided the best thing for her horse and herself was to pull him up, retire and live to fight another day.

To me, that was the smartest move she could have made-- sure, it hurt to see all the time, work and money go down the drain, but guess what? She is safe, her horse is safe, and that's what's important at the end of the day.

I am so very proud to call this very compassionate eventer who truly loves her partner my sister. Her horsemanship and dedication to the well-being of her horse at her young age is a shining example of what the future of our sport holds.

Sure, I would love to see her on the Team someday, and who knows?? Maybe she will be, but not if it comes at the expense of either her or her horse's well-being.

This does not mean that I think the accidents which have occured have been because those riding did not care about the horses they were riding, but rather as an example of the point Danny is making-- that maybe the prospect of making the Team comes at too high a price for both rider and beast.

[bip]

This line, at this moment, for me, sums up the state of eventing:
"You can’t make enough rules to make somebody think."

I disagree with this. You can't make enough rules to make EVERYBODY think, but you can have rules that either make more people think, or they change the incentives and things that motivate people to behave a certain way.

I feel like the quote above is just saying "we can't do better", but we have to. If we don't do everything within our power to reduce the death/injuries, how can we support/participate in the sport in good conscience?

[IFG]

Wow did that take a lot of courage. He has done the sport a major service.

[asterix]

The link doesn't work unless you have a subscription. I would love to see this, though. We see Danny out coaching all the time and he is really great to watch. Mr. Asterix spent all day as xc warmup steward, came home, and told me "that guy" was the best teacher he'd seen in a long time (this is from a pretty unhorsey guy...).

And pinkdiamond, that decision by your sister was class, class, class. I have so much respect for her.

[RunForIt]

Tigger Too died today at Jersey Fresh of a heart attack.

[FlightCheck]

I had chills reading that letter....thank you Danny

[Kementari]

I don't disagree with what he says, but...

It would all be well and good if this was a sport that didn't involve a(nother) living animal. Then we could yell at people about taking responsibility, and when they didn't (because some won't: ya can't fix stupid) it would be their own fault if they were seriously injured or killed.

But those people aren't just killing themselves; they're killing their horses, too. And the horse can't sit down with his rider and say, "Hey, you know, I just really don't have the stuff to go advanced." If the rider ignores all the warning signs, there still needs to be some sort of safety net in place to help the horse. And that has to take the form of rules (standing around shaking our fingers at people may be easier, but it doesn't work nearly so well...).

Now, what those rules should be is certainly up for debate: change course/jump design, change qualifications, change speeds, more penalties for DR, more vet checks, etc... But the fact is that we will always have riders who make poor decisions, and we should do everything possible to protect their horses.

[meventer]

I read a draft of this earlier in the week and admire Danny for being the one to stand up and be truely honest.

I think its a lot like drunk driving. There are a ton of laws and penalties but people do it anyway. You push the limit and you get away with it, so you do it again. Or the "its not gonna happen to me" symdrome. But it's your personal choice to get behind the wheel and drive drunk. And when you do, you not only endanger your life but those of everyone else on the road.

[JER]

Thanks for the heads up on this as it takes a while for my magazines to find me.

If we follow Danny Warrington's line of thought, we'd have to agree there's an inevitable, and thus acceptable, number of rider deaths and serious injuries in eventing. It's not unlike other risk endeavors like flying or climbing or driving, in which there is a critical window with a higher death/injury rate, due to limited experience of the participant and an increase in the amount of risk undertaken by the participant. I know this is very true in aviation. In eventing, this would translate to a higher proportion of serious accidents to less-experienced riders at a particular level. (I don't know if the stats bear this out, I'm just conjecturing based on what DW wrote.)

Is this ok with everyone? This is a serious question -- it might only be 1 or 2 deaths a year or maybe even 1 death every other year, depending on the data. What is an acceptable death rate? We all participate in activities, most obviously driving a motor vehicle, that carries a well-studied level of risk.

A few months ago on one of the safety threads, I posted the death rates of children from motor vehicle airbag deployments. This death rate was the rate that lead to new legislation about airbags, front seats and small people. I don't have the number with me right now but it was very, very low. This did not stop authorities from taking action.

So, next question: What is the acceptable death/serious injury rate in our sport due to rider error? If we decide that rider responsibility is the real culprit behind the recent spate of falls/deaths, is it ok that horse deaths/injuries are a by-product of rider errors? Or should we look for ways to give the horse the best chance to save himself from rider errors?

There are no easy answers to any of these issues. Nor is there any one cause.

[Highflyer]

FWIW, I don't think he's saying that there's an "acceptable death rate" for either riders or horses. I think he's saying that you can't make a rule to cover every contingency, and so we as riders need to take responsibility for ourselves. Just because you are "qualified" to move up a level, for example, doesn't mean you should do it. Just because the rider in front of you made time on xc and survived, doesn't mean you should go out and ride as fast around the course as possible.

And we can make qualification so difficult that only Philip Dutton will be allowed to ride at the **** level, but even that doesn't guarantee that there won't be rider errors.

[TB or not TB?]

In my ever so humble opinion, while I do agree that we can't fix stupid and can't FORCE riders to be responsible, we CAN create rules to protect them. I've said it time and again, but people shouldn't have to die for their mistakes, and neither should their horses.

I absolutely applaud him for stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility, but we simply can't let our sport depend on people always doing the right thing, because friends, it ain't working.

How many times have there been threads on COTH about trainers taking advantage of students, shady horse dealers selling lame animals, students who are inappropriately mounted and/or act without their trainer's permission, etc, etc. The horse industry has a dark side. We are sadly mistaken if we think we can rely on people to always do the right thing. Eventing has not attracted as many of these incidents until more recently, when it became more of a money sport. Pretending it is the same, home-grown sport we grew up with is naive at best, and ignorant at worst.

Fortunately, most eventers are genuine people with their horse's best interest at heart. If we act reasonably now, we can keep our sport safe for the future.

[Debbie]

I think rider responsibility is a huge part of the puzzle, but what bothers me about just focusing on rider responsibility is that it ignores the fact that this sport has changed. If you've been around this sport for more than 5 years or so, you know undeniably that it HAS changed at the upper levels. Courses are asking different questions. You can't ignore that when looking for solutions.

Kudos to Mr. Warrington for his strength in owning his responsibility and urging others to do so as well and to do so as a community. I mentioned on a thread months ago my experience of being approached by a concerned and kind stranger after a clean but ugly round in my early 20s and being gently mentored in how to improve. I appreciate her words to this day - 20 plus years later. We can all be better stewards of our community in so many ways.

[ShotenStar]

My non-riding Husband-Person was impressed with this article ... he specifically pointed it out to me (he got the Chronicle first this week....) and commented that the thoughts applied to dressage riders as well. As in, there wouldn't be a need for the Performance Qualification Standards Rule if we all were responsible for our own riding and advancement.

*Star*

[deltawave]

While I think the article is a "must read", I'm not so sure copying and pasting a COTH article on the site that COTH provides for us FREE OF CHARGE is exactly kosher. :(

[SLW]

MY COTH arrived yesterday and as I read his article I thought it was applicable to any riding dicipline. Between his article and the one a few weeks back about what it takes to be a Medal rider w/ one trainer I thought "wow, common sense and sound values could be making a come back."

[dressagetraks]

What a marvelous article.

I found myself watching Rolex 2007 highlights show today - had taped Rolex 2008 highlights broadcast after it on the same tape, and when I finally got time to watch, I lost track of rewinding while getting lunch and rewound back to the beginning instead of just to the start of 2008. So I was watching 2007 again, admiring Teddy and others, and there in the middle of Rolex 2007 was Becky Holder, pulling up and walking off with her horse after Courageous Comet stopped at a fence. Jimmy Wofford commenting said immediately, "That's the right decision. That horse is not a stopper." I don't know what was going on, maybe even she still doesn't, but kudos to Becky for listening to him that day. It was that moment just as much as her 2008 Rolex that I watched later that impressed me.

[event1]

WOW....great article-should be a must read for people of all ages that participate in this sport. Danny Warringtons honesty is amazing....good for him. You can make all the rules you want to protect people-but the bottom line is that the RIDER is the one that is in the drivers seat and they are the ones with the personal responsibilty to make the right decision for themselves and their horses...even if they are "qualified" by the rules. People need to wake up and realize the the courses are getting more technical-the horses are ONLY SO SMART FOR GODS SAKE....and that if you want to play-you better be on your "A" game from the start. It is a dangerous sport even at the lowest levels and people need to realize that-big time. I wonder, if you asked-how many riders would say they would rather have a gold medal than the horses life that they won it on, or their own life intact (because-as Danny clearly states-that choice is really what it is coming down to). What is so great about winning a damn medal anyway? Is it really worth it all and what you risk getting there? Starting to seem to me that "making the team" and winning medals is above all-even common sense, self preservation and the value of their horses life-pretty pathetic actually.

Thank you Danny for your heartlfelt honesty...it was really refreshing to read.;)

[eventer4ever]

Thank you, Danny.

Well said and some of the best words I've read since all of this started.

Well said.

[J Swan]

COTH (the magazine) has had some absolutely terrific, thought provoking articles on this subject lately. From Sara's editorial to Mr. Warrington's words (I teared up reading that as I can only imagine what that poor man went through) - they are all well worth reading.

Sometimes I think about canceling my subscription; as its become awfully heavy on show results. But with writing like that - I think I'd be missing out.

This is the type of writing I'd like to see in the mainstream press - not the manipulative, emotional drivel of half truths and misinformation that I've been reading.


Kudos to COTH.

[retreadeventer]

I am sitting here in tears, because I know how hard that letter was.

I am proud to say I know Danny!
He is without a doubt a true lover of eventing and horsemanship and a gifted coach and trainer, as well as super generous.

There is nothing, NOTHING in his comments every single eventer entering a USEA recognized horse trials should not be reading and understanding, from Beginner Novice to Olympic levels.

Wiping tears this Sunday morning, looking out my window at my horses, hoping I can be the rider Danny says I should be for them.

[LAZ]

My COTH came Friday and I hadn't gotten a chance to look at it yet, I appreciate the heads up on such a thoughtful, honest article.

I'll be posting it in my barn. I take from his article what I try to preach to my people--the show is never worth the horse, and we must always do this with the thought that we are the keepers of our animals well being.

[awm]

This article is a must-read for all humans!

The points of being responsible for yourself and your actions should be
ingrained in our lives.

The points apply in every aspect of making our decisions for our own lives,
which, if we are not watchful, could be regulated into oblivion.

Knowing, or at least debating in your own mind, when to say *yes* or *no* to an action,
and standing firm will be setting examples for all around you.

There is much common sense expressed here----we all have it---

[pwynnnorman]

While I think the article is a "must read", I'm not so sure copying and pasting a COTH article on the site that COTH provides for us FREE OF CHARGE is exactly kosher. :(

Yup, DW. That's why I posted as I did. COTH can't keep giving us this forum and that mag's best if they can't generate profit through it. Even if you can't support it with your $$$, at least do so with your respect.

[cyberbay]

That's very much an issue: the sport of eventing has indeed changed. It is not the sport we all grew up with, with the aura of the Greats: Lucinda Green, Jim Wofford, Mike Plumb, Bruce Davidson, Torrance Watkins, Mark Todd, etc. And I sincerely feel that a crux of the problem is that today's generation of UL riders are riding with the previous generation's style, or misinterpretation of it -- of "Kick on! Gallop on! So what if he hung a leg!" -- and that that mentality is crashing into, not progressing with, the reality of today's evolution of eventing and what it tests. Dressage is more heavily weighed, and xc is more technical and not inviting of the glorious run and jump style of those who created eventing and put it on the map.

Today's generation also does not have the stabilizing influence of a central trainer (Jack LeGoff) and recognized system to the top. A system that in the previous generation no one worked outside of and which prepared everyone rigorously for the task at hand. I think that void is a large part of the problem, as that system served as a governor (sp?) on riders who were ill-prepared but thought of themselves as otherwise (speaking to D. Warrington's comment about self-governance). American eventing does not have that vetting and preparation system in place anymore.

This generation also has the issue of making a living -- and more can be earned by someone with UL credentials and a Team imprimatur than one without -- than perhaps the previous, and costs are only going in one direction.

I see a good outcome for eventing. It is simply going through growing pains. Studying other risk sports for how they handled their second generation of growth -- to see what takes place when a sport matures -- might be useful.

I thought Danny's Forum was very useful and finally stating some truths that simply need to be said. But horsepeople aren't necessarily more truth-driven or enlightened than any other crowd, so ...

[Moderator 1]

As the thread title indicated, this is "Why you need a subscription to COTH." :winkgrin:

It's fantastic that readers have found this commentary so valuable--if anyone finds an article in the magazine that they feel would be an excellent contribution to the forums, please contact me or the main office of the magazine to suggest that it be posted on the forums.

The forums were originally started however with the idea that they would serve as an opportunity to further discuss topics covered in the magazine. Providing the content free to the public should be a decision that the magazine makes though--as noted before, the mag pays the bills for the BB! :)

I've taken down the text of the article, but have a note into the main office regarding whether or not they'd like to post it.

For those who have already read it, feel free to continue the discussion, and I'll repost the content if I get the OK.

Thanks!
Mod 1

[RunForIt]

As the thread title indicated, this is "Why you need a subscription to COTH." :winkgrin:

It's fantastic that readers have found this commentary so valuable--if anyone finds an article in the magazine that they feel would be an excellent contribution to the forums, please contact me or the main office of the magazine to suggest that it be posted on the forums.

The forums were originally started however with the idea that they would serve as an opportunity to further discuss topics covered in the magazine. Providing the content free to the public should be a decision that the magazine makes though--as noted before, the mag pays the bills for the BB! :)

I've taken down the text of the article, but have a note into the main office regarding whether or not they'd like to post it.

For those who have already read it, feel free to continue the discussion, and I'll repost the content if I get the OK.

Thanks!
Mod 1

Thanks so much for your actions - everyone seems to benefit when values and reason work together.

[pinkdiamondracing]

Sorry-- I don't know what I was thinking, so I have deleted my whole post with the copy and paste in it. My apologies to COTH.:sadsmile:

[grayarabpony]

Despite Danny Warrington's quote (and he's right, Amanda was a very reckless rider and unfortunately a disaster waiting to happen), the sport needs to be changed. BOTH factors need to be dealt with -- riders and courses. You're dealing with a daredevil sport on horses that get tired by the end of the course and may be focused more on running and jumping, and the courses need to be designed with that in mind, so that there's more run-outs than rotational falls.

[pwynnnorman]

Safer jump proposals are OUT THERE (so that safer courses might eventually be designed without diminishing the sport's traditions or challenges). Proposals have been sent along to those who might consider them.

[I deleted what I really want to say about this. It's a shame that I felt the need to do so, but that's the way things are right now.]

Anyway, the not-quite-my-point is that people ARE working on it. The question is what those who make the decisions are going to do with what those who don't make the decisions offer up. Personally, I think publicizing ALL efforts, including some of the designs that have been offered, would be good PR and also good for other engineering types to consider/critique/improve upon.

[RunForIt]

Safer jump proposals are OUT THERE (so that safer courses might eventually be designed without diminishing the sport's traditions or challenges). Proposals have been sent along to those who might consider them.

[I deleted what I really want to say about this. It's a shame that I felt the need to do so, but that's the way things are right now.]

Anyway, the not-quite-my-point is that people ARE working on it. The question is what those who make the decisions are going to do with what those who don't make the decisions offer up. Personally, I think publicizing ALL efforts, including some of the designs that have been offered, would be good PR and also good for other engineering types to consider/critique/improve upon.

So, perhaps members might request that all committees, groups working on safety issues' - including safer jump proposals - should make their findings public for the membership to consider....

[grayarabpony]

Why delete what you wanted to say? At any rate it needs to be more clear than the last sentence in your last post. Your posts can be very difficult to read.

[JER]

So, perhaps members might request that all committees, groups working on safety issues' - including safer jump proposals - should make their findings public for the membership to consider....

Yes.

I'd also like to know why they're so slow to implement proven safety measures, like footing improvements (from the Murray/Singer studies, published in 2006) or the frangible pins, which were available since 2002. And why, as of a few weeks ago, the USEA did not have any frangible pin clinics scheduled.

[LAZ]

Originally Posted by pwynnnorman http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=3203541#post3203541)
Safer jump proposals are OUT THERE (so that safer courses might eventually be designed without diminishing the sport's traditions or challenges). Proposals have been sent along to those who might consider them.

[I deleted what I really want to say about this. It's a shame that I felt the need to do so, but that's the way things are right now.]

Anyway, the not-quite-my-point is that people ARE working on it. The question is what those who make the decisions are going to do with what those who don't make the decisions offer up. Personally, I think publicizing ALL efforts, including some of the designs that have been offered, would be good PR and also good for other engineering types to consider/critique/improve upon.
So, perhaps members might request that all committees, groups working on safety issues' - including safer jump proposals - should make their findings public for the membership to consider....


I recognise everyone's outrage and concern about these issues, but really, really, really, it takes time to put together viable corrections and change.

Just because we can post on the internet and have instant opinions and instant communications doesn't mean that real and effective change can occur as quickly.

Hopefully the people working on these issues will publish their findings and suggestions for corrections and their reasoning and research behind the solutions.

GrayArabPony, I didn't have any problem understanding Pwynn's post. I think she's being reasonable, open, unemotional and deliberate in her thought process.

[RunForIt]

LAZ, in your opinion, what would be a realistic time frame for viable changes to provide safer fences be...frangible pins have been out there for 6 years, how many more years would be realistic for them to be used?

[grayarabpony]

LAZ, good for you but I'm not the only one who has had trouble reading her posts. The grammar is well.... problematic.

[pwynnnorman]

greyarabpony, it's not "problematic," its political. :D

Anyway, it's one thing to publicize THE chosen solution. It's an entirely different thing to air possible solutions.

And yes, yes, I realize that patents and profits might be involved, but IF that were the case, should such things be allowed to impact the process when implimenting the best solution--which might turn out to be a combination of ideas from a variety of sources--as quickly (and publicly) as possible is so very important right now?

Why not put up a webpage of designs? Who knows who is working on what engineering feat right now that might help us find a solution? One little gadget from some industry totally off everyone's radar screens might make a huge difference. Who knows?

[And it would be good PR.]

[LAZ]

LAZ, in your opinion, what would be a realistic time frame for viable changes to provide safer fences be...frangible pins have been out there for 6 years, how many more years would be realistic for them to be used?

I have to say I just don't know...but I have been in contact with some of the people that are working on it and they are working very hard on it. I would hope we start seeing responsible responses soon, at least in the stop-gap measures until more permanent solutions have been researched.

After talking with a course builder yesterday about putting some frangible pins in on new jumps being built for our local HP I am more aware of the various issues with them, and the choices that must be made in order to keep them functioning and viable.

A) You put frangible pins on the new coffin complex.
B) You must have people who are educated in putting the rails up if they come down
----examine the pins to see if they are damaged
----reinstall correctly
----do you leave the fences up all the time (available for schooling)?
----if not, what hue and cry comes from the general public that wants to have these fences available at all times
C) For liabilities sake, do we need to offer frangible pin managment classes?
----If we do how do we determine who is qualified to teach them
----How do we compensate and certify that person?

Now, none of those things by themselves are difficult, and at the big events it wouldn't be an issue.

Please do not think I am against having the frangible pins--I'm a big safety geek. I just hadn't considered all of those issues in conjunction with using the pins. I had just thought "let's use them!" I still think we should use them, no doubt about it, but we need to be sure they are used properly where used.

And this is just ONE aspect of a many pronged issue.

I am a very big proponent of rider responsibility.

As I look back (with the value of hindsight) I see many things that should have foreseen and prevented/avoided if the riders had used their heads better. Laine was going too fast, Amy should have pulled up, the girl on The Quiet Man should have pulled up, Darren shouldn't have ridden that horse at prelim at that HT, Jon Hollings' horse had a previous instance of trouble, Tigger Two had been on rest for an injury in the recent past and might not have been conditioned optimally for a ***. Do those riders look back and see that they would take it all back if they could? I suspect they do, I can't imagine what hell they must all have gone through. However, I can't speak for any of them.

I am also a proponent of keeping the sport as eventing, and not putting all smaller events out of business in our zeal to rush to an answer.

I think we need to give the people who build the courses, those who engineer the courses, those that officiate, those that ride, those that coach, the time to do a proper job of making effective changes, that's all. I suspect there will be changes coming down in the near future, I just hope they will be changes that are useful and worthwhile while keeping eventing, eventing.

[pwynnnorman]

How are these things handled in the UK? Aren't the pins in use more commonly there?


B) You must have people who are educated in putting the rails up if they come down
----examine the pins to see if they are damaged
----reinstall correctly
----do you leave the fences up all the time (available for schooling)?
----if not, what hue and cry comes from the general public that wants to have these fences available at all times
C) For liabilities sake, do we need to offer frangible pin managment classes?
----If we do how do we determine who is qualified to teach them
----How do we compensate and certify that person?

[RunForIt]

Thanks for the reply, LAZ - your thoughts make sense. I DO think it's reasonable to ask folks working on these safer jump designs (along with the rest of the committees) to set benchmarks - deadlines if you will - for themselves and make those benchmarks public, then also publish current results of their efforts. Alluding to people actually making progress toward safer jumps isn't what I need to reassure me that there is a sense of urgency and rigor in the work of this group. Couldn't they be named?

[JER]

I
I think we need to give the people who build the courses, those who engineer the courses, those that officiate, those that ride, those that coach, the time to do a proper job of making effective changes, that's all. I suspect there will be changes coming down in the near future, I just hope they will be changes that are useful and worthwhile while keeping eventing, eventing.

I am not questioning your commitment to the job.

But I will ask the question: How much time is too much time?

To use a parallel from motor racing. Dr. Hubbard's HANS device was commercially available in 1991. Sales were slow; no one was really interested in a device designed to prevent basilar skull fractures, even though drivers were dying from basilar skull fractures. When anyone asked about why HANS devices weren't mandated by racing organizations, the racing entities said they were working on it, studies were being done, they were waiting for the research, etc.

Cut to February 2001, NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt, Sr. dies from basilar skull fracture in front of big on-track and TV audience. In October 2001, NASCAR mandates the HANS device. Formula One also mandates the HANS for the 2001 season. CART also mandates the HANS for the 2001 season. And so on.

Sometimes, it just takes enough people saying WTF? to make safety happen.

[LAZ]

I am not questioning your commitment to the job.

But I will ask the question: How much time is too much time?


Actually, it's not my job at all, I'm just trying to do some liason work between some racing organizaions that I've worked with in the past and relay information/make contacts for the horse people, some of whom post here and work for either the USEA or USEF. I am not comfortable with posting names on the internet without permission.

I will tell you that I have contacted people from the IndyCar community, the VP/PR guy from SCCA, and USAC. It's taken me over a week just to get my small part of things as far as they've gotten. And it is the first of baby steps that may or may not be of any use to the eventing community.

I personally wish this all should have been addressed several years ago, but like all large groups of people that are run by largely volunteer effort, the wheels turn slowly. Heck, they run slowly in huge, money making corporations.


To use a parallel from motor racing. Dr. Hubbard's HANS device was commercially available in 1991. Sales were slow; no one was really interested in a device designed to prevent basilar skull fractures, even though drivers were dying from basilar skull fractures. When anyone asked about why HANS devices weren't mandated by racing organizations, the racing entities said they were working on it, studies were being done, they were waiting for the research, etc.

Cut to February 2001, NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt, Sr. dies from basilar skull fracture in front of big on-track and TV audience. In October 2001, NASCAR mandates the HANS device. Formula One also mandates the HANS for the 2001 season. CART also mandates the HANS for the 2001 season. And so on.

Sometimes, it just takes enough people saying WTF? to make safety happen.

I grew up in car racing, I raced myself for a while, ran a race car manufacturing shop and served in many volunteer capacities within the sport (registrar, timing & scoring, organizer). As a manufacturer we were constantly struggling with making the absolutely safest design/car within the rules, that was fast enough to win and still have a product that was competitive financially. Build one that was fast but unsafe you'd be out of business, build one that was safe but slow and you'd be out of business, build one that was the safest and the fastest and you'd typically be under fiancially. So everyone did the best they could to produce a quality product, within the rules, that was fast enough to win and not so fragile that it would cause undue risks. Sound familiar?

It takes injuries and fatalities in racing to make changes happen, just like many industries, unfortunately. (Well, there's the faster/tricker/more competitive changes that are driven by competitive spirit, but those don't typically help with safety.) :winkgrin:

Fuel tanks were changed to fuel cells to help prevent the conflagrations that were burning drivers, sometimes to death. Submarine straps were added as mandatory to seat belts, to keep drivers from sliding out under seat belts. Roll cages/stuctures became stronger, to keep drivers safe inside the cars. Arm restraints/window nets became mandatory to keep drivers arms inside the car. Neck rolls and then the Hans Device became mandatory to keep necks/skulls intact in whiplash events.

All of these improvements came about from need that arose due to injuries/deaths, and very few of them came about overnight.

[LAZ]

I just realized how far this topic had come from the original topic--I apologise for the hijack!

[JAM]

Actually, I think this is highly relevant to the broader topic of the safety issues. Now, as to one of your earlier posts (excerpt quoted below in itals.), I agree with JER: how long is too long? Whenever a committee starts to "work" on an issue, someone always comes up with reasons why "it" can't be done, and the result is that, years later, nothing gets done. To take frangible pins as an example, they've been around for a long time, but seem to be sparingly used. This in itself is ironic given the extensive coverage given on last weekends' Rolex TV coverage to the eventing community's supposed commitment to safety -- it cited frangible pins as the key (and perhaps only) example. The eventing leadership is literally studying these issues to death, and I will be curious to see how vigorous the new safety committee is if or when there is a momentary decrease in the frequency of these tragic occurrences.

As to Danny Warrington's article, I totally see his point and agree with much of what he says, but I think that personal responsibility is not going to going to solve the problems upper level eventing has right now, or come even close. People should not have to pay the ultimate or close to ultimate price for their mistakes, and the horses sure shouldn't be subjected to that price for a lapse in rider responsibility. I remember watching The Horse in Sport segment on eventing (more than 20 years ago!) and Frank Weldon saying that he tried to build courses that would challenge the best and most experienced while still allowing the less skilled or experienced to get around or at least go safely. We seem to have strayed far from that sound approach, and it's no answer to say that riders who make mistakes -- and their horses -- get what they deserve.


A) You put frangible pins on the new coffin complex.
B) You must have people who are educated in putting the rails up if they come down
----examine the pins to see if they are damaged
----reinstall correctly
----do you leave the fences up all the time (available for schooling)?
----if not, what hue and cry comes from the general public that wants to have these fences available at all times
C) For liabilities sake, do we need to offer frangible pin managment classes?
----If we do how do we determine who is qualified to teach them
----How do we compensate and certify that person?

[bip]

Sometimes, it just takes enough people saying WTF? to make safety happen.

Unfortunately, from your description it sounds like instead of "enough" people dying, it just needs to be the right person under the right (highly visible) circumstances.

I guess Ralph Hill and Darren Chiacchia's significant injuries weren't enough? Frodo and LeSamurai weren't well known enough? That is kind of a sad commentary ...

[LAZ]

Jam,

I'm not saying the frangible pins shouldn't used--I was just commenting that I, personally, hadn't considered the things you've got italicized until after the course builder brought it up.

It's just another example of why things take a long time. I say go ahead and do it and use the good technology available, but we'll have to educate the eventing community on how to make them work properly and as they are designed to work.

But I still believe that ultimately it is the rider's responsibility to present a horse safely to the fences that are well within the horse and riders scope and ability, and not rely on frangible pins (or any other safety feature) to insure their safety. These features should be there to serve in an emergency, not substitute for personal good judgement and skill.

P.S. If this happens after all of the safety concerns are looked at, I'm done with it all.... someone always comes up with reasons why "it" can't be done, and the result is that, years later, nothing gets done. To take frangible pins as an example, they've been around for a long time, but seem to be sparingly used.

[JAM]

LAZ -- I wasn't commenting about you. I was commenting about my experience with committees in all walks of life -- there are always people who come up with reasons something can't be done and the committee operates by consensus and chooses to do nothing. The larger the committee, the worse this syndrome is. And this is why shrewd politicians, faced with criticism for inaction, decide to look bold and proactive by forming committees to study the problem, knowing all along that three years later nothing will have happened. Is that happening here? I hope not, but the history is not encouraging.

[adamsmom]

Despite Danny Warrington's quote (and he's right, Amanda was a very reckless rider and unfortunately a disaster waiting to happen)

I've had many conversations with Danny on the subject of rider responsibility lately, and I don't think that was what Danny was saying, and from what I remember of Amanda's riding, not an accurate recollection.

[Peggy]

The article hits the nail on the head in so many ways. You can't legislate sanity. You can't write a rule to protect everyone or to prevent every possible situation. You can educate so that people know what good and bad feel like, whether bad is a chipped jump or a horse that's NQR. The ethics or whatever it is that makes someone say "this horse doesn't feel OK, so I'm going to pull up despite <insert goal here>" are harder to train. People do need to take responsibility for themselves, their horses, their students, and their children.

It's not just eventing. It's telling parents that "no, your kid really isn't ready for the big eq." It's realizing that your dressage prospect shouldn't be pushed further b/c his mind or body might break. It's giving a horse the time he needs for a lay-up. It's not treating horses as disposable--if it breaks you get a new one.

[pwynnnorman]

You can educate so that people know what good and bad feel like, whether bad is a chipped jump or a horse that's NQR. The ethics or whatever it is that makes someone say "this horse doesn't feel OK, so I'm going to pull up despite <insert goal here>" are harder to train.

Peggy, it's interesting that you should post that because I jsut posted on the JF thread (probably the wrong thread to do it on, in fact) that maybe Tigger left a message behind: that breaking into the trot late in a course is a serious signal that something is wrong, a signal which should not be questioned but instead should be responded to by pulling up immediately--not kicking on? Perhaps "press on regardless" should be formally acknowledged now as a definite thing of the past? Err on the side of caution?

I keep thinking about Le Samauri here, too. If ICP, for example, could spread the word about these kinds of real signs, maybe some progress would be made in helping people become more aware, even in the heat of competition, and thus also more responsible?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Peggy, it's interesting that you should post that because I jsut posted on the JF thread (probably the wrong thread to do it on, in fact) that maybe Tigger left a message behind: that breaking into the trot late in a course is a serious signal that something is wrong, a signal which should not be questioned but instead should be responded to by pulling up immediately--not kicking on? Perhaps "press on regardless" should be formally acknowledged now as a definite thing of the past? Err on the side of caution?



Be careful of trusting all you read on BB. I know someone else who was right there and saw what happened to Tigger.....very experienced rider. She said he didn't break to the trot. Was jumping well....got to a good distance to that fence and just looked like he didn't pick up his feet. He also did not try and get back up. It look to her like he had an aneurysm...and he didn't look pushed.

I post this to just say that two different people saw different things. But do agree that you need to know your horse...and feel what they are telling you at all times. And also agree that it is always better to err on the side of caution but if it does turn out to be an aneurysm...you don't really get much if any warning.

[subk]

Perhaps "press on regardless" should be formally acknowledged now as a definite thing of the past? Err on the side of caution?
Riders break bones, have internal injuries or float unconscious face down in the water jump then either get back on or argue with officials to be allowed to get back on and finish, then they go to the hospital later (and that was just Rolex.) We call them "tough," "plucky," and "determined." I've decided from now on to call it "stupid," "poor horsemanship" and "bad sportsmanship" to expect a tired horse to haul your less than fit body the rest of they way around one of the toughest courses in the world. We need to change this "finish at all cost" culture. One step is to stop viewing obviously perilous behavior in positive terms.

[pwynnnorman]

I post this to just say that two different people saw different things. But do agree that you need to know your horse...and feel what they are telling you at all times. And also agree that it is always better to err on the side of caution but if it does turn out to be an aneurysm...you don't really get much if any warning.

It doesn't matter, bornfree. Maybe that mistaken report of him trotting was put in here for a purpose. There are other signs that your horse is cooked on course (and, please, I'm NOT saying Lauren missed the signs--I do not ever speak definitively about what someone else has felt or thought, not ever).

Nevertheless, I honestly don't think some event riders know those signs--or they choose to ignore them. I am almost "cooked" myself with all of this. INSENSITIVE is the word that keeps rattling around in my mind. If jockies can feel it, if show jumpers can pull up two strides before a huge oxer with a ton of rpms under them, and if we don't allow horses to jump from a standstill--and riders are conscious enough in the heat of the moment to recognize that and turn away--then we should also hold them to the same standard, the same expectations at the upper levels: err on the side of caution.

IMO, that is the solution to the problems the sport faces--falls will still happen, but it's the "just do it" and "kick on" mentality is what is going to kill the sport itself (the sport as we know it, that is--it may become something else, but it won't be the sport we've known and loved).

[Spoilsport]

I just posted on another thread that we sould stop second-guessing and pointing fingers at riders, but I also agree that it is ultimately the rider's responsibility. Certainly it's the rider's choice when it comes to training and conditioning and making decisions as to when to compete or move up a horse. And certainly until the rules are changed only the individual rider can make the choices. On the other hand, I haven't understood since the AT incident how anyone can say an upper level rider can't make a well-intentioned bad judgment or legitimate mistake. They can. They always will. Trusims like "we need to know are horses better" don't have a lot of meaning to me in the real world. We need to be a little more forgiving. Unless some of us are perfect and have never made a mistake :uhoh:

[shea'smom]

AT POny Club Event Rally this weekend, ideas were running rampant. Besides Rider responsibility, someone brought up the idea of fining OWNERS! Maybe owners and trainers should share some of the backlash from these dieing horses.
I know there would be alot of things to take into account, I'm just saying....

[LisaB]

Good one Shea! Owners also put pressure on riders to perform and get to the top.
But hats off to Danny. He's right on the money. And here, I really didn't like him for some things he's done at shows but I have a little more respect for him now.
Look at Badminton. I asked why so many retired. And the reply was that the horse was tired or it wasn't their day so the riders called it quits before anything happened. THAT'S horsemanship! THAT'S what we need here.

[subk]

I just posted on another thread that we sould stop second-guessing and pointing fingers at riders, but I also agree that it is ultimately the rider's responsibility. Certainly it's the rider's choice when it comes to training and conditioning and making decisions as to when to compete or move up a horse. And certainly until the rules are changed only the individual rider can make the choices. On the other hand, I haven't understood since the AT incident how anyone can say an upper level rider can't make a well-intentioned bad judgment or legitimate mistake. They can. They always will. Trusims like "we need to know are horses better" don't have a lot of meaning to me in the real world. We need to be a little more forgiving. Unless some of us are perfect and have never made a mistake :uhoh:

Yep, I used to think just like you. Then I went to Rolex and got to see "rider responsibity" in action on the fences BEFORE horses went on and got in trouble later in the course. But no one really wants to talk about that, do they?

[Spoilsport]

Yep, I used to think just like you. Then I went to Rolex and got to see "rider responsibity" in action on the fences BEFORE horses went on and got in trouble later in the course. But no one really wants to talk about that, do they?


Sometimes people will get it right, and sometimes they won't. Riders should assume responsibility, but we should accept that good people make mistakes. I cannot believe none of you have never made a choice that, in hindsight, was not a good choice. Personally I don't think that asking riders to continually second-guess and doubt themselves over a x-country is going to make it safer for horses and riders. It is not an either-or situation but a matter of degrees.

[Moderator 1]

Just wanted to let you all know that we got the go-ahead from the main office to post the full text of the article, which I added to the OP of this thread.

We, of course, still think everyone should subscribe. :winkgrin:

Thanks,
Mod 1

[bosox]

We, of course, still think everyone should subscribe.


I did---3 weeks ago b/c of this very issue. I wanted to stay current. However, no COTH has shown up in my mailbox.:no: However, I have been charged on my cc.:confused:

[texang73]

Danny, you have hit the nail on the head!! I admire your courage to put that out there and to speak up for our sport!

Ditto.

[Moderator 1]

Thanks for your subscription--contact Gloria Broy at the main office (gbroy@chronofhorse.com/540-687-6341) with subscription questions.

[indigoecho]

Sometimes people will get it right, and sometimes they won't. Riders should assume responsibility, but we should accept that good people make mistakes. I cannot believe none of you have never made a choice that, in hindsight, was not a good choice. Personally I don't think that asking riders to continually second-guess and doubt themselves over a x-country is going to make it safer for horses and riders. It is not an either-or situation but a matter of degrees.

Yes, neither horse nor rider will ever be 100% perfect all of the time, and I can accept that. But after watching Frodo essentially die in front of me, I cannot accept that the penalty for a mistake is the death of a horse or rider. It's unacceptable and it is happening with too much frequency. There is too little margin for error on the courses.

I am agreeing with DizzyHunter and saying the deaths in this sport are taking away the fun for me. I won't watch horse racing and I have to admit I am not in a big hurry to go back to a cross country day. There have been three horses that have died in the last two weeks. That should not be an acceptable by-product of the sport.

[Spoilsport]

Thank you, Moderaror :winkgrin:! Now everyone can be on the same page.

I have a notoriously unreliable mailperson, but what I like about COTH subscriptions is that you can read it on line :D

[shea'smom]

Thanks Mod! Everyone needs to read this.

[Saskatoonian]

Thank you, Pwynn, thank you COTH, and above all, though without the other two I wouldn't have seen it, thank you Danny.

[3's a charm]

Thank you Moderaror! I have a subscription, and felt bad sharing.
A Big thank you to Danny for the well written, spot on article.

[displacedyank]

Thank you Mods! I can honestly say that I wasn't a subscriber before, but after reading that article, fully intend to be! :)

I also give my hats off to Danny for writing that article. I've been jumping up and down over in my little neck of the woods for weeks saying that very same thing (and without all the experience that Danny has)...rider responsibility!!! I have kids, I know what kind of trouble they can get in with a lack of responsibility/accountability. And yes, my teen should be responsible for his own actions and should be accountable for the things he does. BUT...it is also my responsibility as a Mother, to create rules that HELP him make good choices and HELP him understand consequences BEFORE he makes poor choices that can kill him. It HAS to go hand in hand. No one side can stand without the other. Yes, new rules need to be put into place, but not in a rush and not in a haste. After much time and thought and looking at the statistics. And Yes, riders need to start becoming more responsible for their actions. And quite possibly trainers and owners as well. I'm not saying I have the answers, but I do think Danny has half of the problem completed identified. Now we need to get the other half to "help" our riders make the correct decisions. ;)

[trotupsound]

Riders break bones, have internal injuries or float unconscious face down in the water jump then either get back on or argue with officials to be allowed to get back on and finish, then they go to the hospital later (and that was just Rolex.) We call them "tough," "plucky," and "determined." I've decided from now on to call it "stupid," "poor horsemanship" and "bad sportsmanship" to expect a tired horse to haul your less than fit body the rest of they way around one of the toughest courses in the world. We need to change this "finish at all cost" culture. One step is to stop viewing obviously perilous behavior in positive terms.

This thread addresses a great point about rider responsibility, but I don't agree with the above statement. Beyond having obvious injuries from a fall that prevent you from getting back on, there isn't necessarily a reason not to get back in the tack if both horse and rider are fine. BUT, here's where rules and rider responsibility come in. Above, I believe you are referencing Boyd's splash into the Head of The Lake at Rolex. Boyd had a bad fall but wasn't riding poorly- he did however crack himself enough that he couldn't make a good decision about continuing. And this is why we have rules. Others who hadn't just cracked their head mandated a medical check and gave him a MR. Here rules protected the combination. Boyd is one of the last people I would call "stupid" or apply the terms bad horsemanship or bad sportsmanship to. So what about rider responsibility? If you fall off and you know you have been having a bad ride (i.e. you're riding poorly), then it's irresponsible and a bad rider decision to get back on and continue. But what if your galloping through the open and your BN horse spooks at something and you fall off? Should you be allowed to continue? The proposed rule changes say no. I feel that somewhere in here is an appropriate line, hopefully one we can draw without losing the fact that you do, in fact, have to be somewhat tough and have some gumption to do our sport. It's this gumption, tempered with good judgment and rules, that make our sport wonderful.

[fooler]

Thank you COTH for posting the full article! I am a subscriber and really appreciate the COTH's willingness to share Mr Warrenton's commentary with so many.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Thank you COTH for posting the full article! I am a subscriber and really appreciate the COTH's willingness to share Mr Warrenton's commentary with so many.


Ditto. That can not have been an easy thing for Danny to write...and I agree with him.

One of the biggest thing that can make this sport safer....is riders having the skills for the level they are competing...something I think can be lacking today.

Skills to know when to pull up and call it a day. Skills to walk a course and know whether it is within their capabilities (and their horse's). Skills to self evaluate...no matter whether they did well, or are technically qualified. Skills to train your horse to listen to you...and think for itself when you miss...cause I don't care who you are....you will miss at some point (and some of us miss far more often).

You can not legislate skills or responsible actions....but those skills and responsible actions are what we need to see more of. It is those skills that reduce the risk in a high risk sport more than anything else.

[Kementari]

If you fall off your green BN horse because he spooked at something then it wasn't your day. I'm not sure why we are so sure that falling off has to be an intrinsic part of our sport. (I mean, yes, it is intrinsic in the sense that everyone does it sometimes - but is there any other equestrian sport out there where falling off isn't penalized?)

I'm not saying that if I had a simple fall on xc tomorrow I wouldn't hop back on and finish the course - but I may well, even in a simple fall, not be in a good frame of mind to be making that decision. And, honestly, though we all have stupid falls, I do rather try to have my horse schooled to the point where falling is not likely before I enter a competition.

If you have a silly little fall in stadium you are eliminated. Why does xc need to be any different?

[Hannahsmom]

Thank you mods for posting the article. I am a subscriber but my magazine always comes late and I don't log into the on-line version.

The article gives one a lot to think about for all of us.

[rennyben]

You know, I've thought about Danny's article a lot lately. I haven't yet posted anything on it, because I hadn't worked out my thoughts fully. But now it's been a few days and I think I know why I don't totally agree with him.

I do agree the rider has a responsibility. I think his article was well written and it was brave and touching of him to do. I can see where ambition, determination, "kick on" can be harmful.

BUT -- it's still wrong. It's still wrong to allow horses to die participating in a -- and let me provide a reality check here -- to die participating in SPORT. The horses aren't in war, working hard to plough a field, they're doing a SPORT, for fun. It's wrong to have a sport that has somehow gotten so off kilter that we've had so many horses die in such a short, short amount of time recently. Something is WRONG.

Yes, the rider is responsible. To decide where to compete, what level to jump, etc... but the penalty for making bad decisions is too great. The experience that Danny is writing with has come at too high a price. Saying that changes aren't necessary except to have the riders accept responsibility is impossible when riders may not have the experience yet to make the responsible choices. And, as we've seen -- it's not easy to see who has the experience or not. Did Darren or Laine have enough? I would think they do now. But at what price?

I do think there needs to be more stringent requirements for moving up. And, I daresay at all levels. (sometimes watching the lower levels is plain scary). I think proving mastery is the way to go. And, at the top levels, I really want to emphasize Mastery of the XC. Not just scraping by depending on mediocrity. Mediocrity at one level may not be enough at the next level. The point is -- I think rider responsibility is a bit of a cop out. Because they may only have the responsibility to match their experience -- which may not be enough.

[indigoecho]

BUT -- it's still wrong. It's still wrong to allow horses to die participating in a -- and let me provide a reality check here -- to die participating in SPORT. The horses aren't in war, working hard to plough a field, they're doing a SPORT, for fun. It's wrong to have a sport that has somehow gotten so off kilter that we've had so many horses die in such a short, short amount of time recently. Something is WRONG.

Yes, the rider is responsible. To decide where to compete, what level to jump, etc... but the penalty for making bad decisions is too great. The experience that Danny is writing with has come at too high a price. Saying that changes aren't necessary except to have the riders accept responsibility is impossible when riders may not have the experience yet to make the responsible choices. And, as we've seen -- it's not easy to see who has the experience or not. Did Darren or Laine have enough? I would think they do now. But at what price?


I cannot agree more with this post. I too think that the number of falls and deaths both to humans and horses is way too high for a sport.

[JFS]

Thank you very much Danny for sharing your thoughts that are spot on and coming from your perspective I think it carries a lot more weight.

Even with the good training; the adrelin of competition sometimes affects one's judgement. About 5 years ago I watched my son (12 years old at the time) make a mistake
in the warm up that he never had done previously, but inexperience, excitement & 12 year old testosterone contributed to a major error that his horse could not save him from. THey both fell and he ended up with a fairly serious head injury. Fortunately all ended up well and he is now 17 years old and running Prelim. I have found that my attitude has changed a little and at our event this weekend I told him very clearly, because we are now dealing with 17 year old testosterone, that if things weren't going well to pull up especially since the weather and conditions weren't great. Well they were having a great run 5 fences from home for some reason his horse stopped dead about 4 strides away from the fence. He never went to his stick but put his leg on strong & felt the 'no way' from his horse and he told the jump judges 'not today' and walked off the course. Although he was very disappointed and I'm disappointed for him and concerned as to why the horse did that; I am very proud that he is learning to be a thinking rider and hopefully we will resolve this problem and the next one will go better. But the point is; there will be a next one.

One more note that I posted on another thread; we are a small event that runs BN - P and as I said that, due to rain, the conditions weren't great but we did not have a single fall! Some chose to withdraw but those who chose to ride rode with 'common sense' and ended up safely. Maybe it will be a 'trickle up' affect from the lower levels up to the upper levels instead of a 'trickle down'.

Jackie

[shea'smom]

Jackie,
Congratulate your son for me. And you too. WE had that conversation at Eventing Rally this weekend with all the kids. Some withdrew and the others were sensible, so no serious problems. Maybe trickle up is the way to go.
Kathi

[FrittSkritt]

:yes:

I agree completely. I honestly can think of at least 5 riders that I know of that do NOT have any business competing at the level they're currently doing... from Training to Intermediate. I'm basing a lot of this on rider position and security -- to me, that is an indication that a rider takes this sport seriously. If you jump ahead, legs flying, heels up, etc. -- then you need to step down a level.

But here I am, a smurfy competitor just observing... so I can't say anything. Even if I did, who would take me seriously? :no:

[MotherGoose]

I agree with the "bubble up" effect! Common sense may just need to come from the bottom up. I saw some great riding at Rolex, and I saw swinging legs at the gallop, tired riders with their weight on their forehands (which of course puts the horse on the forehand, too--hard to jump any fence from that position).

I rode internationally "back in the day", and we simply didn't have the fall/injury rate that is present now. Yes, we "kicked on", but we had put in YEARS of practice at HOW to kick on safely--with both horse and rider in balance. Balance is what I see as a major problem--and lack of communication with the horses. It is vitally important that horse and rider be a cooperative partnership out there on the cross country. The horse has to have the background training to know how to handle the questions, and have built the desire to do the job. The rider has to be paying attention every second to the horse and how they are going. Whenever one of my horses did something unusual, I pulled up enough to determine if I should get off or not, stop to ask more questions of the horse, or continue. You must know your horse as well as if not better than yourself, especially at the upper levels

Cross country at ANY level is not a casual sport. ANY solid fence no matter what height must be given serious consideration. I learned this lesson by watching one of our Team members way back when, somersault over a 3' coop placed inbetween fences as a filler at an Advanced Horse Trial. From that time on, I treated EVERY cross country fence with equal respect and attention. This, to me, is what Danny so bravely is saying. That yes, we need rules, but we also need to bring common sense and respect for the seriousness of cross country back into the picture. I see too many people at the lower levels treating eventing casually--weekend riders out to "hack" over the fences. Thank God their horses are smarter than they are and take care of them. Yes, eventing is FUN, but it needs to be fun with preparation, education, and attentiveness behind it.

[staceyk]

I'm not an eventer, and Danny indicated that only eventers who have been there should be weighing in. However I don't think one needs to have evented to comprehend the risks.

If the riders were out there careening around on their own two legs, or on a motorcycle with ramps to each jump, sure, leave it up to the rider and their sense of personal responsibility to themselves, their family, their insurance providers. But there's another animal involved, the horse. And while you can't make an unwilling horse jump, horses have demonstrated time and time again that they might be willing but not able, and they may trust in a rider who is not up to the task. Someone needs to look out for their interests, and unfortunately, the rider may not be the best judge.

[deltawave]

He didn't say people who haven't evented can't comprehend the risks. I think he's saying that people who haven't done the upper levels, had horses break down underneath them, etc. shouldn't be passing judgment on fellow horsemen who HAVE been in those situations.

[RunForIt]

I'm not an eventer, and Danny indicated that only eventers who have been there should be weighing in. However I don't think one needs to have evented to comprehend the risks.

If the riders were out there careening around on their own two legs, or on a motorcycle with ramps to each jump, sure, leave it up to the rider and their sense of personal responsibility to themselves, their family, their insurance providers. But there's another animal involved, the horse. And while you can't make an unwilling horse jump, horses have demonstrated time and time again that they might be willing but not able, and they may trust in a rider who is not up to the task. Someone needs to look out for their interests, and unfortunately, the rider may not be the best judge.

or rider may do everything right and the horse trips, missteps,...neither horse nor rider should pay for that misstep with life and limb. This is sport - recreation - think hobby, not death.

[staceyk]

"if you haven't had a horse break down underneath you, if you havent had a horse have an aneurysm, if you haven't had a horse flip, if you haven't ridden advanced, maybe this isn't something you need to be talking about. Because you don't have the experience. All you have is an opinion."

He says this a few sentences after mentioning Amy Tryon and Jonathan Holling and the furor that surrounded their unhappy incidents.

If Danny is referring to the blaming and fingerpointing that went on in AT's case (which I followed fairly closely), I'm in agreement with what he's saying. But when it comes to analysis of the broader issues of safety or the ethical questions of what is fair to the horse, I think those outside the eventing world may have something to offer.

[subk]

Sometimes people will get it right, and sometimes they won't. Riders should assume responsibility, but we should accept that good people make mistakes. I cannot believe none of you have never made a choice that, in hindsight, was not a good choice. Personally I don't think that asking riders to continually second-guess and doubt themselves over a x-country is going to make it safer for horses and riders. It is not an either-or situation but a matter of degrees.
I've made a lot of mistakes--in real life and on horseback including mistakes at the upper levels. In real life you make bad choices and decisions you can be held accountable. We do next to nothing in this sport to hold riders accountable short of a dead horse and or a trip to the ICU. The rules we have--Dangerous Riding--are very rarely applied. There is an unspoken agreement among upper level riders and officials that we don't even talk about the mistakes that are made. Then they turn around and criticize anybody else "who hasn't been there" for having an opinion. So much for any learning experiences. To this day all we know about DC's fall is that it was a "misstep." Talk to some insiders and you might find that there is a huge lesson we could have all benefited from. To bad, not going to happen.

The key here is that you shouldn't get to have "responsibility" without "accountability" and we are very lacking in accountability.

...Beyond having obvious injuries from a fall that prevent you from getting back on, there isn't necessarily a reason not to get back in the tack if both horse and rider are fine. BUT, here's where rules and rider responsibility come in...

...So what about rider responsibility? If you fall off and you know you have been having a bad ride (i.e. you're riding poorly), then it's irresponsible and a bad rider decision to get back on and continue. But what if your galloping through the open and your BN horse spooks at something and you fall off? Should you be allowed to continue? The proposed rule changes say no. I feel that somewhere in here is an appropriate line, hopefully one we can draw without losing the fact that you do, in fact, have to be somewhat tough and have some gumption to do our sport. It's this gumption, tempered with good judgment and rules, that make our sport wonderful.
I think it's a crying shame to have to have a one fall and you're out rule. We're going to get it precisely because the type of incidents I referred to earlier--lack of good sense on the part of (UL) riders. Personally I'd like to see the rule apply only to P and above because in so many of the LL falls the rider and or horse really need to get going again. But once again the lower levels will get to suffer because of the problems at the upper level.

Above, I believe you are referencing Boyd's splash into the Head of The Lake at Rolex. Boyd had a bad fall but wasn't riding poorly- he did however crack himself enough that he couldn't make a good decision about continuing. And this is why we have rules. Others who hadn't just cracked their head mandated a medical check and gave him a MR. Here rules protected the combination. Boyd is one of the last people I would call "stupid" or apply the terms bad horsemanship or bad sportsmanship to. So what about rider responsibility?
Just so you know, he was eliminated not by the medical team but because he REFUSED to be looked at by the medical team. He refused again after he was told the clock would be stopped for him to do so, then once he was eliminated he still refused examination. Later he ended up in the hospital. There is a bull headedness to that that I just have a hard time explaining away because a bump on the noggin. (I also get a little touchy when UL riders are rude to volunteers, but my own personal experiences may have me a little over sensitive about that.)

I don't begrudge you you're opinion of Boyd Martin, but we have a finish at all cost culture, and I refuse to be apart of it by using complimentary descriptions of the resulting behavior. And for the record there is a difference in calling someone stupid and calling their behavior stupid.

[Debbie]

subk - thank you for talking about what no one else wants to talk about. The eventing culture has too long been hero worship for the upper level riders. Get far enough into the sport and you'll find that all the heroes have had feet of clay at one time or another -- not a criticsm per se; they are all human and flawed -- and lots of folks know it but heaven forbid anyone talk about it.

[trotupsound]

Just so you know, he was eliminated not by the medical team but because he REFUSED to be looked at by the medical team. He refused again after he was told the clock would be stopped for him to do so, then once he was eliminated he still refused examination. Later he ended up in the hospital. There is a bull headedness to that that I just have a hard time explaining away because a bump on the noggin.

Boyd's record clearly indicates a Retirement. But his behavior is entirely typical of minor head injuries- the rider can't tell you what day of the week it is, but they're happy to argue about jumping back into the saddle and continuing on. I've seen it over and over again in racing, polo and eventing. I totally agree with you subk, that there are a lot of bad decisions out there, but they're not being made by riders that just whacked their heads- the rules take care of them. They're being made by riders in full possession of their faculties who made choices- for many reasons- in the heat of the moment.

[Showsheen]

i just came across this thread and had to comment. I am so glad to see a few people who read this, (Bip was the first), reacted in a way that shows they have concern for the horse.
I, too, know Danny and must say that his commentary shows that he still is lacking in judgement.
He has lost a wife and many wonderful horses under him but sees no reason to make assurances for their safety and welfare in the future.
In fact he comes close to wearing these deaths as badges of honor to say he has a right to "know" the way to go in the future is to leave it up to people's best judgement! A judgement which he freely acknowledges that he and his wife, clearly lacked and she paid for it with her life.
i am sorry that he doesn't see it was too high a price to pay and that no one and no horse, should ever meet the same fate in this "sport" because clearly people lack judgement, especially if the rules of the sport allow them to, and in this "sport" the price to pay for making a "mistake" in judgement can be the death of either horse or rider or both.

There are times that every rider could decide it is not the day to continue in a competition but the mistakes made on even good days and with the best riders and horses in eventing are met with tragedy.

The sport is not supposed to be a death match or a game of odds played with your life. "X games", by and large are not even team events, but to be fair, you are free to risk your life and live on the edge as much as you want to but when you involve the life of a horse, you should be held accountable.

It is really sad that even after the death of a loved one, the best contribution that Danny has is to keep the status quo and make better personal judgements.

Guess Darren should have expected to nearly die on a baby course if he missed a distance?

Enough already...just the fact that writers on these blogs are able to cite dozens and dozens of deaths of horses and riders, at all levels, over the recent past few years, chrissake, this year alone, should be alarming enough to all who read and dare to state that they love horses.

Changes in Eventing are needed and are needed now in order to protect all involved. Make it safer for the horse and you will make it safer for the rider and it will become more "sport"ing again. It can be tough and tiring but not taxing and death defying. Jumpers, Driving horses, Dressage horses at the International level do not pay with their lives. Event horses should be no different.

There are better ways to prove you are gutsy and fearless-go jump out of a plane and risk your own neck and not your horses.
By god, skydiving is a lot safer than eventing these days.

[adamsmom]

i just came across this thread and had to comment. I am so glad to see a few people who read this, (Bip was the first), reacted in a way that shows they have concern for the horse.
I, too, know Danny and must say that his commentary shows that he still is lacking in judgement.
He has lost a wife and many wonderful horses under him but sees no reason to make assurances for their safety and welfare in the future.
In fact he comes close to wearing these deaths as badges of honor to say he has a right to "know" the way to go in the future is to leave it up to people's best judgement! A judgement which he freely acknowledges that he and his wife, clearly lacked and she paid for it with her life.
i am sorry that he doesn't see it was too high a price to pay and that no one and no horse, should ever meet the same fate in this "sport" because clearly people lack judgement, especially if the rules of the sport allow them to, and in this "sport" the price to pay for making a "mistake" in judgement can be the death of either horse or rider or both.

There are times that every rider could decide it is not the day to continue in a competition but the mistakes made on even good days and with the best riders and horses in eventing are met with tragedy.

The sport is not supposed to be a death match or a game of odds played with your life. "X games", by and large are not even team events, but to be fair, you are free to risk your life and live on the edge as much as you want to but when you involve the life of a horse, you should be held accountable.

It is really sad that even after the death of a loved one, the best contribution that Danny has is to keep the status quo and make better personal judgements.

Guess Darren should have expected to nearly die on a baby course if he missed a distance?

Enough already...just the fact that writers on these blogs are able to cite dozens and dozens of deaths of horses and riders, at all levels, over the recent past few years, chrissake, this year alone, should be alarming enough to all who read and dare to state that they love horses.

Changes in Eventing are needed and are needed now in order to protect all involved. Make it safer for the horse and you will make it safer for the rider and it will become more "sport"ing again. It can be tough and tiring but not taxing and death defying. Jumpers, Driving horses, Dressage horses at the International level do not pay with their lives. Event horses should be no different.

There are better ways to prove you are gutsy and fearless-go jump out of a plane and risk your own neck and not your horses.
By god, skydiving is a lot safer than eventing these days.

I really think you missed the entire point of Danny's commentary. I believe his main point is that making the sport easier isn't going to solve the problem. If you continually lower the bar, you will get those that can just make it over that bar.
And unless you know all the facts about Darren's fall, I wouldn't necessarily think you should just call it a miss. The same holds true for many of these accidents.

IMHO, Danny is saying that we ALL need to take responsibility. How many of us have seen scary riders in warm-up and said nothing? We need to either say something to that rider, their trainer, or competition officials to make them aware of potential problems.
I've done that once in the past year. And I believe it made a difference.

[RunForIt]

Adamsmom, Showsheen may have missed the point of Danny's article, but I see a bigger point bing made in his/her post
in this "sport" the price to pay for making a "mistake" in judgement can be the death of either horse or rider or both.

There are times that every rider could decide it is not the day to continue in a competition but the mistakes made on even good days and with the best riders and horses in eventing are met with tragedy.

The sport is not supposed to be a death match or a game of odds played with your life. "X games", by and large are not even team events, but to be fair, you are free to risk your life and live on the edge as much as you want to but when you involve the life of a horse, you should be held accountable.

Changes in Eventing are needed and are needed now in order to protect all involved. Make it safer for the horse and you will make it safer for the rider and it will become more "sport"ing again. It can be tough and tiring but not taxing and death defying. Jumpers, Driving horses, Dressage horses at the International level do not pay with their lives. Event horses should be no different.

There are better ways to prove you are gutsy and fearless-go jump out of a plane and risk your own neck and not your horses.
By god, skydiving is a lot safer than eventing these days.

Danny article was an eye opener and touched us in many ways. Still...

The fact that horses are put at risk and are dying at the upper levels in eventing is a fact that many of us can no longer tolerate, but is still being ignored or not being addressed publicly by an important segment of the event community - most of the ULRs; business seems to be going on as usual. There is much to love and admire in eventing, but it may be wise to use the perspectives of others NOT caught up in the thrill of XC as a lens to critically look at the harsh reality of what is being called "sport".

I've read enough of your posts in the past to know that you are concerned about our sport and horses as anyone. There are many problems that all of us can address through rider responsibility, but the foremost has to be accountability to and for the horses. If that's not part of the value system, I hope some of the riders at the ULs consider motorcross, mountain bilke racing, or quitting.

[Hannahsmom]

The key here is that you shouldn't get to have "responsibility" without "accountability" and we are very lacking in accountability.


I think it's a crying shame to have to have a one fall and you're out rule. We're going to get it precisely because the type of incidents I referred to earlier--lack of good sense on the part of (UL) riders. Personally I'd like to see the rule apply only to P and above because in so many of the LL falls the rider and or horse really need to get going again. But once again the lower levels will get to suffer because of the problems at the upper level.


Thank you subk for saying this. I agree.

[sisu27]

... and there in the middle of Rolex 2007 was Becky Holder, pulling up and walking off with her horse after Courageous Comet stopped at a fence. Jimmy Wofford commenting said immediately, "That's the right decision. That horse is not a stopper." I don't know what was going on, maybe even she still doesn't, but kudos to Becky for listening to him that day. It was that moment just as much as her 2008 Rolex that I watched later that impressed me.

OT but someone in the know told me at Rolex this year that Becky was 100lbs lighter this year for that reason (WOW BTW that is amazing). If that is the actual reason she quit last year i still support and respect her decision because exhausted pilot is nearly as bad as exhausted animal in my opinion. Good for her either way.

[displacedyank]

In just agreeing with subk...why do we have to have sweeping rules that apply and affect all of the levels simultaneously? Heaven knows there is a HUGE difference between BN and I/A! There should be different rules for the different levels, or at least group of levels. T and below....; P and above; * and above, etc.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Fence2Fence]

I can't imagine having different rules for different levels.

The good side of having the broad rule changes is that it hammers into all of us to make smart choices and not to get suckered into the "kick on" mentality. The "kick on" mentality starts early in Eventing. It starts with "When to move up?" "When you jump clean." Very little attention is paid to the quality of ride: distances, rhythm, balance, impulsion, consistency, rider fitness, ability of the horse to do the job. I know there isn't a formula to moving up, but basic skills aren't even in the discussion. Maybe if it were, maybe Amanda and Danny would have been having a different discussion instead of the one he mentions in the commentary? Danny wants to blame aggressive riding for the problems in the sport--but it's the culture of the sport. It's ingrained into nearly all of us.

[deltawave]

Becky does look GREAT, she's obviously way fitter and stronger. Kudos to her! :)

[SmallHerd]

And don't forget Polly Stockton at Rolex this year. She pulled up after a refusal as well. We saw her walking away with her horse from the double diamonds. When we asked her what happened, she said it just wasn't her day, that her horse didn't feel right.

It's not all of the ULR.

[asterix]

she also said to us (we were right by the double diamonds) "he's fragile enough as it is..."
Class act.

[adamsmom]

Adamsmom, Showsheen may have missed the point of Danny's article, but I see a bigger point bing made in his/her post


Danny article was an eye opener and touched us in many ways. Still...

The fact that horses are put at risk and are dying at the upper levels in eventing is a fact that many of us can no longer tolerate, but is still being ignored or not being addressed publicly by an important segment of the event community - most of the ULRs; business seems to be going on as usual. There is much to love and admire in eventing, but it may be wise to use the perspectives of others NOT caught up in the thrill of XC as a lens to critically look at the harsh reality of what is being called "sport".

I've read enough of your posts in the past to know that you are concerned about our sport and horses as anyone. There are many problems that all of us can address through rider responsibility, but the foremost has to be accountability to and for the horses. If that's not part of the value system, I hope some of the riders at the ULs consider motorcross, mountain bilke racing, or quitting.

I don't disagree with you. I don't believe Danny would either.
But even if we reduce all equine fatalities due to falls, there will probably still be some deaths out there. Not desirable, not acceptable, but a fact of life just the same.
If you're gonna have horses (or dogs or cats or gerbils...) they're gonna die, some of them tragically, through no fault of your own.

Please don't think I'm dismissing the horses or think they're expendable. Not at all. But even if we make the fences out of foam rubber, if the person riding that horse is not responsible and knowledgable about his/her riding and his/her horse's ability/condition, etc., that horse is still in danger. So let's not dismiss that part either.

And I was gonna write more, but then it got a little crazy and long, so I just deleted it.

Many many many pieces to this complex puzzle. We have to look at ALL of them.

[FrittSkritt]

OT but someone in the know told me at Rolex this year that Becky was 100lbs lighter this year for that reason (WOW BTW that is amazing). If that is the actual reason she quit last year i still support and respect her decision because exhausted pilot is nearly as bad as exhausted animal in my opinion. Good for her either way.

I honestly doubt it was 100 lbs... either way, she was a great rider then and is still a great rider now.

[subk]

I can't imagine having different rules for different levels.

We already have some rules at the upper level that aren't at the lower levels. Spurs are required for dressage at I/A, but not for BN-P. I think there may be a few others. Where's Janet when you need her?

[FlightCheck]

Show Jumping - 2 refusals P and up and you are out.

FEI - falling off in SJ NOT elimination (2nd fall is) , but in "regular" eventing you are eliminated for a fall in SJ

those immediately come to mind...

[Janet]

We already have some rules at the upper level that aren't at the lower levels. Spurs are required for dressage at I/A, but not for BN-P. I think there may be a few others. Where's Janet when you need her?
LOTS of rules are different for P and above (or specific levels above that).

Spurs required
Double bridles permitted
Top hats permitted
No tweed coat
Gloves required
Horse and rider qualification
Two vs three refusals in show jumping
Speed penalties in cross country
Offering "Junior" vs "Young Rider" divisions
Horse and rider age requirements
R vs r TD and judges and course designer

[subk]

Thanks Janet!

[myboyludy]

I am so proud of this article and completely agree with it. I am so happy that someone (and knowing Danny, I knew it would be him) come out and say it. I also enjoyed the fact that he says that the reason he feels he can speak on these issues is because he's been there and ridden that! It brought me to tears but PROUD tears! I commend danny and the chronicle for presenting such a strong and powerful article! Kudos!

[Shrapnel]

I strongly agree with Danny's article. He is EXACTLY right! :yes:

[Fence2Fence]

Hmm, ok, point taken about different levels having different rules. I'm sure we could learn/adapt to different rules regarding falling off and getting eliminated for different levels.

[drjuliea]

Okay, so I've been trying to collect my thoughts about this in an organized way, so I hope this comes out as I've been thinking it. I truly think that Danny was right on the money.

It all comes down to rider responsibility, including the horses. Because they don't have a choice what to do and when to do it and wether or not to do it, we as riders have to be their advocates, their voice, because we as their riders know that individual horse the best. WE have to decide what is best for them: food, shelter, footing, competitons, readiness-all of this is rider responsibility. WE have that responsibility as soon as we assume ownership. So it is ultimately always rider responsibility, wether we are riding or not.

And when we make bad decisions, we should be held accountable. There seems to be a "walking on eggshells" metality when it comes to riders of horses who have died or badly injured, or they themselves were injured, that we shouldn't say that it was their fault or address it in some way. We should. We can say it as nicely or as gently as possible, but it needs to be said, and something tangible needs to be done about it (DOC and KB's suggestions are a start). Problems of any kind cannot be fixed if we don't address them. Course design, instruction and guidance at the lower levels, riding correctly and instruction at the upper levels, ALL of this is equally addressable, none of it should be forbidden territory.

And as for the fact that the sport is dangerous, YES IT IS. The higher up you go, the more dangerous it becomes. If that bothers you, yes it is a sport-you do not have to do it, and you do not have to make your horse do it. Choose something else. You always have that choice. I choose to ride in this incredibly awesome sport with a collection of incredibly awesome people I choose to compete with. I'll be damned if I will let what is occurring now destroy this sport. There are things that can be done, and are being done, and I will shake the hand of everyone who is doing it.

I believe that on the other side of this that eventing will be a better sport because of it.

[asterix]

hear, hear, dr. j

[RunForIt]

Okay, so I've been trying to collect my thoughts about this in an organized way, so I hope this comes out as I've been thinking it. I truly think that Danny was right on the money.

It all comes down to rider responsibility, including the horses. Because they don't have a choice what to do and when to do it and wether or not to do it, we as riders have to be their advocates, their voice, because we as their riders know that individual horse the best. WE have to decide what is best for them: food, shelter, footing, competitons, readiness-all of this is rider responsibility. WE have that responsibility as soon as we assume ownership. So it is ultimately always rider responsibility, wether we are riding or not.

And when we make bad decisions, we should be held accountable. There seems to be a "walking on eggshells" metality when it comes to riders of horses who have died or badly injured, or they themselves were injured, that we shouldn't say that it was their fault or address it in some way. We should. We can say it as nicely or as gently as possible, but it needs to be said, and something tangible needs to be done about it (DOC and KB's suggestions are a start). Problems of any kind cannot be fixed if we don't address them. Course design, instruction and guidance at the lower levels, riding correctly and instruction at the upper levels, ALL of this is equally addressable, none of it should be forbidden territory.

And as for the fact that the sport is dangerous, YES IT IS. The higher up you go, the more dangerous it becomes. If that bothers you, yes it is a sport-you do not have to do it, and you do not have to make your horse do it. Choose something else. You always have that choice. I choose to ride in this incredibly awesome sport with a collection of incredibly awesome people I choose to compete with. I'll be damned if I will let what is occurring now destroy this sport. There are things that can be done, and are being done, and I will shake the hand of everyone who is doing it.

I believe that on the other side of this that eventing will be a better sport because of it.

unless you're prepared to be perfect or unless you have a perfect-never-take-a-bad-step horse, then prepare to be accountable. At present, if the not perfect best rider in the world on the best horse in the world isn't 100%. then the horse who is not capable of reasoning about whether or not he/she wants to possibly die today, very well may do that. Also, there may be people watching the horse die, possibly you too. You, I believe totally, ought to be able to decide if you want to take the risk of dying - I'll uphold your right to do that right by your side.

The big question here is - can we continue to involve horses in an activity where if they make a mistake or if the rider they trust makes a mistake, there is a very good possibility they will die.

The jumps and the courses and the speed at the upper levels are hurting horses. Can we live with that? I cannot.

We might all need to read Jimmy Wofford's thoughts about eventing on Equisearch...as he discusses the evolution of eventing he includes this line from the minds of the upper level event horses:
"Have you really thought about what you are asking us to do?"

[LynLyn]

"But how many people besides me see this and don’t say anything? No one says anything. "

Well, I said something to a TD at a HT last year about a lower level rider. They were tearing around course on the fore hand. I asked what he, the TD , thought was dangerous riding. He flippantly remarked that the kid has not got proper training and there was nothing to do about it. This still bothers me. You can get hurt walking around a ring just as well as running around any level of XC course. I do think it is time to speak up and to make those calls.

[Showsheen]

Runforit-A voice of reason out of this mess. What someone who puts the horse first in The Chronicle of the Horse? Quelle Surprise!!!
You can't hear me but I am giving you a standing ovation and a big fat wet kiss.
Wake the hell up people!
You are not able to decipher safe from unsafe and make the right decisions or we would not be in this mess to begin with.
And go risk you own necks -have at it-but leave the horses out of it!

Thank-you Run-keep at it.

They may be deaf and dumb to that reason but there are those of us out there that live by your words!

[Oldenburg Mom]

I came over to the eventing forum for just this purpose: to see if a thread had been started about this article (which I read last night.)

KUDOS Danny Warrington, for writing, as many have already said, what must have been a difficult article. It was superb.

And, while it may be most applicable to eventing, the concept of personal responsibility (which SURPRISE! is not new) should be applied to ALL horse sports. (MODS, why not post this sticky on ALL forums) Heck, it should be a watchword for everyone.What I especially like about the article though is his assignation of personal responsibility to include the horse. It was a healthy reminder that WE (that means YOU! and that mean ME!) are responsible for the welfare of that horse, and that comes first—not our ambition.

I will remind myself of that every time I put my foot in a stirrup, or ask my trainer to put her foot in the stirrup. It's not what *I* want. AND, if that means taking a horse that's bred to do grand prix and making him a weekend-warrior trail horse, so be it. Easy words to type, difficult to live. :yes:

[drjuliea]

"The big question here is - can we continue to involve horses in an activity where if they make a mistake or if the rider they trust makes a mistake, there is a very good possibility they will die."

And that's where the ride responsiblilty needs to rear it head, to make the decision, "No, my horse doesn't feel right, no, the course isn't good, no, this horse is not capable at this level, etc, etc."

I agree with you that at the upper levels, horses are dying. Things definitely need to change: speeds, fence design, course design. But we also, in the end, after all of these changes take place in whole or in part and the sport is ultimately safter, need to be our horse's advocate, and realistically so. We need to be able to say no, because this sport will always be dangerous, we always need to stand up for our four-legged partners, because there will always be risk.

"Those who fight and run away, live to fight another day." I think it was Shakespeare but I'm not totally certain.

I hope this is coming across correctly. I'm trying to say that responsibility is one piece in this very complicated puzzle, and right now one that we, as riders, have 100% control over what we can do right now.

[Hopeful Hunter]

I'm far from an eventer, but I must add my appreciation to others and thank Mr. Warrington for writing what had to be a wrenching piece, but one that points out something needed IMO not just in eventing, not just by UL riders, but EVERY TIME ANYONE SITS ON A HORSE.

YOU must understand and assess the risk at all times. Riding - REGARDLESS of discipline, speed, jumping or not jumping - can be fatal. That's a reality. You cannot eliminate risk. BUT you can, and IMO have a responsibility, to mitigate and manage it.

I agree that along with an emphasis on rider - and trainer - responsibility there needs to be an evaluation and improvement in safety whenever and wherever possible. This applies to all sports. And I also agree that the "veil of secrecy" needs to be dropped, that accidents should be analysed and discussed when possible so that others can learn from them.

I say that from personal experience -- we have a friend who has now spent more of his life in a wheelchair than out. He is a parapalegic, and it is due to an accident, one he will admit was his own stupid fault - his words, not mine. He was a young adult and it snowed in Baltimore, and he decided it would be fun to ski being towed by his friend's car. Well...those "mom" warnings came true - he got off balance, lost his tow rope, fell and slid head-first into a curb. He broke his neck and damaged his cervical spine and has been in a wheelchair ever since.

He shares what he did and the outcome freely, often speaking to groups of young kids. Why? Because he acknowledges he made a terrible decision, and he will pay a horrible price for it for as long as he lives. But he does live, and with an amazingly upbeat and successful attitude and enjoyment of life, and I suspect his admission, and forgiveness, of his choice and responsibility help. Imagine how much it could help all equestrian sports if all of our accidents - in all discplines - could be used as learning experiences, too....

[Mel0309]

Wynn,

As an owner (and not rider) of an equine that competes at UL. What do you think about this comment?

Any other owners (but not riders of the horse) out there have opinions?


AT POny Club Event Rally this weekend, ideas were running rampant. Besides Rider responsibility, someone brought up the idea of fining OWNERS! Maybe owners and trainers should share some of the backlash from these dieing horses.
I know there would be alot of things to take into account, I'm just saying....

[J Swan]

I think it's ridiculous - as is the notion of making course designers liable for injuries.

But it's the type of suggestion I expect from such a litigious society.

Folks - fining and suing people won't teach our horses and riders to take a fence at speed. But it will destroy the sport.

How many of you know how much insurance costs? For even the smallest horse trial? The horse industry has fought tooth and nail for equine liability statutes to protect all of us from the bottom feeders in the legal field.

How will making insurance and sponsorship disappear from the sport do anything to protect it?

Yikes. I don't even want to go there.

ETA - Oops - I spouted off and missed that you asked owners for input. I'll not delete my post - but feel free to disregard it. Sorry.

[Highflyer]

Pro athletes get fined in other sports, though, don't they? Owners get fined in horse racing for "ethical violations", etc. Doesn't the USEF levy fines for certain offenses like drug violations? I'm not saying that it would be justified in most cases (or any of the cases we've seen this spring), but perhaps for certain major violations like abuse.

I also think that any cases of abuse/ dangerous riding etc. should get their names printed in the back of the USEA magazine: horse, rider, trainer & owner, with a blurb like "Penalized for hitting horse in head following refusal, at Fair Hill on 5/19." The USEF already does it for things like bounced checks and amateur rule violations.

[J Swan]

Penalizing a rider for abusing a horse is one thing. As is penalizing an owner for abusing a horse.

But fining an owner when his/her horse falls, or becomes injured in competition is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to make a course designer personally liable for injuries or refusals.

You don't penalize an athlete for tripping on the court, and you don't penalize his sponsor if the athletes shorts rip. You fine the athlete for doing something like cheating. Or beating up the other team. Or betting.

Apples and oranges.

[grayarabpony]

I'm a little surprised at all of the kudos toward this article. Perhaps if the speed for the course had been lower, Amanada would have been protected from her own (you fill in the blank) and be alive today. That's what rules are FOR. To protect people from their own stupidity. And to protect the horses.

[pwynnnorman]

I think it is always going to be a challenge to differentiate between "dangerous" riding and "ignorant" riding.

[adamsmom]

I'm a little surprised at all of the kudos toward this article. Perhaps if the speed for the course had been lower, Amanada would have been protected from her own (you fill in the blank) and be alive today. That's what rules are FOR. To protect people from their own stupidity. And to protect the horses.

Wow. Really?

[BigRuss1996]

Actually when she fell at Fairhill HT's back then the speeds were slower. She was jumping a table....fence 3 on the course as I was standing there and watched the whole thing (had ridden the course myself before and it was not outlandish this was before the short format). Amanda was a good friend (knew her since we were 16) and a good rider she had ridden with some of the best trainers in the sport and was very close to making the team. For whatever reason she always went fast and alot of times too fast I don't think it mattered if you said something I know of a few who had. While the horse she was on was newer to advanced he had done quite a few advanced HT's. Most at the time felt it was the fact she was going too fast for the type of fence and add in a less experienced horse then her others. Her fall was very similar to Laine's actually.
Unfortunately you can have all the penalties in the world and these people who feel the need to go fast are still going to do it. We already have speeding penalties and look at how many riders laugh at how they got speed faults for going too fast and feel its better then too slow. Sadly I don't think there is a solution for the too fast people other then maybe suspending them every time they are dangerously fast but then again...if they fall before that happens and are injured or dead the penalty really doesn't help them does it.

There are for some reason many people who feel the rules are not made for them. You see the same thing with people driving on the road the ones who can't wait for the person ahead of them to turn so they pass on the shoulder or go around them in intersections, the person who gets millions of speeding tickets and almost prides themselves on it. I am not sure what creates the thought process that they are exempt but they alot of times end up injuring themselves or other people.


I'm a little surprised at all of the kudos toward this article. Perhaps if the speed for the course had been lower, Amanada would have been protected from her own (you fill in the blank) and be alive today. That's what rules are FOR. To protect people from their own stupidity. And to protect the horses.

[PhoenixFarm]

Speaking as an owner of an upper level horse, I guess I don't exactly understand how or why one would penalize an owner in an across the board fashion. If I'm not riding the horse, if I'm stnading on the other side of the course, and my rider makes a mistake which causes an accident, I'm not sure what I was supposed to to prevent that. Now, I'm fortunate that my horse is in my care, custody, and control 99% of the time, but that isn't the case for most owners, and it hasn't always been the case for me. So again, if I'm not involvled in the everyday life of my horse, I may not know that something is going wrong, and an intervention may be needed.

I understand that this idea is probably based in the following ideas (1) there are some owners who put too much or the incorrect kind of pressure on riders, and thus horses to achieve particular goals, and (2) to make owners think very carefully about the trainers they put their horses with. Point one is such a case by case issue, I'm not sure how it could be addressed legislatively. Point two is fine as far as it goes, except that leaves me to wonder who the perfect trainer is--someone who never misses or makes a mistake at a fence? Never has made a bad judgement or incorrect assemssment about a horse's abilitites or readiness or talent? I've been around this sport a long time, and I've seen most of the greats ride, and I can tell you, there is no such list of perfect human beings on the planet. Everybody misses at least once--Bruce, Phillip, David, Karen, Jimmy, Denny, you name it, I promise you each one of them has had at least on bad fence or bad wreck in their careers caused by "missing" or making an otherwise incorrect judgement about a fence, a horse, a course, what have you. Because that's life and because they're human.

There are plenty of top name riders in this world I wouldn't let even give my horse a carrot, let alone point him a solid fences. But I don't expect perfection, so I'm not sure why a legistlative body should expect it from me when it comes to choosing a rider.

As the owner the buck stops with me when planning my horses life and career. I'm someone that takes that responsibility very seriously, BUT I can't say that I would understand or support a mechanism that would work to punish those who aren't as mindful as myself, because I don't see a way to write legislation that wouldn't just end up punishing everybody.

As a final note realted to this issue of owners. When we are discussing this notion of too much pressure being put on horses or on riders that can't say no, I think we are back to discussing this isuue of the culture of this sport. We LOVE the notion of everybody paying their dues. It's part of the deal to being a pro or even an ULR, you pay your dues. Which often means you end up riding some lousy horses, and doing things on them they probably have no business doing.

I remember competing a particular 18 hand behemoth when I was in my early 20s who routinely fell over on me. I mean when attempting a simple trot or canter circle, he would just sort of lose his footing and topple over, usually landing on my leg. Now, 15 years later, I look back at that, and think , what in god's name was I thinking? Why was I even riding such an animal, let alone jumping him or competing him? But I remember that at that time, as a fledgling professional, it was all about just getting extra horses to ride, getting your name out there, getting one and improving it so you could move up to something better.

But I also got pretty badly hurt in those years, to the point that I took a hiatus from my professional horse life for a number of years. And when I think about a few people I know who have been seriously injured or even lost their lives, more often than not it was a horse that for one reason or another was at the top of it's abilities, mentally or physically, or was just plain a "bad" horse.

I see it with my assistant, time and again he gets offered rides on horses with severe issues--the rearers, the bolters, the buckers, the nut cases, the leg hangers. Recently he's had the luxury of starting to be discriminating, but he recently parted ways with a client who basically only wanted to use him as a crash test dummy, and as soon as he got the horses going nice they were taken away and given to another trainer who was too scared to start them or fix them. The client was insenced when he said, I'm here to train horses long term, not just survivie a few weeks, and then get them yanked. The client was very angry and said, "You're 20, that's what you are FOR! You haven't paid your dues enough to ride nice horses."

So, I do wonder, when we are talking about our non-pink-coat professionals, how often our culture of dues paying is putting them at risk by requiring them to be so innapropriately mounted as to be dangerous. And, I also wonder if we have pros who aren't capable of standing up to demanding owners, because we have taught them to be grateful for having the ride no matter what.

Just some food for thought.

[BigRuss1996]

Again... if they fall before they get to be a repeat offender and are dead or seriously permanently injured what does a rule like that really do? There are some things that you just can't regulate. One would think if people thought going dangerously fast would get them suspended for 3 months they might slow down....but I doubt it as most of our rules now...red flagging,etc are not really enforced. Also who decides that they are going dangerously fast? I wish for these riders sakes that there were an easy answer to getting them to be reponsible for themselves but so far they don't seem to get it even when people are losing horses and sometimes their lively hoods...I think they think it won't happen to them.

Shouldn't competitors who go too fast just be eliminated? And repeat offenders suspended?

[grayarabpony]

When Warrington fell back in '98 the times had been lowered and there was a spate of deaths across eventing from prelim to advanced. Perhaps times are even faster now (hey, would that be a surprise), but the speed had been increased from previous years the year that she died.

Adamsmom, yes really. I think an article asking What is the point of changing the rules? when changing the rules may have saved his wife from her own recklessness -- well, you get the drift.

[snickerdoodle]

bigruss,

wasn't it the big 'oxer masif' were amanda fell?

[BigRuss1996]

it was a portable table if my memory serves me right.....it was after that they started making the backs slightly higher with flowers or whatever.....
It was a horrible fall to witness and her horse got up and ran away.

Keith Taylor (also a good friend) fell at Radnor at a big Oxer masif type fence on prelim with a catch ride... he was DOA at the hospital... so sad they were both such great people and really good riders. This is depressing...

bigruss,

wasn't it the big 'oxer masif' were amanda fell?

[pwynnnorman]

Great post, Phoenix Farm.


I see it with my assistant, time and again he gets offered rides on horses with severe issues--the rearers, the bolters, the buckers, the nut cases, the leg hangers. Recently he's had the luxury of starting to be discriminating, but he recently parted ways with a client who basically only wanted to use him as a crash test dummy, and as soon as he got the horses going nice they were taken away and given to another trainer who was too scared to start them or fix them. The client was insenced when he said, I'm here to train horses long term, not just survivie a few weeks, and then get them yanked. The client was very angry and said, "You're 20, that's what you are FOR! You haven't paid your dues enough to ride nice horses."


Wow, have I heard that before!

The reality under which these often-twenty-somethings succeed or fall by the wayside in this sport is not something to be taken lightly. It is complicated and often, IMO, a bit sad, especially for the ones without the financial backing.

But you've probably heard my rant on that before, so I'll just leave it at that.

[adamsmom]

When Warrington fell back in '98 the times had been lowered and there was a spate of deaths across eventing from prelim to advanced. Perhaps times are even faster now (hey, would that be a surprise), but the speed had been increased from previous years the year that she died.

Adamsmom, yes really. I think an article asking What is the point of changing the rules? when changing the rules may have saved his wife from her own recklessness -- well, you get the drift.

Actually she fell in 1997.
I just feel that there's no need to go about Amanda's riding. We get the point. And she paid the price.
And I don't think Danny is questioning changing the rules, he's questioning changing the sport. Big difference.

[BLBGP]

That commentary was a compelling read. Perhaps some riders need to rethink the popular "kick on" mantra and instead celebrate that it's ok to pull up if something doesn't feel right. As some of you have said, some of these injuries seem to happen well before the jump, but the riders keep going, most visibly the Le Samurai incident. And yet "kick on" is still Amy's and many other riders' catchphrase. Sometimes "kick on" is not the answer.

[Carol Ames]

don’t judge people until you’ve been in that situation.:no: I mean that in a positive way: I don’t

[Showsheen]

Well, if that reasoning follows, Ames, don't judge if you haven't been there yourself, then we would all be chatting away from our graves.
I mean really what stupid reasoning, especially as even Danny admits, he had no judgement, as a professional and someone who should have loved his wife over and above any glory in competition and wanted to assure her welfare above and beyond all else, yet he freely admits he even encouraged his wife to charge across a course that probably was too taxing for the horse.
So, in keeping with that line of thinking, if the eventers were able to police themselves, then horses and riders would not be dropping on course like flies! And this discussion would be moot.
Grayarabpony I agree 100%.
And in following BigRuss1996, rules are made for everyone, but if not everyone will follow them and continue to endanger their horses, then we need to change the sport to save the horses.
That is the very least that we owe them.
"The Culture" as Phoenixfarm calls it, for too long now has allowed a majority of riders who are ill-equipped to attempt things they have no business attempting and courses are set that are far too challenging for everyone if a simple mistake, at even a lower level, invites catastrophic consequences.

What's so horrible about all these Eventing threads is the unbelievable number of lives, both horses and riders that have been ruined or snuffed out in the name of this sport. Everyone keeps bringing up more and more examples.
It is a disgrace.

[grayarabpony]

Actually she fell in 1997.
I just feel that there's no need to go about Amanda's riding. We get the point. And she paid the price.
And I don't think Danny is questioning changing the rules, he's questioning changing the sport. Big difference.

What a dumb post. I'll probably get in trouble for saying that, but I will anyway. Danny Warrington's article brought up Amanda's style of riding, and the sport has ALREADY been changed since her fall. It's changing constantly, back and forth over the line, except now maybe it's crossed the line and is now just going in a different direction, which many of us don't like.

[snickerdoodle]

it was a portable table if my memory serves me right.....it was after that they started making the backs slightly higher with flowers or whatever.....
It was a horrible fall to witness and her horse got up and ran away.

Keith Taylor (also a good friend) fell at Radnor at a big Oxer masif type fence on prelim with a catch ride... he was DOA at the hospital... so sad they were both such great people and really good riders. This is depressing...
BigRuss,

I knew Keith too. He used to ride my friend Justine Aynsley's horse. I thought he fell at the coffin or at the jump befor the coffin, wasn't it a vertical?

[Reds-n-Greys]

BigRuss,

I knew Keith too. He used to ride my friend Justine Aynsley's horse. I thought he fell at the coffin or at the jump befor the coffin, wasn't it a vertical?


It was fence 11A&B ~ rails followed by ditch. McGriff chested the rails.(Fence 12 was the Oxer Massiff)